The Twenty-third day of the Ninth month anno Domini Two thousand four

 

Jack, Slevkoff

general Post (general delivery)

in care of Fresno Main Post Office

Fresno

Frank C. Damrell, Jr. d.b.a. U.S. District Judge Sacramento Federal Courthouse 501 ”I" St Sacramento, California  [95814]   Fax (916) 491-3932

California [Zip exempt, Non-domestic]

To:                                                                                         

PRECEPT, number 040916                                                 Abatement Notice of Criminal Activity Demand Judicial Cognizance Demand Judicial Notice Demand Immediate Action Decree and Order for Release Invoke Writ of Habeas Corpus Notice of Damages for Injuries

                                                                                               

 

 

 

 

                               

 

 

In the Matter of:    Case Number CV-S-03-1

                        and :Walter Allen: Thompson:

                       

 Greetings;

 

This is a court of record;

 

Take heed and mark My word:

 1:  Abatement:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of this abatement issued pursuant to Corpus Juris Secundum, (Nonstatutory Abatements) Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 95 and the common law rules applicable to such cases, against the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; Frank C. Damrell, Junior; McGreggor William Scott; Antonio Amador; Rex K Lee; Paul Enjalran; Anne Norris Graham; Lou Blanas; Maureen Price; Yoshenori Hummel; Kristin Hodges; Bobbie Montoya; and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-99: ALL, ACTING Alien Enemy agents of statutorily created, foreign de facto corporations, known as UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTCE; and the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.  Said entity or entities are imposing provisions of a contract counter to public morals, in the nature of a Praemunire, and as belligerents are in violation of law.  Said entity or entities are not established in the Constitution for the state of California Eighteen Forty Nine and is not established in the Constitution for the United States of America Seventeen Eighty Seven;

 

All papers produced by said court and the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE do not have Walter Allen Thompson’s full Christian Appellation in upper and lower case letters:  Such papers allege violations, foreign to Walter Allen Thompson’s venue, which, no oath, Promise, or Law attaches thereto:   Such papers have no foundation in Law; for that reason, they are not from an entity recognized by the people or General Laws of California: Such papers lack jurisdictional facts necessary to place or bring Walter Allen Thompson within venue:  Such papers fail to affirmatively  show, upon their face, lawful authority for Presence in Walter Allen Thompson’s venue:  Such papers have no Warrant in Law and are not Judicial in Nature; 

 

Therefore, and for those reasons and for other reasons Walter Allen Thompson refuses for cause, without dishonor and without recourse, to accept any orders coming from Frank C. Damrell, Jr. and or refuses to acknowledge the Complaint for Permanent Injunction;

 

Walter Allen Thompson is exercising His Right of Avoidance; for the reason: Such papers are irregular, unauthorized, misnomered, defective upon their face and utterly void, and are, herewith, abated as a public nuisance:  There appear to be no factors which would warrant adjustment of the Abatement, due to a Conflict of Law:  You have three days from receipt of this Precept to file a written response  showing why the abatement should not be imposed.  Any and all written response must be signed under oath and include a detailed and factual statement and supporting documentation.  Failure to respond in time prescribed, herein, will result in Estoppels of Acquiescence (Default):  All remittance of this matter should be mailed to the location given above;

 

2:  My Brother’s Keeper:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that I am My brother’s keeper and am well aware that you still have in custody (confinement) for over Thirty (30) days now, a flesh and blood man on the land named "Walter Allen," having surname (family name): "Thompson," hereinafter “Walter Allen Thompson,” who is a living soul, a member of the Sovereign, and one of the people, a California national, living within the geographic area known as California having therein a republican form of government, and who is foreign to the venue of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:  I am aware that Walter Allen Thompson chooses to reserve all of Walter Allen Thompson’s unalienable Rights without recourse and with prejudice and waives no rights at any time;

 

3:  No Pen, Paper, and or Access to a Law Library:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that it is believed and may be a fact that Walter Allen Thompson has been unable to litigate his own cause due to first having no access and subsequently now recently having very limited access to a law library, first being denied a pen to write with but now recently Walter Allen Thompson is infrequently being provided something to write with, and at first being denied paper but now recently Walter Allen Thompson is infrequently being provided with some paper to write on while in confinement but in such limited capacity as to have no effect;

 

4:  Restricted from Counsel of Choice:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that  Walter Allen Thompson consistently has been and is currently being restricted from assistance of counsel of choice for defense: As set forth and required in the Constitution for the United States of America,  Amendment VI thereof:  The legal/lawful paperwork that has been sent to him by his friend has been returned to sender violating Walter Allen Thompson’s rights:  Telephone calls to Walter Allen Thompson’s non-attorney counsel have been refused and interrupted:  Walter Allen Thompson’s friend and counsel has been refused visitation to see and talk with Walter Allen Thompson at the jail, the place where Walter Allen Thompson is confinemed;

 

5:  Disregard for Writs, Orders, and Precepts:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that there was total disregard, no cognizance, no response, and no positive receptive result to My previous PRECEPT, number 040830, titled “Decree and Order for Release, Invoke Writ of Habeas Corpus” issued The Thirtieth day of the Eight month anno Domini Two thousand four, to Frank C. Damrell, Jr., and subsequent “Acceptance of Oath of Office as a Binding Contract” and “Order for Immediate Release of Walter Allen Thompson,” issued The Thirty-first day of the Eight month anno Domini Two thousand four, to Frank C. Damrell, Jr.;  

 

6:  Ample Time and Opportunity to Correct:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of Frank C. Damrell, Jr’s  actions and or inactions: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. has been given ample time and opportunity to correct "mistakes of Fact", but has refused to make such corrections:  Since mistakes were not acknowledged, not admitted, and not corrected, it is now considered that all such criminal activity, including but not limited to unlawful conversion, commercial fabrication, abuse of due process, conspiratory harassment, violation of God given rights protected by Amendments to the Constitution, extortion, subornation of perjury, false imprisonment under "Color of Law" and or "Color of Authority, " was intentional and is ongoing;

 

7:  Transcripts and Papers:

For the record, I have read the transcripts of Case Number CIV-S-03-1532 and have read documentation emitted by Walter Allen Thompson to the court;

 

8:  Mistaken Identity:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that there is no supporting evidence that, the hostage, Walter Allen Thompson is in fact the WALTER THOMPSON, a/k/a AL THOMPSON, d/b/a CENCAL SALES COMPANY, d/b/a CENCAL AVIATION PRODUCTS on the Complaint for Permanent Injunction:  Maxim:  Lata culpa dolo aequiparatur: “Gross negligence is equal to fraud;” :

 

 

 

9:  Jurisdiction Challenged:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that Walter Allen Thompson has challenged venue and jurisdiction, but was ignored and or disregarded:  Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action:" Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction:" Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215:  "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416:  "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted:" Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188: Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150: "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property:" Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732: "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio:" In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846: "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance:" Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409: "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction:" Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937: "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris:" Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739:  A statute of limitations on a question of jurisdiction would have the effect of making legal what was an illegal procedure, in addition to running counter to supreme court holdings. A jurisdictional defect can never be waived. Freytag v CIR, 501 US 868, 896: Jurisdictional questions are never waived; they can be made at any time.  Waley v Johnston, 316 US 101 (1942); Thor v US, 554 F2d 759;

 

10:  No Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that there is no subject matter jurisdiction because Title 26 does not have the authority of law since it has no enacting clause:   Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even after a person pleads guilty or enters into a plea bargain, even after one has been convicted, sentenced, and in the slammer:   In brief, if there is "no law" (constitutionally must have enacting clauses to be law) supporting the charges, there is no jurisdiction  period.  Codes and even the U.S. Codes and Statutes do not stand up to the definition of Positive Law, even though they are treated by the courts as such:   By constitutional mandate, all laws must have and enacting clause:  The constitutional provision which prescribes an enacting clause for all laws is not directory, but is mandatory:  This provision is to be strictly adhered to and asserted:   Any Title, code, or statute without an enacting clause is void of any legal authority:  Titles, codes, and or statutes without enacting clauses are a convenience to the legislature and the courts, not to the citizens or people upon the land here in California: For an enacting clause to appear on the face of the law, it must be recorded or published with the law so that the public can readily identify the authority for that particular law which they are expected to follow:   "Where the court is without jurisdiction it has no authority to render any judgment other than one of dismissal":  Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W. 2d 524, 528 (Tex.Cr. App.1980):   Many people emit affidavits and letters to the IRS stating:  "Please provide me with the statutes and implementing regulations and where and when they were published in the Federal Registry (date, chapter, page number, etc) and I will gladly pay any taxes that I am required to pay:"  The IRS has never provided this information and cannot:  If one researches and studies Title 26, one will find that there is no such implementing regulations for Title 26;

 

11:  No Contract:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that there is no evidence of there being any contract between Frank C. Damrell, Junior and Walter Allen Thompson that authorizes Frank C. Damrell, Junior’s claim of Civil Contempt;.

 

12:  Administrative Process Not Exhausted:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that Walter Allen Thompson for over four years now has been asking the Respondents to please show him the law that makes Walter Allen Thompson liable and the Respondents to this day refuses to do so:  Walter Allen Thompson has also asked the court to provide such law and no such law was provided: 

 

13:  Abuse of Due Process:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of abuse of process due to the failure of the Respondents’ to exhaust Administrative Process prior to filing the Complaint for Permanent Injunction against WALTER THOMPSON, a/k/a AL THOMPSON, d/b/a CENCAL SALES COMPANY, d/b/a CENCAL AVIATION PRODUCTS, and subsequently causing the holding of Walter Allen Thompson hostage, for over thirty days now, in an unconscionable and draconian effort to force Walter Allen Thompson into providing false information, which the Respondents’ will likely use against Walter Allen Thompson, on documents which do not apply to Walter Allen Thompson: The Respondents’ failure to adhere to Administrative Process and provide Walter Allen Thompson, upon his request, with either the Law or the Contract which obligates Walter Allen Thompson to subject himself to the Respondents’ various requests prior to filing the Complaint for Permanent Injunction is abuse of process: The Judge and the other Respondents should be quite well aware of the Law as well as Administrative Process: The Judge and the other Respondents should be quite well aware of the Respondents’ abuse of process: It is the duty and requirement of a judge officiating in California to protect the rights of California nationals:  Pari materia, State ex rel. Ricco v. Biggs, 198 Ore. 413, 430;

 

14:  Not Subject to Plaintiff:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that there is no evidence that Walter Allen Thompson is subject to the Plaintiff:  Walter Allen is not residing nor did he ever reside in any federal territory, possession, the District of Columbia, or Washington D.C.:  For example, citizens of Puerto Rico are made citizens of the United States by act of Congress and thereby subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: Walter Allen is a California national:  Therefore, Walter Allen is not “subject to” nor “a subject of” the federal government, the UNITED STATES, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and or the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE:  Any other assumption or presumption to the contrary is a mistake:  Any persistence to maintain the contrary is fraud;

 

15:  True Identity of the Plaintiff:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance,  and judicial notice of the fact that there is no evidence as to the true identity of the Plaintiff in this case: The Diversified Metal Products, Incorporated vs. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service Case indicates that there are different definitions for the name United States: There are numerous and diverse definitions for the name United States in the United States Code: There is no evidence showing which United States is the Plaintiff in this case;

 

16:  No Constitutional Authority for the IRS:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that the Courts have no power to enforce administrative or procedural or housekeeping regulations:  Only substantive regulations are within the power of the judicial:  The IRS can do whatever they deem correct: There is no Constitutional authority for the IRS to show us their executive administrative and procedural regulation processes:  See 440 U.S. 74:  Also, see Chrysler v. Brown  on substantive regulations and State of Ohio of Human Services v. U.S. ......, 862 F.2d 1228 that has a supreme court case [Morton v. Ruiz] and many others that all of the other type of regulations are void, to wit: In the case before us, the agency's failure to comply with the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act is fatal to the validity of the maintenance amount ceiling rule:   As Judge Manos observed in Standard Oil, 453 F.Supp. at 243, "agency action taken in disregard of statutory rulemaking procedures is void:   See e.g. Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 37 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974);  Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Sawhill, 393 F.Supp. 639 (D.D.C.), aff'd per curiam, 523 F.2d 1404 (TECA 1975);  Joseph v. United States Civil Service Comm'n, 18 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 294-95, 554 F.2d 1140, 1153-54 (1977);  Rodway v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 395, 514 F.2d 809, 817 (1975);  United States v. Finley Coal Co., 493 F.2d 285, 291 (6th Cir.1974):   As the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals stated in California v. Simon, 504 F.2d 430, 439 (TECA, 1974) 'substantial compliance with rulemaking requirements is essential to the validity of administrative rules.' "  See also Pickus v. United States Bd. of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107, 1114  (D.C.Cir.1974) (rules not adopted in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements were invalid):  Anything that is not an "Act of Congress" codified (sic) with the mandatory pertinent "substantive regulation" is of no value and are a void issue:  Therefore, one is without a remedy and can not perform the impossible;

 

17:  West Stopped Publishing the IRC:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, judicial cognizance, judicial notice of the fact that by 1956, West stopped publishing the Internal Revenue Code (IRC):  The IRC was no longer needed any more when evidently all the cases that had been opened prior to 1939 had fallen off the books:  What you have now are just codes:  No enacted law behind the codes:  There is no power and authority to tax income pursuant to any existing statue (legislated law):

 

18:  No Proper Authority:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that there is no evidence that the United States Attorneys office has proper authority to represent either the United States or The United States of America:   There is no evidence that the United States Attorneys office has proper authority to represent the IRS: There is no evidence that the IRS is an agency of the United States: The Diversified Metal Products, Incorporated vs. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service Case indicates that the IRS is not an agency of the United States:  Therefore, it appears that these people who are not who they say they are, who do not have the proper lawful authority, and or are mis-representing themselves, are impersonating an officer of The United States of America which is an unlawful act.;

 

19:  Disregard for Evidence:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that certain evidence was emitted to the court by Walter Allen Thompson, but was capriciously disregarded and ignored:  One such set of evidence emitted by Walter Allen Thompson was the documents relating to and stating the fact that the Internal Revenue Laws were repealed February 10th, 1939 [H. R. 2762] [Public, No 1] Chapter 2 At Sec 4:  The Internal Revenue Laws having been repealed by Legislature in 1939, were never reenacted and or re-established by Legislature since:  Such evidence emitted to the court was intentionally ignored and disregarded because Frank C. Damrell, Jr., the IRS, and the Department of Justice knows that the whole case against Walter Allen Thompson is of no effect since the case against Walter Allen Thompson has no foundation in law, no enactment clause, and no regulations to stand upon:   Frank C. Damrell, Jr., being biased with the IRS and the Department of Justice, did not see to it that such evidence be mentioned in the Complaint for Permanent Injunction:  Being biased, Frank C. Damrell, Jr. stacked the cards against Walter Allen Thompson by being one-sided with the prosecution and allowing only certain biased evidence come to light while rejecting, disregarding, and ignoring the more substantial evidence based in law; 

 

20:  Right to a Forum:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES vs. WILL, 449 U.S. 200 (1980):  Failure to apply the Rule of Necessity in these cases would have a contrary effect by denying some litigants their right to a forum :  The Rule of Necessity has been consistently applied in this country in both state and federal courts. In State ex rel. Mitchell v. Sage Stores Co., 157 Kan. 622, 143 P.2d 652 (1943), the Supreme Court of Kansas observed:  "[I]t is well established that actual disqualification of a member of a court of last resort will not excuse such member from performing his official duty if failure to do so would result in a denial of a litigant's constitutional right to have a question, properly presented to such court, adjudicated." Id., at 629, 143 P.2d, at 656:   Far from promoting this purpose, failure to apply the Rule of Necessity would have a contrary effect, for without the Rule, some litigants would be denied their right to a forum:

 

21:  Disregard for Speedy Trial:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that Walter Allen Thompson has never waived the right to a speedy trial:  Walter Allen Thompson has been in custody (confinement) for over Thirty (30) days now without a trial:  As required, there has not been a separate trial by another judge for contempt of court; failing to comply with Injunction:”  Contempt of court cannot be heard or tried by the same judge who issued the court order and found one in contempt:  A speedy trial is required pursuant to the Constitution for The United States of America, Amendment VI thereof:  Maxim:  Justitia non est neganda, non differenda. “Justice is not to be denied nor delayed;”

 

22:  False Arrest and False Imprisonment:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of your code 18 USC Sec 4, Misprision of Felony:  In the nature of, whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both:  Walter Allen Thompson  has been held hostage in confinement for over Thirty days now without any trial; thereby denying Walter Allen Thompson unalienable rights such as the right to liberty:  Pari materia, State ex rel. Ricco v. Biggs, 198 Ore. 413, 430:   State v. Zolantakis, 259 P.1044, 1046; 70 Utah 296:  ExparteArata, 198 Pac. 814, 816; 52 Cal. App. 380.:  There is no Act of Congress that authorizes Frank C. Damrell, Junior’s act of imprisoning Walter Allen Thompson:  Your code U.S.C. 18 Section 4001 and your Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make it perfectly clear that there must be an Act of Congress allowing the imprisonment of Walter Allen Thompson prior to the imprisonment of  Walter Allen Thompson:   After setting up a preconceived malicious prosecution arbitrarily, without trial, entailing a court order and injunction, Frank C. Damrell, Jr held Walter Allen Thompson hostage in confinement ordering the US Marshals to take custody of Walter Allen Thompson until such a time that Walter Allen Thompson would provide certain information and sign certain documents under threat, duress, and coercion, even though such information being asked for does not exist or what would be put in writing under coercion and threat would be a lie under penalty of perjury:  Maxim:  Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire: “ It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it:”  Even a civil contempt charge has to go to trial and be heard by a different impartial judge:   As a result of such confinement of Walter Allen Thompson without trial, Frank C. Damrell, Jr. not only perpetuated a fraud and denied Walter Allen Thompson’s liberty and unalienable rights but also caused intentional infliction of emotional and physical distress to Walter Allen Thompson:   Frank C. Damrell, Jr. thereby committed several trespasses against Walter Allen Thompson’s God given unalienable rights protected by the Constitution for The United States of America together with psychological emotional injury and physical distress that would cause stomach ulcerations and loss of appetite:  There has been no findings of fact and conclusions of law against Walter Allen Thompson , there is no contract in evidence, there is no title in evidence, there are no injured parties, and there is no damaged property, yet Walter Allen Thompson  has been kidnapped and held hostage in confinement for over Sixty days now without any remedy, without any relief, and without any recourse:  No court has a right to imprison a Citizen or a member of the Sovereign who has violated no law:  Such restraint, even if exercised by a court under the guise and form of law, is as subversive of the right of the Citizen as if it were exercised by a person not clothed with authority:  Ex Parte Siebold, 100 US 371; 39 AmJur2d Habeas Corpus §28;

 

23:   Emergency Powers:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that the circumstances surrounding Case Number 03 CV 1532 in no way justify the invoking of Extraordinary Emergency Powers;

 

24:   Not Ceded by California legislature to United States:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the Constitution for the United States of America as required at Article the First at Section the Eight at Clause the Seventeenth thereof:  “and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings;”:  The California State Lands Commission has not made a cession of legislative jurisdiction to the United States pursuant to Government Code Section 126 of the area occupied by the United States Courthouse, the area occupied by the Sacramento County Jail, and the areas occupied by the places of where Walter Allen Thompson lives and those places where Walter Allen Thompson’s free enterprise is conducted;  

 

25:  Unlawful Profiteering:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that there are individuals and corporations profiteering from the confinement of Walter Allen Thompson by charging unreasonable, outrageous, and extraordinary call rates for phone calls to those who have no choice but to accept those charges not knowing what the full impact will be cost wise until the bill is received;

 

26:  Boyd vs. United States:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616 the revenue agents commanded of the production of just one invoice from E.A. Boyd & Sons and the Supreme Court considered the following issue:

“The seizure or compulsory production of a man's private papers to be used in evidence against him is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself, and, in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture, is equally within the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment:”

The court agreed with the above and in the lead opinion Justice Bradley wrote:

“Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation, but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods is within the condemnation of that judgment. In this regard, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other:”

Further in the lead opinion Justice Bradley continued:

“And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.” 116 U.S. at 631-632.

Further in the lead opinion Justice Bradley continued:

“We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other: For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which, in criminal cases, is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. We are also clearly of opinion that [116 U.S. 634] proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man's property by reason of offences committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal.” 116 U.S. at 633-634:

Job Description of IRS Special Agents Shows They Have No Enforcement Authority Over The Plaintiff: In Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616 the Supreme Court overturned the revenue agents’ command of the production of the invoice from E.A. Boyd & Sons because the commanded production of a record (or the seizure of a record) would be a violation of Mr. Boyd’s protection under the 5th Amendment. With that background it is understandable that revenue agents can only compel the production of records or seize the records from those without the protection of the 5th Amendment which is probably why in the job description for special agents in the IRS “Organization and Staffing Manual” specifically states that IRS agents are only authorized to enforce, “the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise taxes: involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and non resident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements:” The Plaintiff clearly is none of these people and surely the agents applying for and executing this warrant are aware of this fact: Therefore they applied for the search warrant in bad faith knowing the Plaintiff was not a person liable for the taxes, not liable to make returns, and or not liable to withhold;

 

27:  Couch vs. United States:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of Couch v. United States 409 U.S. 322 (1973):  The importance of preserving inviolate the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination has often been stated by this Court and need not be elaborated. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). By its very nature, the privilege is an intimate and personal one. It respects a private inner sanctum of individual feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract self-condemnation. Historically, the privilege sprang from an abhorrence of governmental assault against the single individual accused of crime and the temptation on the part of the State to resort to the expedient of compelling incriminating evidence from one's own mouth. United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698 (1944). The Court has thought the privilege necessary to prevent any "recurrence of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber, even if not in their stark brutality." Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 428 (1956):  In Murphy v. Waterfront Commn., 378 U.S. 52, 55 (1964), the Court articulated the policies and purposes of the privilege: "[O]ur unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt; our preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice; our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses; our sense of fair play which dictates 'a fair state-individual balance by requiring the government ... in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load,' ... our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave where he may lead a private life.' ...":  It is important to reiterate that the Fifth Amendment privilege is a personal privilege: it adheres basically to the person, not to information that may incriminate him. As Mr. Justice Holmes put it: "A party is privileged from producing the evidence but not from its production." Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913). The Constitution explicitly prohibits compelling an accused to bear witness "against himself"; it necessarily does not proscribe incriminating statements elicited from another. Compulsion upon the person asserting it is an important element of the privilege, and "prohibition of compelling a man ... to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him," Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252-253 (1910) (emphasis added). It is extortion of information from the accused himself that offends our sense of justice;"

 

28:  Fisher vs. United States:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)....that under appropriate safeguards private incriminating statements of an accused may be overheard and used in evidence, if they are not compelled at the time they were uttered, and that disclosure of private information may be compelled if immunity removes the risk of incrimination:  The only bar to enforcement of such summons asserted by the parties or the courts below is the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination;

 

29:  Similar Court Order Vacated:

Mr. Jerome Daly of Savage, Minnesota appeared pursuant to an Internal Revenue Summons but refused to produce his private financial records or answer questions. He was later held in contempt of court. An appeal was taken to the Eighth Circuit Court, which remanded the case to the district court for a plenary hearing on appellant’s objections, as such had never been accorded to the appellant. On July 17, 1968, Daly appeared before the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Third Division, No. 3-66-349, for the hearing. After considering Daly’s objections the Court held:  “As to each question asked, it is evident from the implications of the question in the setting in which asked, that a responsive answer to the question may tend to incriminate Jerome Daly.” The Court ordered that “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order of this Court dated May 3, 1967, adjudging Jerome Daly in contempt of the court’s order of December 28, 1966 is hereby vacated.”

 

30:  Oath of Office:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that I have not received, as requested in writing, a written and signed Oath of Office by Frank C. Damrell, Jr to support the Constitution for The United States of America as required at Article the Sixth at Clause the Third thereof: If Frank C. Damrell, Jr has no such oath of office, the position is vacant ab initio and Frank C. Damrell, Jr is impersonating an officer, judge, and or an official of such district court:  However, if such an oath does exist as prescribed by such Article and is complete, I, therefore can see no reason why I should not accept Frank C. Damrell, Jr’s Oath of Office as an open Offer to form a firm and binding contract between Frank C. Damrell, Jr and Me, wherein it  appears to be My obligation to help Frank C. Damrell, Jr to keep all of the many promises made as viewed through said Constitution:  In My previous emitted facsimile having a title “Acceptance of Oath of Office as a Binding Contract”,  I have already accepted Frank C. Damrell, Jr’s Oath of Office to Me:  I now hereby accept Oath(s) of Office of McGreggor William Scott; Antonio Amador; Rex K Lee; Paul Enjalran; Anne Norris Graham; Lou Blanas; Maureen Price; Yoshenori Hummel; Kristin Hodges; and Bobbie Montoya as open Offers forming firm and binding contracts between all of you and Me wherein is My obligation to help you to keep all of your many promises as viewed through the Constitution for The United States of America as it requires at Article the Sixth at Clause the Third thereof: And if you do not have that Oath of Office, I am hereby giving you that Oath of Office, under God so help Me God:  If you refuse such oath, the office is vacant ab initio until such proper and complete oath exists and is in place: The British consulate in Chicago, Illinois, may be made aware that the Crowns agent has dishonored the crown and violated his oath of office and caused personal injury to Walter Allen Thompson and that Walter Allen Thompson 's sovereign rights protected by treaty has been violated by the crown's agent, thereby has brought dishonor to the throne by partaking in a treasonous act.;

 

31:  Oath in Conflict:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that Frank C. Damrell, Jr has taken an oath to certain creditors, in secret, behind closed doors, to support the bankruptcy of the corporate UNITED STATES, in solemn preparation for the "business of the court":  The oath taken in secret is in conflict with the Constitution for The United States of America:  Frank C. Damrell, Jr  may have taken an oath as a member of and may still be associated with the American Bar Association, which is a franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain:  Said oath may also be in conflict with said Constitution:  Frank C. Damrell, Jr may have taken other oaths that may be in conflict with said Constitution if Frank C. Damrell, Jr is a member of the Masons or a Masonic Lodge and or some other secret society and or a member of certain religious groups such as Mormon;

 

32:  Non-judicial Officer:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that Federal judges of the United States district courts are non-judicial officers of the legislative branch, are officially classed as federal employees, and are to be distinguished from Article III judicial officers:  Federal judges today have no judicial power but are mere administrative arbiters for those who submit administrative disputes for their disposition;

 

33:  Title of Nobility of “Esquire”:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that Frank C. Damrell, Jr. may be a British agent, having a title of nobility of “Esquire:”  If that is true, it would be unlawful for Frank C. Damrell, Jr. to qualify and hold office in this country unless Frank C. Damrell, Jr. knowingly intentionally and voluntarily expatriates under oath, otherwise Frank C. Damrell, Jr is falsely impersonating an American citizen:  It is a well known issue that Federal Judge William Wayne Justice stated in court in 1998 that he takes his orders from England:  “During the trial of James and Sharon Patterson, (Case 6:97-CR-51) William Wayne Justice, Judge of the United States District Court Texas-Eastern Division when presented with law stated: "I take my orders from England. This is not a law this court goes by."--quote from Stephen Kinbol Ames Jr.:  “H.RES.168” is the resolution that United States District Court Judge William Wayne Justice is impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors; 

 

34:  Administering the Bankruptcy:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that It appears that this court is trying to administer the bankruptcy of the corporate UNITED STATES a.k.a U.S., U.S.A., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  If so, the real true creditor is not identified:  The real true creditor has not come forward and appear to provide the true nature and cause of action which is being brought against Walter Allen Thompson.  The real true creditor must come forward, take the stand, and be cross examined by Walter Allen Thompson:  The real true creditor must produce the treaty, the agreement, the title, bond, and the pledge that makes Walter Allen Thompson liable, otherwise Walter Allen Thompson must be released if such documents are not entered into evidence and if the real true creditor does not take the stand:   Anything that is done in secret is not valid and is not binding without the knowledge, voluntary intention, and lawful consent of all parties involved:  A bankruptcy not disclosed to the public or the people is fraud.  When a government goes bankrupt, it looses its sovereignty. In 1933 the U.S. declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt's Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 confirmed in Perry v. U.S. (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912, as well as 31 United States Code (USC) 5112, 5119 and 12 USC 95a:  The corporate bankruptcy is the corporate state and federal responsibility, not the responsibility of the un-enfranchised people of America:   Walter Allen Thompson chooses not to support the corporate bankruptcy or its administration and procedure;

 

35:  Co-conspirator of Fraud and Extortion:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that evidence was emitted to the court stating that the Internal Revenue Laws were repealed: February 10th, 1939 [H. R. 2762] [Public, No 1] Chapter 2 At Sec 4:  The Internal Revenue Laws having been repealed by Legislature in 1939, were never reenacted and or re-established by Legislature since:  Such evidence emitted to the court was intentionally ignored and disregarded:   Frank C. Damrell, Jr and other court room participants may be and or are co-conspirators perpetuating a fraud and are in collusion with the perpetrators of a fraudulent crime scheme of extortion under the “color of law” and “color of authority:”  The Perpetrators of this fraud are composed of certain staff, agents, and officials of the Department of Justice and certain staff, agents and officials of the Internal Revenue Service:  This fraudulent extortion scheme is being perpetuated against Walter Allen Thompson and the American people: Maxim: Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud:  Maxim:  Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent.  “Fraud and deceit should excuse no man;”

 

36:  Misuse and Abuse of Civil Court Order:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that in civil court, everything is a contract and nothing can be done that is not a form of a contract:  Only people can lawfully contract:  Every citation, money exchange, order, anything at all is an exchange - a contract - between two people:  There is no contract between Walter Allen Thompson and Frank Damrell, Junior:   Walter Allen Thompson has never agreed to the terms of a contract with Frank Damrell, Junior:   It appears that the bogus civil court order and the bogus injunction may have been used in a malicious retaliatory vengeful manner by one who is a co-conspirator and was done in an unlawful manner without regard for the law and the evidence emitted by Walter Allen Thompson:  If Walter Allen Thompson surcomes to obey said bogus court order and does as the bogus court order requests, he would have to knowingly provide false information and lie under oath (penalty of perjury) and therefore be commuted to jail for perjuring himself:  Maxim: Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus: “An act done by me against my will, is not my act:” The bogus Civil Court Order was based on a misconceived injunction based on perpetrating a fraud:  Maxim: Ex dolo malo non oritur action: “Out of fraud no action arises:”  Frank C. Damrell, Junior has set up Walter Allen Thompson in a no win situation, based on fraud, having no remedy and or recourse in law or at law:  Maxim:  Judici officium suum excedenti non paretur: “To a judge who exceeds his office or jurisdiction no obedience is due:” Therefore, the civil court order is a void order and a void issue:  "If a magistrate instigates a prosecution before himself without probable cause and deliberately uses the process issued by him therein, not for the legitimate purpose of hearing the case, but to show his authority and to gratify his personal feelings of importance, the act savors of oppression and constitutes an illegal abuse of process." Dean v. Kochendorfer, 237 NY 384, 143 NE 229:  A court order is not law.  Only the legislature can make law:  Frank Damrell, Junior is attempting to make law, be the judge of such law, and the executioner when one does not obey such law:  No one man is to be allowed to be the legislature, judge, jury, and executioner:  This type of misconduct and usurpation of power violates Separation of Powers doctrine and destroys the framework of government;

 

37:  Subornation of Perjury:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of your code 18 USC Section 1622: Subornation of perjury: In the nature of, whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both: all pursuant to the mandatory provisions of California Evidence Code Sections 451, 452, 453, et sequiter";

 

38:  Misuse and Abuse of “Color of Office”:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance,  and judicial notice of the fact that Frank C. Damrell, Jr.  uses the “color of Office,” his administrative post, in a retaliatory vengeful malicious manner when he can find no other alternative to overcome the lawful paper work emitted by Walter Allen Thompson and others to the court:  Frank C. Damrell, Jr.  is attempting to sidetrack the court in an attempt to ignore and disregard said lawful paperwork that was emitted to the court and is sidetracking the court in an attempt to ignore and disregard the fact that the Internal Revenue Laws have been repealed and is certainly avoiding the serious question about providing the law that makes Walter Allen Thompson liable:  Sidetracking the issue of the law would implicate a cover-up of a fraud being perpetrated by Frank C. Damrell, Jr.  and certain staff, agents, and officials of the Department of Justice and certain staff, agents and officials of the Internal Revenue Service:  In the meantime,  Frank C. Damrell, Jr.  has had Walter Allen Thompson kidnapped and is holding Walter Allen Thompson hostage until the ransom is paid by forcing Walter Allen Thompson to perjure himself, thereby fulfilling and completing the extortion scheme:  Walter Allen Thompson is a victim of those who are perpetuating a fraud and an extortion scheme upon the American people under the color of authority and the color of law:  Malicious abuse of process "is committed when the actor employs legal process in a manner technically correct, but for a wrongful and malicious purpose to attain an unjustifiable end…" 1 Harper and James, Torts (1956), 4.9; see 3 Restatement of Torts 682; Prosser, Torts (2d ed. 1955), 100: "perversion" of legal process. Mayer v. Walter, 64 Pa. 283, 286: also see: 63 Col. L. Rev. 326, 327, n. 13:  Abuse of administrative process:  1 Harper and James, supra, 4.10; 3 Restatement of Torts 680; National Surety Co. v. Page, 58 F.2d 145; but cf. Petherbridge v. Bell, 146 Va. 822, 132 S. E. 683, and so does abuse of the judicial subpoena power, Dishaw v. Wadleigh, 15 App. Div. 205, 44 N. Y. Supp. 207. WHEELDIN v. WHEELER. 373 U.S. 647 (1963):   The British consulate in Chicago, Illinois, may be made aware that the Crowns agent has dishonored the crown and violated his oath of office and caused personal injury to Walter Allen Thompson and that Walter Allen Thompson 's sovereign rights protected by treaty has been violated by the crown's agent, thereby has brought dishonor to the throne by partaking in a treasonous act:  A judge who exceeds his authority and operates outside his bond can be sued and liened;  

 

39:  Barratry:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that Barratry may have or was executed and practiced from the bench:  In criminal law, barratry is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass and or to compel someone to do something that could not otherwise be done:  Usually, the actions brought lack merit and or consistancy:  Frank C. Damrell, Jr.  administered his court in a “star chamber” and “kangaroo court” fashion without a jury of Walter Allen Thompson's peers: 

“Some authorities have said that trials in the Star Chamber were public, but that witnesses against the accused were examined privately with no opportunity for him to discredit them. Apparently all authorities agree that the accused himself was grilled in secret, often tortured, in an effort to obtain a confession and that the most objectionable of the Star Chamber’s practices was its asserted prerogative to disregard the common law rules of criminal procedure when the occasion demanded. 5 Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 163, 165, 180-197 (2d ed. 1937); Radin, The Right to a Public Trial, 6 Temp. L. Q. 381, 386-388; Washburn, The Court of Star Chamber, 12 Am. L. Rev. 21, 25-31. In re: Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S. Ct. 499, 92 L. Ed. 682 (1948). “

The participants and respondents acted in a rogue government fashion:  Civil contempt of court was suppose to be tried by another judge and be a separate trial, but that did not happen:  Also, Jurisdiction was illegally, unlawfully, and fraudulently allegedly acquired without Walter Allen Thompson's volunteering or knowingly agreeing to the proceeding and Walter Allen Thompson never made a contract with the inferior administrative court, the administrator, the judge, prosecutor, attorney, and or any of the other acting participants acting in said court or on behalf of said court:  When Frank C. Damrell, Jr and said participants did try to represent (re-present) Walter Allen Thompson, Walter Allen Thompson immediately and blatantly fired them;

 

40:  Bill of Attainder:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that Frank C. Damrell, Jr.  is violating  laws against Bills Of Attainder:  "A Bill Of Attainder" is a law, or legal device used to outlaw people, suspend their civil rights, confiscate their property, or put them to death, or punish them without a trial:   I contend the original intent of the bill of attainder mandates were to prevent laws that punish without trial, suspend civil liberties, and confiscate property: The doctrine of "pains and penalties" is included as just as much a bill of attainder as any other part of the mandate. A punishment less than death without a trial is considered to be a bill of pains and penalties:  U.S. v. Brown (1965), U.S. v. Lovett (1946), and re: Yung See Hee (1888) all qualify the doctrine of pains and penalties as punishment without trial, and inclusive as a bill of attainder:  The only statement in your U.S.C. that reflects most of the original intention of the mandates is from Cummings v. Missouri (1867): It states, "A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment":  H.R.1658: A bill to establish a procedure, in addition to impeachment, for the removal of certain members of the Judiciary of the United States whose conduct is or has been inconsistent with the good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States;

 

41:  Pattern and Practice (RICO):

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that this is the second or third time Walter Allen Thompson has been a victim of conspiratory harassment and an extortion scheme under the color of law, color of office, and the color of authority thereby establishing pattern and practice (RICO);

 

42:  Accessory After the Fact:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of  your code U.S.C. 18 Section 3. Accessory after the fact:  In the nature of, whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact:  Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years;

 

43:  Shared Belief and Assignment:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that when one member of the Sovereign has been harmed all have been harmed:   Members of the Sovereign share Walter Allen Thompson’s strongly held Belief in a particular body of Law and Right:.  In that shared Belief and assignment of Walter Allen Thompson’s voice for the People, the People, members of the Sovereign, have been harmed and have a particular interest and voice in this matter;

 

44:  Common Law:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that If there has been a common law crime committed, the matter is to be held in the correct venue and in an appropriate court of record; and must be tried by jury of his peers who are members of the Sovereign in accordance with the common Law in California, a republic;

 

45:  Witnesses:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of the fact that all writs, abatements, correspondence, precepts, phone calls, emails, and faxes in favor of Walter Allen Thompson are a witness against Frank C. Damrell, Junior and the certain staff, agents, and officials of the Department of Justice and certain staff, agents and officials of the Internal Revenue Service:  Walter Allen Thompson is a victim and witness to such crimes:  Those who attended the court hearings are also witnesses;

 

46:  Notice:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, judicial cognizance, judicial notice of the fact that I hereby give Notice to any agent, officer, official, and or staff member of a government or agency, department, and branch thereof and or anyone acting as agent, officer, official, and or staff member of a government or agency, department, and branch thereof who reads this Document:  I am one of the people, a member of the Sovereign:  I do not grant anyone License to represent (re-present) Me in any way and I hereby rescind and revoke any signature and or other action that might cause anyone to believe otherwise:  I retain My status as one of the people, a California national, and I demand and preserve all of My unalienable Rights which are inborn and inherent from My Creator, at all times.  I waive no rights at any time;

 

47:  Damages:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice of damages resulting from intentional criminal activity that caused injury to the rights, freedom, and liberty of Walter Allen Thompson through sustained violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment protections together with injury to the physical and psychological being of Walter Allen Thompson, Walter Allen Thompson’s wife, Walter Allen Thompson’s children, and Walter Allen Thompson’s family as a whole, and the devastation to Walter Allen Thompson’s enterprise(s) and or means to survive and to maintain Walter Allen Thompson’s land and property:

 

Punitive Damages for Malicious prosecution:              $5,000,000.00.  (Tentative at this time):

 

Damages for Misprisions/Confinement can be calculated at a rate of  $1,560,000 per day or $65,000 per hour based on the following cases (1)TREZEVANT v. CITY OF TAMPA, 741 F2d 336 (11th Cir. 1984): Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes on a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages.  That is equivalent to $65,217 per hour or $1,565,217 per day: (2) CIVIL RIGHTS: SANDERS v. ENGLISH, 950 F2d 1036 (6th Cir. 1992)  False arrest, illegal detention (false imprisonment), and malicious prosecution are recognized as causes of action under Title 42 Section 1983 [Sets foundation for $75,000/hr., 1,800,000/day]:

 

Psychological emotional trauma and injury and physical distress:  $3,000,000  (Tentative at this time):

 

The Frank C. Damrell, Junior, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, and or their affiliates may be billed for such damages payable in Silver Specie of The United States of America;

 

48:  True, Correct, and Certain:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, judicial cognizance, judicial notice that I solemnly Declare on My private unlimited commercial Liability, that My statements in regard to the matters at hand, and stated herein, are based on My first hand Knowledge and Understanding, and are True, Correct and Certain except as to those Statements made on Opinion, Belief or hearsay Evidence, and as to those Statements, I claim them to be True, Correct and Certain, to the best of My ability:

 

49:  Authority to Release:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that this precept is your authority for immediately releasing on this date, the Twenty-third day of the Ninth month anno Domini Two thousand four, within three (3) hours if you have not already done so, Walter Allen Thompson, a man of the land, one of the people, a member of the Sovereign:  Said release is to be unconditional;  

 

I, Jack, having the surname (family name) "Slevkoff," hereinafter Jack; Slevkoff, a living soul in a flesh and blood man on the land, one of the people, a member of the Sovereign, whose law form is the common law, and whose venue is the California republic, by the authority vested in Me, as one of the Sovereign, and by the authority given to Me by certain people in the county named Fresno, formerly a portion of Mariposa county, a county within the borders of California (the republic), do so decree and order the release of Walter Allen Thompson and record this Precept for the record;

 

50:  Claim and Proof of Claim to the Contrary:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that all statements herein are all with Walter Allen Thompson’s tacit consent and are all subject to My immediate receipt and Walter Allen Thompson’s immediate receipt of your statement of claim, in writing, and your proof of claim, in writing, to the contrary:  You have three days from receipt of this Precept to file a written response:  Any and all written response must be signed under oath and include a detailed and factual statement and supporting documentation:  Failure to respond in time prescribed, herein, will result in Estoppels of Acquiescence (Default) absolute:  Qui tacet consentire videtu: “He who is silent appears to consent:”  All written responses to this matter is to be mailed to the location given above;

 

51:  Writ of Habeas Corpus:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth and demand immediate action, judicial cognizance, and judicial notice that If you continue to detain, hold, and or confine Walter Allen, I hereby invoke this Precept a writ of Habeas Corpus;

 

52:  Judicial Notice:

For the record, I respectfully incorporate herein by reference as if fully set forth, judicial cognizance, judicial notice that all judicial notices stated and incorporated herein are pursuant to the mandatory provisions, in pari materia, in the nature of Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 201 (d), (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), inclusive; in the nature of the Uniform Rules of Evidence Act of 1999 based upon F.R.E. 201 (a) through (g) inclusive; in the nature of California Evidence Code Sections 451, 452, 453, et sequiter, and the applicable common law rules:  If there is a discrepancy, the common law rules shall prevail.

 

Sincerely and respectfully,

signed and sealed,

 

 

 

Jack; Slevkoff