Declaration of Peace? (case # 1234567)


I, _______________, declare under penalty of perjury:  

1.         I am a Defendant (hereafter ‘Declarator’) in the matter captioned above, and Declarator makes this Declaration in support of the moral objections for the record filed with the above styled court on March 9th, 2009 (see first attached), in support of to motion this above styled court ut supra, to discharge the complaint with prejudice and/or for said Honorable ____________ to consider Declarator’s communiqué received from Declarator by said same Honorable ____________ on March 9th, 2009 (see second attached), in pursuance of Universal Peace to render judgment in light of such weighty matters of misrepresentation systematically contrived to reduce Declarator in natural Standing, via conditional acceptance of a slavish mentality by societal doctrine of non-resistance clearly arbitrary and oppressive, absurd, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.  

2.         Declarator makes this Declaration in Declarator’s individual capacity.  

3.         The purpose of this Declaration is to provide evidence to whomever these presents shall come that Declarator has at all times since (a time described in common parlance as the year to date) 2000 A.D. – that is, a most serious-minded, earnest, dignified, highly appropriate and justifiable process of seeking Good Will with All Walks of Life in the interest of Universal Peace, while striving from the Stand-point of conditional indoctrination from misrepresentation, by a system of governance foisted upon Declarator from the first moment of nativity and continuing well into the alleged lawful age to contract.   A.) The evidence herein proffered is limited for solely for brevity, which Declarator proffers, in support of any stated claim of misrepresentation foisted upon Declarator by the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is, to wit: 

General Immunity Pertaining to Prosecutors, Judges and Government Agents

1.) Prosecutor may violate civil rights in initiating prosecution and presenting case. - United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtmanz 424 U.S. 409 (1976)  

2.) Immunity extends to all activities closely associated with litigation or potential litigation. - Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Davis v. Grusemever, 996 F.2d 617 (1993)  

3.) Prosecutor may knowingly use false testimony and suppress evidence. - United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)  

4.) Prosecutor may file charges without any investigation. - Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1337 (1986)  

5.) Prosecutor may file charges outside of his jurisdiction. - Eighth Circuit Federal Court of appeal in Myers v. Morris, 840 F.2d 1337 (1986)  

6.) Prosecutor may knowingly offer perjured testimony. - Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 1310 (1987)  

7.) Prosecutor can suppress exculpatory evidence. (Exculpatory defined: Evidence showing one innocent) - Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Henzel v. Gertstein, 608 F.2d 654 (1979)  

8.) Prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring with judges to determine outcome of judicial proceedings. - Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 E.2d 1072 (1986)  

9.) Prosecutor may knowingly file charges against innocent persons for a crime that never occurred. - Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Norton v. Liddell, 620 F.2d 1375 (1980)  

4.         Having said this, Declarator provides further research of misrepresentation hereinbelow. Please let Declarator offer the following excerpt from a Fourth (4th) Circuit decision in the case called Pinder v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 368, 372 (4th Circuit 1994), to wit:   A.) 'Our survey of the legal landscape as it existed in March 1989 indicates, that, in general, members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker , 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).   B.) Judge Posner aptly explained the reasoning behind this general principle when he stated in Bowers that:   The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let “We the People of the United States” alone; it does not require their agency federal government or their state(s) to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order....for those not a party to the contract (Constitution). Thus, because there is no constitutional duty to provide such protection for the Public at Large, {the state's} failure to do so is not actionable under Title 42, section 1983, of the United States Code (U.S.C.). [emphasis added]   Per: Bowers, 686 F.2d at 618.   5.         These abovementioned judicial dicta, support both cites given hereinbelow.  

1.) “But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it. The States are a party to it…” (emphasis added).   Per: Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854).  

2.) “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”   Per: Senate Document #43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933.  

3)  § 12. How the sovereign may in a treaty dispose of what concerns individuals.The necessity of making peace authorizes the sovereign to dispose of the property of individuals; and the eminent domain gives him a right to do it (Book I. § 244). He may even, to a certain degree, dispose of their persons, by virtue of the power which he has over all his subjects. But as it is for the public advantage that he thus disposes of them, the state is bound to indemnify the citizens who are sufferers by the transaction. (Ibid.) Law of Nations BOOK 4 S SECTION 12:

6.         Declarator further states for the record in the matter captioned above, Declarator has come to affirm and deduce, that the abovementioned evidence is what “We the People of the United States” calls "Equal Justice under the Law"...and certainly, this proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that every man, woman, or child is equal before their law! Since you have no agreement/contract with the Federal System of governments, the State, etc., or any such other planetary so-called social compact to bargain for your rights or to protect what you have been indoctrinated to believe as your rights, and no agreement with their court, how do you perceive or believe that you will obtain justice or a remedy in their courts?  

7.         Declarator further states for the record in the matter captioned above, Declarator asks the Honorable ____________ and to whom these present shall come, consider the fact that the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT failed to inform the UNITED NATION General Assembly meeting in 1948 of the abolition of the “Right to Petition” (allegedly guaranteed by the U.S. Const.), when the U.N. General Assembly was discussing what Articles where to be included within the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” If the UNITED STATES would not correct a misrepresentation or unfounded and/or unknown point of view held by the U.N. General Assembly, concerning the U.S. Government abolishment of the so-called Constitutional “Right to Petition,” (1st Article of Amendment of the U.S. Const.) why does Declarator think the U.S. Government would inform Declarator of a false viewpoint or assumption related thereto, lead to believe via institutions of public school indoctrination programming about the validity or legality of such rights?  

8.         Declarator further states for the record in the matter captioned above, for the Honorable ____________ and to whom these presents shall come, to consider the fact that the U.S. Government mislead the U.N. General Assembly to principally established a body of work during the Hundred and eighty-third (183rd) plenary session of the UNITED NATION GENERAL ASSEMBLY held on December 10th, 1948, which lead the U.N. General Assembly to fail to include or adopt an Article of Amendment within the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS recognizing the common heritage of All Walks of Life to exercise a universal claim to the RIGHT OF PETITION. The reason cited was that such a “Right to Petition” government for redress of grievances already was recognized in Constitutions of a great number of countries, including, the signatory U.S. Government to the U.N. Charter. Even after this, the U.S. Government still claims to recognizes the Universal Declaration as par the of the body of work which constitutes the International Bill of Rights (see the third attachment in which the U.S. States Departments Fact Sheet released on September 10th, 2008 recognizes Declarator’s statement to this effects).  

9.         Declarator further states for the record in the matter captioned above, for the Honorable ____________ and to whom these presents shall come, to consider in light of the fact that the hosting Super Power Nation, in respect to the UNITED STATES Government, had abolished this “Right to Petition” less than a hundred (100) years earlier, begs the imagination to wonder! That if the UNITED STATES Government  has defrauded the U.N. General Assembly on this major point of Human Rights, concerning its own course of action reflecting the “Right to Petition” and Human Rights, whether or not the U.N. General Assembly would have acted otherwise? Major facts are presented to confirm this fraud perpetrated by a Member of the General Assembly, entitled UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are that the UNITED STATES, et al., in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA in the case of We the People Foundation, Inc. et al. v. United States,” No. 1:04-cv-01211 EGS, admitted in the Civil War era, however, the U. S. Congress enacted Rules abolishing the duty to respond, a change later sanctioned by the Supreme Court [see: 96 Yale Law Journal 142, 164 (1986); Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3rd. 1445, 1453, (3rd. Cir. 1995)].  Furthermore, U.S. FEDERAL Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in his Order and Opinion upheld the position of the UNITED STATES et al., to deny the Human Rights of “We the People, et al., the “Right of Petition” in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DICTRICT OF COLUMBIA on August 31, 2005.  

10.       Declarator further states for the record in the matter captioned above, for the Honorable ____________ and to whom these presents shall come, Declarator’s final consideration of conditioning or reason for seeking self-determination and/or proceeding to plead the dismissal of the matter captioned above to be dismissed with prejudice:   “No constitutional right exists under the Ninth Amendment, or to any other provision of the Constitution of the United States, “…to trust the Federal Government and to rely on the integrity of its pronouncements.” MAPCO, Inc. v Carter (1978, Em Ct App) 573 F2d 1268, cert den 437 US 904, 57 L Ed 2d 1134, 98 S Ct 3090.

11.       In addition, this Declaration arises in part due to the Honorable ____________ requesting of Declarator a more definitive statement affirming Declarator’s position as such appertains to specific condition of the mind of the Declarator, applicably alleged to any action and/or body of conduct which has brought about the matter caption hereinabove.  

12.       Declarator further states for the record in the matter caption above, that Declarator’s efforts at coming out of the systematic conditioning of the mind foisted upon Declarator as previously aforementioned, has manifestly produced efforts by Declarator which have been received by the above styled ‘Plaintiff’ not unlike the ends of government which have become perverted by misrepresentations, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and when all other means of redress are ineffectual.  

13.       Declarator further states for the record in the matter caption above, that Declarator takes at this time a most gracious and honorable desire to express a humble and contrite heart and mind for any real and actual damage or injury which may have occurred to any true innocent party, known or unknown.  

14.       Declarator further states for the record in the matter caption above, that Declarator’s attempts to discover solutions to coming out of the indoctrination aforementioned, has not been in vane but which still has brought severe costs to both Declarator’s life, liberty and property.

Respectfully Signed and Submitted this 1st Day of April 2012