The case 6:13-cv-279-TC, is assigned to Judge Coffin in the Eugene Divisional Office, not Judge Acosta in the Portland Office. Your email, if it applies to this case should not be directed to me or to [email protected] but should be sent to [email protected] and [email protected]. However you are not a party to the case 6:13-279-TC, as far as I can tell by looking at the docket, this case is entitled: Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation v. Frank-N-Steins Pub. Furthermore, your case 6:07-cv-6302-AA against City of Toledo, et al. was closed in 2009. Paul Gale, Courtroom Deputy, US District Court, 503-326-8056 From: ed johnston To: [email protected] , Edward Johnston II , [email protected] , Date: 04/19/2014 01:05 PM Subject: Further Attempts on my Life liberty and happiness from unlawful Acting Toledo elected and public servants and others.. Unlawful Statute Case #: 131799, & D.A. Case #: 13-279 Certificate of Mailing & Service.. I have server medical heart conditions and heart attacks Further Attempts on my Life liberty and happiness from unlawful Acting Toledo elected and public servants and others.. Unlawful Statute Case #: 131799, & D.A. Case #: 13-279 Certificate of Mailing & Service.. I have server medical heart conditions and heart attacks . Spinal damage. kidney damage and other sever medial unusual circumstance .. Im A witness some Elected and public servants committing piracy and Criminal Activates this is why the assaults . I have been forced from my land at threat of my life liberty and happiness. I know who cares For lawful Americans are so divided over Relegations of their Religious Belief the is only one law of the Land of the United States for Americans Their is onle one God no Other, May you learn to walk with Jesus... No Victim No Crime..Name calling who cares grow up. Life liberty and happiness is to be based on Free to travel and enjoy are life in the Garden of Eden, Stop butchering you public food resource the forest highway,byways public water right of ways for the diversity of unlawful Democracy.. Stand for the Republic work with earth other grow up and stop, HELP EACH OTHER •Executive Order No. 13526 (governing classified national security information); •Section 7211 of Title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to Congress); •Section 1034 of Title 10, United States Code as amended by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to Congress by members of the military); •Section 2302(b)(8) of Title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); •Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents); •The statutes which protect against disclosure that may compromise the national security, including Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of Title 18, United States Code; and •Section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative. --supreme Court, Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) 1829. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people --Glass v. Sloop Betsey, supreme Court, 1794. The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. --Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581. Unlawful Statute Case #: 131799, & D.A. Case #: 13-279. Certificate of Mailing & Service. I; Edward Malone Johnston 2nd ; here-by certify that on this 13th day of April, 2014; that I have served true and correct copies of the following documents to those persons named below. This service was completed by way of depositing these documents in the U.S. Mail, at the U.S. Post Office located in Oregon [Zip-Code ?????]. All such persons were served at this same time, location; & each envelope was correctly labeled with proper postage pre-paid for delivery to each of them. The served documents are generally recognizable under the following names: “disqualifying a man acting like a judge” “Affidavit of Prejudice of Judge” “Damand for Change of Judge” “Notice of Default & Estoppel”;“NOTICE and AFFIDAVIT WE the Injured Party”;and this Certificate of Mailing & Service.All of the following-listed parties that are here-by served are only here-by recognized as the“Occupants” of the Offices with regard to which their names are here listed; all as follows: Oregon Attorney General Tara Bailey Ellen Rosenblum Lincoln County Court Administrator, 1162 Court Street NE, 160 225 W Olive, Salem Oregon [97301-4096 ] Newport Oregon [97391] Certified Mail #7012-3050-0000-4662-9258 Certified Mail # 7012-3050-0000-4662-9241 Linda Pilson John Kitzhaber; Governor Lincoln County Tax Collector State Capitol Building, 900 Court Street NE, 160 225 W Olive Street Salem, Oregon [97301] Newport Oregon [97391] Fax: 503-378-6827 ; (Please fax this to Employees) Certified Mail # 7012-3050-000-4662-9365 Certified Mail#7012-3050-0000-4662-9272 Leon S. Colas; Oregon Department of Michelle Branam,&Wayne Belmont, Public Safety Standards & Training 225 W Olive Street, 4190 Aumsville Highway Newport Oregon [97391] Salem, Oregon [97317] Lincoln County Court registered Corporation Certified Mail # 7012-2210-0002-3843-6087 Certified Mail # 7012-3050-0000-4662-9426 Page 1of 4 Thomas A. Balmer Susan D. Isaacs, Executive Director, Oregon Supreme Court Judge Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, 1163 State Street, PO Box 1130, Beaverton, Oregon [97075] Salem Oregon [97301] Certified Mail #7012-3050-0000-4662-9198 Certified Mail #7012-3050-0000-4662-9203 Ronald A. Bersin, Ralph Grutzmacher Oregon Government Ethics Commission, City of Toledo registered Corporation 3218 Pringle Rd. SE, Suite 220 Hall 206 N Main Street, Salem, Oregon [97302-1544] Toledo Oregon [97391] Certified Mail #7012-3059-0000-4462-9432 Certified Mail #7012-2210-0002-3843-5998 Dennis Dotson, Roy Elicker Lincoln-County Law Enforcer 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive, S.E. 225 W Olive Street Salem Oregon [97302] Newport Oregon [97391] Certified Mail #: 7012-3050-0000-4662-9296 Certified Mail #7012- 2210-0000-3843-6049 Gregory T. Bretzing Thomas A. Balmer . 9109 NE Cascades Parkway Oregon Supreme Court Portland, OR 97220 1163 State Street Salem, OR 97301-2563 Certified Mail #7012- 3050-0000-4662-9302 Certified Mail #7012- 3050-0000-4662-9289 The above wording of these names and address are printed basically the same here-in as how they were printed on the envelopes which were sent. These Bond words are True my. Seal____________________________ Autograph ______________________________________ Edward Malone Johnston 2nd ; 1540 North Nye Street, Toledo Oregon, [97391-9998] 541-336-1233 edjohnston2003@yahoo page 2 of 5 . . . the allegations of the pro se complaint, . . . we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, . . .... Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 30 L. Ed. 2nd 652 ; US Supreme Court: 1972.UCC 1-308, Without Prejudice; & Reserving All Rights. A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,) A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E.Page 2 of 2. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165). Page 2 of 2. All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..” (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1918 18 U.S. Code § 1918 - Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1918 Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he— (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;... Article 1, section 9 of 1776 Constitution : No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect The General Public gunssavelives.net/.../supreme-court-ruling-police.../ Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce themFederal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as UNALIENABLE. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers.” (Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S. E. 2nd. 247.) Palazzolo v. Rhode Island | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent … Palazzolo v. Rhode Island | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Palazzolo v. Rhode Island | The Oyez Project at IIT Chic... PALAZZOLO v. RHODE ISLAND. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 April 2014. . View on oyez.org Preview by Yahoo Page 3 of 4 People rightss vs Citizens and Elected and public servants rights, REPUBLIC VS DEMOCRACY (Art. 4, Sec. 4). In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledged allegiance to our Republic, not a democracy. We are not that Republic! And I, want my Republic back!!!!! If you do not follow the Republic, you cannot join our Nation of the United States. Thats Treason. Because No other Nation can join our Nation, unless they are a Republic Nation. Now how uneducated do you think you look, knowing they know that??? Public Notice. *The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this “Message,” including attachments. The originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only; it may contain the originator’s confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch. Anything stated in this email may be limited in the content and is not to be taken out of context.**Wireless Copyright Notice**. Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message. You must have the originator’s full written consent to alter, copy, or use this Message. Originator acknowledges others’ copyrighted content in this Message. Otherwise, Copyright © 2014 by originator**. All Rights Reserved. Without Prejudice All Rights Reserved UCC1-308 Sovereign Confidentiality Notice: I am not an attorney, medical professional or financial adviser and all the exchanges contained in this email are for personal use only. This private email message, including any attachment[s] is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient[s] and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government[s] , et. al.,and/or Third Party[ies] working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email[s] and collecting these communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review,Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me, Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights & Reserved Rights. It is my hope that the things within this email are a blessing unto every reader without exception, for I desire peaceful co-existence with ALL! dential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch. Anything stated in this email may be limited in the content and is not to be taken out of context.**Wireless Copyright Notice**. Seal____________ Some things to consider....... Office of Peace = Peace Officer. If One knows my words to be true and authentic, One may take my Law. (taking the Law of another man or woman is a violation of the Law of Man. The Peace Officer is the only One who has the authority to violate The Law, but only when a man or woman has, of their own free will, violated the Peace or violated The Law.) The unknown man who writes my words is presently denied the right to a peaceful existence. If I have to change the mind of man to keep the peace, then that is what I will do. There is exactly One Lawful Office and it is the Office of Peace. The men and wombman who occupy that office are Peace Officers. There are four duties of the Peace Officer and they are: keep the Peace,Not to breach the peace and trespass, uphold The Law, Assemble a Lawful Jury when necessary, and execute the decisions of the Lawful Jury. The Peace Officer is called that and the first duty is Peace because Peace exists within the Being of Man. The Being of Man is Our Source of Law. The Law is Free Will. Free Will is The Law. The First Protector of The Law is Freely given Consent to enter into a contract or agreement, no matter how small, simple, or insignificant, is to make Law. For that Law to be True and Honorable means that each One involved is to Freely give their Consent. The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent. Respect the Freewill of Man and Respect the Freewill of your fellow Man. Protect the Freewill of man and Protect the Freewill of your fellow Man. Respect the Rights of Man and Respect the Rights of your fellow Man. The Word of The Law is formed in the Mind of the Body and spoken to the Body of the Mind of another and recognized by The Law of another, is the Path to Peace. It is the action of the Body, directed by the process of the Mind, through the Freewill of Man that change can happen. Peace is applied to the Physical world. The Law is within your Being and is your guidance to protect against violations of The Law. First to be protected is mankind, second is your fellow man, and last is yourself. One can claim Ones Rights to exist (Law) I cannot claim that I have Rights (only that they exist and are an inherent element of my Beingness) Man is a slave and only the Being within can recognize the Rights of a Man or the Rights of Mankind. The Man himself only has duties to attend to, by the Free will of the Being within. Claiming Rights of any kind for yourself is a dishonor in that your interests come firs. For your Rights to exist, they must first exist within the Being of Mankind and within the Being of your fellow Man.(inherent. They are, even if the existence is largely ignored or denied) Where I have a duty to speak and you have a Right to speak, however, you might not see it that way. I Freely choose to limit my actions to that which promotes the Peaceful existence of Mankind. Freedom of - is in your Being Freedom to - is the duty required to satisfy The Will of your Being Freedom from - is the protection from the will of all of Mankind. We, Man and Wombman of Terra Gaia (Earth) with the Authority inherent within the Being of Man to do also for all of Mankind to the end of existence, hereby Declare that We are Free in the following; Free to exist in Peace in the Being of Man in the World of man, in the Body of Man and in the Mind of Man. Free to Live in Harmony with Our fellow Man in the World of Man. Free to speak in the World of Man and in the Mind of Man. Free to Love without condition. Free to Travel anywhere at anytime. Freedom to possess (inhabit) Earth underneath. Freedom to request anything from anyone. Freedom to deny any request from anyone. Freedom to Peaceably assemble Freedom of Expression Freedom of Religion Freedom of Thought Freedom of Belief Freedom of Association Freedom of Speech. Freedom from Want Freedom from Fear Freedom from Intimidation Freedom from Imposed Governance Freedom from Physical Aggression Freedom from Slavery Freedom from Servitude Freedom from Persecution Freedom from Oppression Freedom from Coercion Freedom from Deception Freedom from Manipulation. The Only legitimate and Lawful court is one that recognizes the Rights of Man and Protects the Rights of Man.... If a court does not or will not recognize the Rights of Man, then it cannot be Lawful, legitimate or authentic. Such a court is occupied by fraudulent actors and impostors aka CRIMINALS. Mankind will be Lawful or Mankind will NOT exist. Blessed Be BeLoved Ones. Food for Thot and Seed for Change. Rights Come From God, Not The State! You have rights that antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or retrained by human laws; rights . All government officials and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the Constitution and must NOT create any defacto laws which counter the Constitution:The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1895, ruled unconstitutional a federal law containing income taxes, Bills,statutes and codes with arguments concerning class warfare and the definition of a direct tax.Herein...Ohios Doctrine of Governmental Immunity was held unconstitutional and others to numerous to mention. (Civil Rights) (Krause vs Ohio, app 2d 1 L.N.W. 2d 321 1971.) Reich vs State Highway Dept. 336, Mich 617: 194 N.W. 2d 700 197Employees of a city or state are not immune from suit under statute relating civil rights for deprivations of rights on ground that officials were acting within the scope of their ground that officials were acting within the Scope of their responsibilities of performing a discretionary act. (Bunch vs Barnett 376 F.Sup. 23.)Title 28 Section 1391, this section makes it possible to bring actions against government officials and agencies in district court outside D.C. (Civil Rights) (Norton vs Mcshane 14 L.Ed. 2d 274.)A suit in detinue or replevin in personam should lie to gain possession of property seized by the state. (Civil Rights) Stephen, Pleading (3rd Am ed) p. 47, 52, 69, 74; Ames Lectures on legal history, p. 64, 71; Wilkins v. Despard, 5 Term Rep- 112; Roberts v. Withered, % Mod. 193, 12 Mod. 92. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute and codes, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. 20.181-192United States Code: Title 28a,Rule 5.1. Constitutional ... law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a... Cached42 USC 1986 provides: 42 USC 1986 provides: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section (1985 of Title 42) are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful act, neglect, or refusal, may be joined as defendants in the action. (Civil Rights)Mandatory Reporting laws Appliers Elected and public employees and commercial contractors Defendants can be held in actions under 42 USC 1983, even,This includes Elected and public employees,Effective January 1, 2013, employees of Oregon higher education institutions are considered by law to be subject mandatory reporters of child abuse.oregon.gov/dhs/abuse/pages/mr_employees.aspx though they did not act willfully. Even though they did not have a specific intent to deprive the plaintiff of a federal right, such defendants can be held to civil responsibility. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.s. 167, 1961.24.215-219, the assaults on this man or reported again An conspiracy is actionable under 42 USC 1985, when there has been an actual of denial of due process.(Civil Rights) Jennings v. Nester (1954, Ca. 7 Ill.) 217, F.2d 153, CERT DEN 349 U.S. 958, 99 L.Ed. 1281, 75 S.ct. 888.Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 170?180, and NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425. When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void. 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18. [p]owers not granted (to any government) are prohibited. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S 1, 68 (1936).43.359-365 Purpose: Generally, this section further protects civil action for deprivation of rights protects constitutional rights from invasion by persons acting under state or federal authority. (Civil Rights) Weise v. Reisner, DC Wis. 1970, 318 F.Sup. 580, quoted from U.S.C.A. 1972 pocketpart, P. 40 Title 42, Sec. 1983, Note Paragraph 8,,,,,. Liability in damages for unconstitutional or otherwise illegal conduct has the very desirable effect of deterring such conduct. Indeed, this was precisely the proposition upon which 42 USC section 1983 was enacted. Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional right on the strength of 18 USC Section 241- 242. (Civil Rights) (Imbler vs Pachtman, U.S. 47 L.Ed. 2nd 128, 96 S.Ct.) 44.367-374 This section was passed to enforce U.S.C.A. Constitution Amendment 14 and to protect form interference the rights secured thereby, as well as other constitutional rights; it is directed against conspiracies of private persons; and there is no requirement that conspiracy be under color of law. (Civil Rights) U.S.C.A. 1972 Pocket P. 1675, Title 42, Sec. 1995, Note 28.242-248 The Seventh Circuit of Appeals has held that a public official does not have immunity simply because he operates in a discretionary situation. It indicated that public servants are to be held liable when they abused their discretion or acted in a way that is arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable. (Civil Rights) Littleton v. Berbling (1972, Ca. 7 Ill.), 468 F.2d 389.36.304-308 Governmental immunity is not defense in suits brought under this section making liable every person who under color or state law deprives another person of his civil rights. Westberry v. Fisher, DC Me., 1970, 309 F.Sup. 95.18 USC § 2381 - Treason | Title 18 241-242- Crimes and Criminal ...law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 Cached ... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; .. Common-Law Grand-Juries.Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition Attorney General... He is the chief law officer of the federal and state governments with the duty of representing the sovereign, national or state. Johnson v. Commonwealth, ex rel. Meredith, 291 Ky. 829, 165 S.W.2d 820, 826. Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (constitution) it is superseded thereby. (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256) UNITED STATES Supreme COURT Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 In re: Victim Edward Malone Johnston 2nd Lincoln County Court Corporation Acting Judge Thomas O Branford MOTION Demand TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE Branford FOR HIS PERSONAL PREJUDICE AND BIAS AGAINST , Unlawful warrant Remedy for Damages THIS Creditor PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§144, 455 NOW COMES the Creditor, Edward Malone Johnston2nd, in pro per, sui juris This Disabled Living and Breathing man The Victim Creators gods green Earth , Moves this Court to issue an order disqualifying Judge Branford from this matter And dismissing this Unlawful Statue case including unlawful warrant , pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§144, 455, and any other applicable statutes and/or rules, due to his personal bias and prejudice against the Debtor. Exhibit) 1. The Creditor charges Acting Lincoln County Oregon Judge Tomas O Branford with personal bias and prejudice against the Creators for various reasons, including, but not limited to, denying, depriving, and overlooking the Debtors Due Process Rights; violating of his Uniform commercial codes, Filed Affidavits with no response including Constitutional Rights of Creditor to have his motions heard and ruled upon, which denies the Creditor of meaningful access to the courts; manipulating the hearings to deprive, and to deny, the Creditor of a meaningful Dismissal hearing on the merits of his cause; issuing orders, sua sponte, which did not provide the Creditor with any meaningful time to respond to the Denied exhibits of the opposing parties; violating his duty to comply with the Supreme Law of the Land; and violating his duty and Oath of office to apply the Law even if the judge does not agree with the Law. This personal prejudice and bias evidenced by acting Judge Branford is an extension of the prejudice and bias of the Illinois Federal District Courts and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals towards non-represented litigants, as evidenced by caselaw from the time of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972), to the present. Exhibit) 2. Judge Branford violated his Oath Office as a public servant 5 U.S. CODE § 3331 - OATH OF OFFICE US Code An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law. title 18 241-242 in this matter. A man acting like a servant named Judge Branford actions in denying, depriving, and overlooking the creditor legal and constitutional rights were prejudicial against the creditor. 28 U.S.C. §453. Branford did not faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the mandated duties incumbent upon him. Man acting Judge Branford acted without jurisdiction.Todate I have been refused Oath of filings and bonds. Exhibit 3). Judge Branford has intentionally and effectively denied the Creditor of his Lawful God given rights to effectively petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. Constitution, Amendment I 4th 16th . The Creditor the Victim Given Name Edward Malone Johnston 2nd has filed Demands, disclosure Petitions-Motions with this court, which this court has refused to hear and rule on at a meaningful time. The failure of this judge to promptly to response to the Victim, in a meaningful manner and at a meaningful time, the Petitions-Affidavits of the Creditor is not satisfy the constitutional to Branford Oath office right to a redress of the Creditor Remedy grievances Including the attempt of murder I have had several heart attacks in the kidnappers jail and held for Ransom June 5-7th 2013 Released from hospital from handcuffed hospital bed after I was stable from having several heart attack ,Assault,Battery,Kidnap The Victim Edward Johnston was held for ransom In Cruel and inhuman conditions for his spinal stenosis is a serious condition that is public knowledge including breach of peace and trespassing on his land, Members of the city of Toledo and Lincoln county Elected and public servants and foreign agents are unlawfully having this Living Man Stalk Attempting Piracy,for personal and private gain for the State of Oregon CORPS,Lincoln County Corporation and the city of Toledo Corporation and its members at the Assets of Fellow lawful Americans in his Local community is being billed Fraudulently for ORS 164.125 - Theft of services - ,. The failure of this court to hear at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner the Petitions- Affidavit of facts that have not been rebutted of the Creditor including the harm to the living man the Victim, deprives the Creditor of his Lawful Born and legal constitutional rights; it is prejudicial and biased against the Creditor . Some of the Petitions- Affidavits include, but are not limited to, Response to the Creditors Petitions- Affidavits and Fillings to Convert Creditor , Motion for an Extension of Time within which the Debtor has the Exclusive Right to File his , and Motion to Remedy of Creditor Objections. Exhibit) 4. A Man acting like Judge Branford has effectively denied the Debtor of the Debtors rights of the equal protection under the law under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Branford has been prejudicial and biased against the Creditor, by acting Judge Branford refusal to rule pursuant to the Supreme Law of the Land. Judge Branford has deprived the Creditor of the equal protection of Commune law and Constitutional laws, by not applying the Supreme Law of the Land to the Creditor position. Exhibit) 5. The United States Supreme Court stated: Chief Justice Marshall had long before observed in Ross v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.ed. 608, 617, that, upon principle, the operation of every judgment must depend on the power of the court to render that judgment. In Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.ed. 1170, 1189, it was said to be well settled that the jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a subject may be inquired into in every other court when the proceedings in the former are relied upon and brought before the latter by a party claiming the benefit of such proceedings, and the rule prevails whether the decree or judgment has been given, in a court of admiralty, chancery, ecclesiastical court, or court of common law, or whether the point ruled has arisen under the laws of nations, the practice in chancery, or the municipal laws of states. Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907).By not complying with the law, Judge Branford has prejudiced this Creditor and Slander Exhbit) 6. While this court has limited discretion, it must rule pursuant to law at all times. The Seventh Circuit has stated: `Chief Justice Marshall stated: Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law, and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law. Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1990). While a judge may have discretion to make a ruling which may be erroneous, he has a duty to rule on all valid issues, especially those issues which deprive a party of his constitutional rights, presented before the court. Littleton, supra. Failure to rule on the issues presented to this court denies, deprives, and overlooks this Creditors constitutional rights. Acting Judge Branford has repeatedly acted in a manner prejudicial and biased against this Creditor. Exhibit) 7. Judge Branford has manipulated the judicial process to deny, deprive, and to overlook the rights of this Victim Creditors. Acting Judge Branford has selected only those motions that he wants to hear, mostly those of the Detours . Acting Judge Branfords knowledge of This man server medical condition and heart attacks in Lincoln County cell 66 and being released from Pacific Communities hospital from jail June 7th 2013. Two other times july 20th Sepetmeber 13th after bail was unlawful taking Released to seek immediately medical attention for this living man life heart condition. Judge Branford has intentionally selected only those specific demands of the Creditors Facts that he desires to hear and to grant, while intentionally ignoring, not considering, and not ruling on the other specific demands of the Debtors Demands , Disclosure, Motions and all Videos ,audio and all other public requests of my kidnappers Jail heart attacks, That Thomas O Branford that he does not desire to grant. Such manipulation of the judicial process is prejudicial and biased against the Creditors. As one example, Judge Branford issued an unlawful Arrest Warrant order further attempts on my life to-date sua sponte, on September 11 2013 where in he had both the creditors and the Debtor to file exhibits at the Different times. As the Victim and Creditor , knowing full well that the creditors only burden was to respond to the Debtors Alleged unlawful exhibits. Judge Branford sua sponte order did not allow the Creditor any time to respond to the Debtors Allegation of unlawful exhibits has been denied. Only by the Debtors own action was the Debtor able to get a partial extension of time to respond to the creditors exhibits. Still, Acting Judge Branford did not grant the Creditor sufficient and meaningful time for unusual Medical circumstance for a non-represented litigant to respond. Judge Branford again manipulated the judicial process to favor the creditors. Judge Branfords actions are prejudicial and biased against the Creditor. Victim had demanded that he be given sufficient time to properly and meaningfully to respond to the Debtor. Such meaningful time was not granted to the Creditor. An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442 . The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256,,,,,,,,Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as UNALIENABLE. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987. Exhibit) 8. Judge Branford has the duty to determine the validity of all claims against the Estate, which have been objected to by the Creditor. Judge Branford has intentionally harmed the Creditor by his refusal to hold any hearings on the jurisdiction of the court which issued the null and void orders/judgments. Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition Attorney General...He is the chief law officer of the federal and state governments with the duty of representing the sovereign, national or state. Johnson v. Commonwealth, ex rel. Meredith, 291 Ky. 829, 165 S.W.2d 820, 826. It is the law that the jurisdiction of courts of limited jurisdiction, as is the state court, cannot be presumed. Yet Judge Branford has prejudicially presumed that the state court had jurisdiction. Judge Branford has predetermined the question of the jurisdiction of the state court, a court of limited jurisdiction, and has predetermined the validity of the alleged claims against the Estate and paid ransom, without any hearing on the question of the want of jurisdiction of that court, in direct contradiction of the law under Old Wayne, supra. The Supreme Law of the Land states that the question of the jurisdiction of a court that issued an order/judgment, unlawful Warrants can be questioned if the order/judgment is brought before this court from another court. Old Wayne, supra. The creditors have brought before this court orders/judgments from a court of limited jurisdiction, but Judge Branfords refuses to hear any question relative to the want of jurisdiction of the first court. Judge Branford has acted in a prejudicial and biased manner against this Debtor.Refusing me medical for phase 2-3 of Kidney failure, lung and spinal conditions, and medical medication ruled on by the department of Justice 2006 Exhibit)9. Judge Branford must not be an advocate for either side; yet he has acted as an advocate for the Debtors. Judge Branford must give advice to a non-represented litigant, otherwise he has deprived and denied the non-represented litigant of his legal and constitutional rights. Judge Branford must inform the non-represented Creditor at every stage of the proceedings of the Creditors rights, whether Federal, State, or Local, in a timely manner and in a manner that the Creditor can Comprehend lawfully . If the court fails to observe this free and natural Living life rights in every respect, if the court denies, deprives, or overlooks any Lawful, legal or Constitutional right of the Creditor, the court invalidates the judicial process. The failure of Judge Branford to advise the non-represented litigant of all of his rights, as above, further evidences the prejudice and bias of the judge against this Creditor. (1) Exhibit) 10. Judge Branford must comply with the Federal Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Branford must comply with, among others, Canon 3; he does not have discretion to pick and choose which Canon or Canons he will, or will not, comply with. Littleton, supra. By Judge Branfords failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of reporting the misconduct of an District Attorney , U.S. v. Anderson, 798 F.2d 919 (7th Cir. 1986), Judge Branford s has acted prejudicially and biased against the Creditor. Exhibit) 11. The hearing scheduled and manipulated acting Judge Branford Any such Compliance will an unlawful Warrant Claiming the State of Oregon as the Victim will be another unlawful hearing. If the purported Debtor have no valid claims against the Estate, then the purported Debtors have no standing to bring a motion to be heard before this court. The validity of the purported claims against the Estate, including the want of jurisdiction of the court that issued the purported null and void judgments, must be first heard in a meaningful manner. If the Creditor cannot get an impartial hearing before Other lawful Judge , then the Creditor will be required to have his meaningful hearings before the District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or even the U.S. Supreme Court. The Creditor does not believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that an acting Judge Branford authority and rule-making exceeds that of the Supreme Court. Exhibit) 12. The Creditor states that it is unquestionable that a reasonable living man would consider that Judge Branford actions were prejudicial and biased against the Creditor. Exhibit)13. Though this court has Not set extensions of time and set dates for hearings,Dismissed this court has not ruled in any substantive matters, and Creditor is entitled to disqualification of judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §144. Exhibit) 14. Should this court decide not to grant the requested disqualification as a matter of right under 28 U.S.C. §144, Creditor believes that Judge Branford ,including all Lincoln County county council and Commissions including Judges has exhibited sufficient prejudice against the Creditor that disqualification of Judge Branford an all Lincoln County public servants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455, is appropriate. Exhibit) 15. As usual, the court has not granted the Creditor a meaningful amount of time for this non-represented Creditor to fully write and file this Affidavit-motion. Should the court claim that more specific references must be furnished, then the Creditor demands that the court suspend all proceedings while it grants the non-represented Creditor sufficient and meaningful time to claim Remedy with the courts specific advice. WHEREFORE, this Creditor demands that an order be issued that Judge Branford be disqualified for, inter alia, his failure to perform his Constitutional duties in this cause, and for his prejudicial and biased actions against this Creditor. People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative. --supreme Court, Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) 1829. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people--Glass v. Sloop Betsey, supreme Court, 1794. The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. --Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581. People and Posterity as written in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, refers to a SPECIFIC People and a SPECIFIC Posterity - Those who signed the compact and not the general population of the 13 Colonies who were trying to turn these guys into the King of England for the huge bounty he placed on their heads - dead or alive. 97% of the 13 Colonies wanted nothing to do with renouncing their British citizenship. The Revolutionary War boosters and participants only comprised of 3% of the population of the time to save what god granted U.S. No Victim No Crime. As The Disabled Living and breathing man Edward Malone Johnston II is the Victim Exhibit 16) All Policeman/ women are required to take an oath of office which is held on file to get their DPSST Certification. As a part of this oath they swear to uphold the Constitution, which is, according to Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Law of our Land. But then like brainwashed crash test dummies, they are sent out on their job and instructed to violate their oaths of office by violating the peoples lawful Right to Travel, which in reality leaves them liable and wide open to be sued or having commercial liens placed upon their property/assets. They ignorantly assume the roll of corporate revenue agent by citing people with violations of the commercial traffic laws. There are ample case laws, to support this maxim of law. Take for instance Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579, Hertado v. California 110 U.S. 516, and Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. I suggest that people study these and many more case histories concerning the Right to Travel. Some other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and the government privilege are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784. Folks, when you were fraudulantly compelled to acquire that Drivers License, without being told that you dont need one to Travel, you surrendered your right, and gave jurisdiction to the State to regulate your every move through contract law, or administrative law. Officers can do what they do, as long as you have that License to drive. Do not give them juridiction. By the way, I suggest that all law enforcement research my information, as they are in violation of Title 18, section 241, 242, and Title 42 section 14141. Subsistence hunting and fishing and food gathering 1.Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed 761 (1949); Hoffman v. United States, 244 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1957); Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 62 L.Ed. 1356 (1947); Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392 (1940); Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90 (2nd Cir. 1983); United States v. Hough, 157 F.Supp. 771 (S.D.Cal. 1957); Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. One Colt Python .357 Cal. Revolver, 845 F.2d 287 (11th Cir. 1988); Canty v. , 383 F.Supp. 1396 (E.D. VA, 1974); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir. 1985); Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1984); Burris v. State Department of Public Welfare of S.C., 491 F.2d 762 (4th Cir. 1974). The RICO Act is a federal law that gives extended penalties for organized crime. Under the RICO Act, a person can be charged with... wisegeek/what-is-the-rico-act.htm,,The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1895, ruled unconstitutional a federal law containing income taxes, with arguments concerning class warfare and the definition of a direct tax. suite101/...tax-declared-unconstitutional-a208974 - Cachettps://law.upenn.edu/fac/phrobins/books/jlb/Chapter%204,%20Doctrines%20of%20Culpabiity_When%20is%20Ones%20Violation.pdf,,SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect The General Public gunssavelives.net/.../supreme-court-ruling-police.../ Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as UNALIENABLE. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers.” (Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S. E. 2nd. 247.) Palazzolo v. Rhode Island | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent ... oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2047/ Feb 26, 2001 – Anthony EnforcementNotAllowed.htm - Cached ConspiracyWatch> ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED ConspiracyWatch> ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED Without Prejudice All Rights Reserved Sovereign Confidentiality Notice: I am not an attorney, medical professional or financial adviser and all the exchanges contained in this email are for personal use only. This private email message, including any attachment[s] is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient[s] and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government[s] , et. al.,and/or Third Party[ies] working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email[s] and collecting these communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review,Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me, Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights & Reserved Rights. It is my hope that the things within this email are a blessing unto every reader without exception, for I desire peaceful co-existence with ALL! *Confidentiality Notice. *The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this “Message,” including attachments. The originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only; it may contain the originator’s confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients. See: Quon v. Arch. Anything stated in this email may be limited in the content and is not to be taken out of context.**Wireless Copyright Notice**. Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message. You must have the originator’s full written consent to alter, copy, or use this Message. Originator acknowledges others’ copyrighted content in this Message. Otherwise, Copyright © 2013 by originator**. All Rights Reserved VERIFICATION IN LIEU OF AFFIDAVIT I declare, that to the best of my information and belief, that Judge Branford is prejudiced against me, and that this belief is asserted in good faith. ______________________________ Edward Malone Johnston 2nd, in pro per, sui juris (Living and Breathing man) Signed with explicit reservation of all Rights, and I waive none of my Rights at any time or for any reason, as per U.C.C. §1-207 and 810 ILCS §5/1-207. Without Prejudice U.C.C. §1-207. Seal ________________ C/O 1540 N Nye Street Toledo Oregon territory ,97391-9998 541 336 1233 2006 inspectors generals report on file
Posted on: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:48:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015