Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
, (T >
IlIS iF i CT COL;(]__________ 'I
NOIU JlfJ<N DISTRICT OF TEXAS I
I
1 United States District Cour r--..!.F..:..IL:::::.FD ,
OR IG
~~~
Fo the Northern Dlotrict o11 m M 2 9- 201;-l
(0-~l2~
RANDALL TODD TOWNSEND CLERK, U.S. DIST!~~COURT
By _ _-c:::---::lLUJ.
Claimant CASE#
Deputy
'-----..:.:...:.' ______________
--- _
v.
STATE OF TEXAS Claim for Trespass
CITY OF HAMILTON Claim for Trespass
ROBERT MCGINNIS On the Case
JASON YARBROUGH
CHANCE LOGAN
BECCYROWE
RANDY MILLS
CHARLES SPARKS
Defendants
PARTIES
this court of record and complains of each of the following: State of Texas, a corporation; City
(Sparks); hereinafter defendants who are each summoned to answer said action in a plea of
INTRODUCTION
2. As detailed herein, each defendant exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law by either
directly, or through an agent, or in concert with another, did cause claimant to be unlawfully
and forcefully carried away and imprisoned1 against his will, without jurisdiction or good
cause. Defendants in defiance of a court order infringed on claimants constitutional and natural
rights and committed numerous felonies in so doing. A notice of felonies is included as Exhibit
B.
3. This action is a direct challenge to the jurisdiction' of the defendants named herein.
4. From the moment he was taken away, claimant Townsend, under color oflaw, has been kept in
defendants to release claimant from its jurisdiction and ordering defendants to pay claimant
5. As documented herein, defendants worked in unison to hinder the free right of locomotion of
1 Imprison: To confine a person or restrain his liberty in any way. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition Imprisonment: .. .it may be in a
locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual application of any physical agencies of restraint
(such as locks or bars), as by verbal compulsion and the display of available force. Black's Law Dictionary, 5thEdition
2 Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910; Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215; Bradbury v. Dennis, 310 F.2d 73 (lOth Cir. 1962);
Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416; Latana v. Hopper, I 02 F. 2d 188; Melo v. United States, 505 F. 2d I 026 Middleton v. Low
(1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608; Elliott v Peirsol, I Pet. 328,340,26 U.S. 328,340, 7L.Ed.
164 (1828) Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549,91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409
3 See Exhibit C.
6. As documented herein, each defendant conspired to obstruct the natural and constitutional
7. As documented herein, each defendant deprived claimant of his natural and constitutional
PROPER VENUE
8. As detailed herein, this court is the proper venue, because state employees are using their
positions of authority, under color of law, to impede and obstruct due process of law from
claimant. The state employees are ignoring a court order under color of law.
10. Additionally, defendants are in violation of multiple federal statutes. A Notice of Felonies
filed under the Private Attorney General Act is attached to this action as Exhibit B.
SPECIFICS
11. At all times mentioned in this action, each defendant is the agent of the other, and in doing the
act alleged in this action, each is acting in course and scope of said agency. The following
paragraphs describe what the defendants, under color oflaw, either acted or failed to act as
obligated.
12. Each defendant exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law. Each defendant acted in concert
with the remaining defendants to effect the unlawful loss of liberty of claimant Townsend.
13. Each defendant acted in such a way, or failed to act in such a way, that claimant has been
14. On February 4'\ 2016 claimant was traveling through Hamilton, Texas.
15. Claimant Townsend had caused no injury5 to STATE OF TEXAS or any of the defendants.
16. Claimant is not a "US citizen", "US Person or "corporation", but is a people of Texas and the
17. Defendant Yarbrough while working for the Hamilton City Corporation followed and
18. Claimant Townsend at no time consented to the jurisdiction of Yarbrough, the corporation of
Hamilton, the county of Hamilton, nor the State of Texas, nor any other of the defendants in
said case. On the contrary, claimant specifically 'informed defendant Yarbrough that Yarbrough
was infringing on claimant's free right of travel and provided a copy of an affidavit of his right
of travel.
20. Defendant Yarbrough kidnapped claimant in defiance to a court order the claimant was to be
22. Claimant filed a counterclaim7 in the Hamilton County District Court, a court of record8
5 "For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
his constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 486 F. 945
6 18 U.S. Code 31- Definitions (a) (6) Motor vehicle.- The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other
contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of
passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
7 See Exhibit C - Original Counterclaim
8 There shall be established in each county in this State a County Court, which shall be a court of record;- Texas
Constitution, Article 5 Section 15
nwnbered under the statutory system of nwnbering due to ignorance of the clerk as case
nwnber CV04615 although claimant's counterclaim was filed as an action at law. Said
counterclaim challenged jurisdiction of the State of Texas and nwnerous other defendants.
23. All counterdefendants in the above mentioned counterclaim defaulted failing to provide any
evidence for the record of defendants' authority over a people of Texas and the united states of
America.
24. Defendants by default agreed with claimant's claims stated in claimant's counterclaim.
26. Defendants are vindictively prosecuting claimant's for having lost a previous case against
27. One of claimant's stated claims in the above mentioned action at law informed all that he was
28. Claimant had decided when his previous "drivers license" 9 expired, he would no longer renew
it, because he did not operate a motor vehicle 10 on public roadways for commercial purposes.
29. The clerk of the court has submitted to a court an affidavit 11 falsely stating the claimants
"driver's license" had been "suspended or revoked" although a previous court ruling upheld
30. Said affidavit is in direct violation of 18 USC 1621 a crime punishable up to five years in
9 "...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts
are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910
10 See footnote on page 4 of! 0.
11 See Exhibit E
32. Defendants conspired against claimant rights together, under color oflaw, in a joint effort to
deprive claimant of said rights knowing defendants had previously lost a case claimant had
filed against defendants wherein counterdefendants were ordered to pay claimant $41,620.00
33. The case number under the statutory system of numbering as case number CV04615 filed in
the Hamilton County District Court included an order inviting all parties to the action to
provide as evidence just cause why said orders of the court were invalid.
34. The order to show cause allowed thirty (30) days for any party to provide evidence of just
cause.
35. None of the defendants in case number CV04615 presented any evidence to the court why
the orders of the court should not be upheld, agreeing with said orders of the court by default.
37. No statutory court is authorized to review the decisions of a court of record as its, 'judgment
of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the
judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts
an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203.
38. Defendant McGinnis claimed he did not get a copy of the court order that ruled in favor of
claimant in his previous case, although claimant has a recorded conversation between
claimant and Defendant Rowe at the time that he presented a copy of the judgment of the
court or record in case number CV04615. The transcript of this 38 second conversation of
39. Defendant Rowe executed an affidavit making a claim and swearing to a deputy clerk by the
name of Erin Craig as revealed in the transcript of the 1 minute, 17 second video recorded of
the conversation between the claimant and defendant Rowe. The transcript is included as
Exhibit H.
40. Defendants conspiracy in is direct violation of 18 USC 241, a crime punishable up to ten
42. Defendants deprived claimant of his rights under color oflaw. It is well established that a
'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244,
248), noris 'Code' "Law" (In Re Selfv Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, a
concurrent or joint resolution' oflegislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179
N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rei. Todd v. Yelle, 7
Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government
authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and
regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process ... " (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S.
Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they are void
for ambiguity in their failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the
same of fair notice, identifYing only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives,
subdivisions, and property of government. "The connnon law is the real law, the Supreme Law
of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are "not the Jaw." (Selfv. Rhay, 61
Wn 2d 261)
43. As such, once defendants were informed through a prior action at law that claimant did not
242, deprivation of rights under color oflaw. Said violation is included in the Notice of
Felonies as Exhibit B.
45. On the June 20'h,2016 claimant was forced under duress to appear before defendant Mills for a
"pretrial hearing" which took place in the kitchen break room of the city hall rather than the
47. Defendant Mills knew or should have known that he did not have the authority of a judge,
because "the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer, and not in a
judicial capacity." (Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376. 154 SE 579, 71 ALR 604 (1930)).
48. In spite of claimant's objections, defendant Mills scheduled claimant for trial on August 1",
2016 contrary to law which requires any judge to get the consent of a people to be moved from
the common law and held accountable to statutes or codes. This has long been the purpose of
arraignment. The goal of arraignment is to get people being charge in violation of code to
49. Defendant Mills entering a plea on behalf of claimant without the claimant's consent is a false
statement that would have to be presented to jury which is in violation of 18 USC 1621, 18 USC
50. For that cause of action therefore claimant brings his suit.
51. WHEREFORE, claimant requests relief and judgment against defendants as follows:
52. WHEREFORE, claimant prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
54. For Second Cause of Action $1,000.00 per day from the day of arrest until the day the issues
before this court are settled rounded up to the next full day.
55. For Third Cause of Action $1,000.00 per day from the day of arrest until the day the issues
before this court are settled rounded up to the next full day.
56. For Fourth Cause of Action $2,000.00 per day from the day of arrest until the day the issues
before this court are settled rounded up to the next full day.
58. That the court enter a declaratory judgment ordering the State of Texas and all its subdivisions,
municipalities, counties townships, villages, towns or any other subdivision falling under the
jurisdiction of Texas including and City of Hamilton to update its records removing claimant
59. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that defendants have acted contrary to constitutional
60. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that defendants actions were in excess of statutory
61. That the court pennanently enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs lawful right of
free travel;
62. That the court enter a judgment dismissing the cause numbered CPD216031 01-0 dated March
63. That the court grant claimant such other and further relief as the court deems proper;
66. I declare under penalty of perjury in the United States of America that the foregoing facts are
2. The State of Texas is a corporation operated by the the Massachusetts state. "The
government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty so far as respects the
transactions of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived
from the charter." Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat.
904 904 (1824) The inferior court is a subdivision of said corporation.
3. The United States of America was established as a union of republican states in which the
powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either
directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are
specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162,22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition,
p.626
5. The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
proven. Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
6. Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and once challenged, cannot be assumed and
must be decided. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
7. "... there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d
215.
8. "A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any
stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking."
Bradbury v. Dennis, 310 F.2d 73 (1Oth Cir. 1962)
9. The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
10... .if the issue is presented in any way the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon him
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 13 of 70 PageID 13
11. "When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to
reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction." Melo v. United States, 505 R 2d I 026
12. Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.
Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
13. "No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial
or ministerial, decides at his own peril." Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing
Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607,608.
14. "Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the
cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are
regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments
and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no
bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute
no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are
considered in law as trespassers." Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340,
7L.Ed. 164 (1828)
15. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it
assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. "
Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
16. "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 ofLos Angeles, 171
P2d 8; 331 US 549,91 L. ed. 1666,67 S.Ct. 1409.
17 ....at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the
sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... with none to govern
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 14 of 70 PageID 14
but themselves ..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall419, 454, l LEd 440, 455
@DALL (1793) pp471-472.]
18. The very meaning of'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.
[American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511 , 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L. Ed.
826, 19 Ann. Cas. 1047.]
19. The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the
rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4
Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 lOC Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3,
228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
20. A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye
of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute
justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.l86) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is
reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.
21. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which could abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491]
22. The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
under the name oflocal practice. [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]
23. Republican goverrunent. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the
people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen
by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S.
449, 11 S.Ct. 573,35 L.Ed. 219; Minorv. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162,22 L.Ed.
627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]
24. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 15 of 70 PageID 15
bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding. Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.
25. Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or
District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the
same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of
another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this
section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual
abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may
be sentenced to death. [18, USC 241]
26. Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to
different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or
by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily
injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [18,
USC242]
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 16 of 70 PageID 16
27. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns
with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page
318.]
28. COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its
authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose
of hearing and determining issues oflaw and fact regarding legal rights and alleged
violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its
powers in the course oflaw at times and places previously determined by lawful
authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]
29. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics,
and may have a fifth. They are:
B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App.
220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,
Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]
C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory
and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga.,
24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A.
229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 17 of 70 PageID 17
D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383;
The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v.
U.S., D.C. Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E.
229, 23l.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37
F. 488, 2 L.RA. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.J[Black's
Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
30. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any
holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].
31. The people of this state do not waive their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
32. If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this action is held inapplicable or not valid,
such decision does not affect the validity of any other portion of this action.
33. The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular.
34. The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future the present, and the
past the present.
36. "For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty
imposed upon one because of his exercise of his constitutional rights."
37. People are not persons and excluded from status that employ the term person or persons.
"This word 'person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 18 of 70 PageID 18
The following case citation declares the undisputed distinction in fact and at law of the
distinction between the term "persons," which is the plural form of the term "person,"
and the word "People" which is NOT the plural form of the term "person." The above-
mentioned "real party in interest" is NOT a subordinate "person," "subject," or "agent,"
but is a "constituent," in whom sovereignty abides, a member of the "Posterity of We,
the People," in whom sovereignty resides, and from whom the government has
emanated:
"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different
departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated;
and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with
the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the
federal and state government." (Persons are not People). --Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F
939,943:
"Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people"
--Glass v. Sloop Betsey, supreme Court, 1794.
"The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ... The people, in their
capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ... " --supreme Court, 4 Wheat
402.
39. "While sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains
with the people"-- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, page 370.
I. GENERAL CONTEMPT. Where Contempt has been Committed or Asserted, but may
have been done Ignorantly or Unknowingly. (Not a Defense). This includes Attempted
Contempt.
H. MALICIOUS CONTEMPT. Where General Contempt has been Repeated, so that
Ignorance of the Law is Clearly In No Sense An Excuse or Defense, or Contempt
Deliberately Committed with Afore-Knowledge, or where the Results of the Contempt is
Severe Against One or More Persons Victimized by it so that a Distinct Harm has
Befallen or Inevitably Will Befall such Person(s);
HI. TYRANNICAL MALICIOUS CONTEMPT. Contempt so strong that it is apparent
that the Author(s) ofTyrarmy Work(s) acts of Malicious Contempt, on a similar or
dissimilar basis, in an effort, no matter how small, to gain a Destructive Power over any
person within the proposed United States or its the Territory, or where a Corrupt Use, or
Active Taking-Part-In such Use, of Power, whether or not, by any marmer delegated,
whereby such Power may be used Maliciously toward any Citizen or any Person
coming or being under the Protection of the United States Constitntion as the same was
meant to truthfully apply to the People of the Several States, and of the Territory, and its
such District thereof.
IV. NOBLE CONTEMPT. (1) Noble Contempt of Constitution occurs when a person or
business is recognized and/or treated differently, either greater or lesser, under any
Operation of Law not in Pursuance to the Constitntion, than it is recognized for other
common or ordinary citizens, as well as for businesses. Noble Contempt also exists
wherein private citizens or business are elevated in statns above other common citizens
or business by either what they are provided as rights to be entitled above other Citizens
of equal merit to do, or by where they are regarded by some sense of fame already in
existence as to being given advantage(s) that other ordinary or common citizens or other
businesses under the same circumstances would not be provided -Noble Contempt also
includes Noble Contempt by Denobilization, which Denobilization is an Act of
Subjecting an Individual or even a Specific Populace to a Condition of Degradation or
Reduction in Statns or Importance under the Law, whether by Statute or by Common
Law (Practice By "Policy" is a Violation of the Constitution), in Favor of Not Reducing
All Citizens to be Affected thereby Equally, or Else Not Reducing Such Citizens At All.
This Jurisdictional Charge and all Penalties that may arise hereunder Applies to Both
Citizens and Non-Citizens ofthe United States.
(2) Noble Contempt is also Recognized as a Violation of the Constitution's Article I,
Section 9, Clause 8 for Officials of the United States central government, and/or Article
I, Section 10, Clause 1 for the governments of the Several States, or of either of them, as
the same prohibit such governments to issue or recognize Titles ofNobility, and Extends
to the British Titles of"Knight," "Gentleman," or the Title of"Esquire," which in
British hierarchy comes between Knight and Gentleman, and includes an official Title of
Lady, as in First Lady, not being an Lawful Office of the United States central
government, or of the Several States, either of them.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 20 of 70 PageID 20
41. WHEREAS A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197
La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Selfv Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in
point of fact in Law, a concurrent or 'joint resolution' oflegislature is not "Law,"
(Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56
P.2d 136, 137; State ex rei. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All
codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in
accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and
lacking due process ... " (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.
2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they are void for ambiguity in their
failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the same of fair
notice, identifying only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives,
subdivisions, and property of govermnent. "The common law is the real law, the
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 21 of 70 PageID 21
Supreme Law of the laud, the code, rules, regulations, policy aud statutes are "not the
law." (Selfv. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261)
42. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined, "All codes, rules,
and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in
accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional
and lacking due process " Rodriques v. Ray Donavau (U.S. Department of Labor)
769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).
43. "Under our system of government upon the individuality aud intelligence of the citizen,
the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving
him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himsel1herself." Mugler v. Kausas 123 U.S.
623, 659-60.
44. "Statutes that violate the plain aud obvious principles of common right aud common
reason are nnll aud void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.
45. "The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."-
Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489
"If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with
impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, 373 USs 262
46. "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to auother
according to inclination, is au attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of
free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th
Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution."- Schactrnan v Dulles, 96 App
D.C. 287,293.
4 7. It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state aud the use thereof is
an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal.
App. 534,547,224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
(1950), 222 Pac. 2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).
48. This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established aud
so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of
fundamental rights of the citizen. Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075,1076,43 Kansas
671,674.
49. Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state;
every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment oflife and
liberty. People v Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182 (Colo.-1961).
50. Case law shows that the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends
beyond freedom from bodily restraint aud includes a much wider range of human
activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal
decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits. See Meyer v, 262 US 390,
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 22 of 70 PageID 22
399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 LEd 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93
S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 LEd 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is
obviously driving.
51. "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without
due process oflaw under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.
52. "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may
prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.
53. "License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority,
conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or
would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).
54. "Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a
crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false
imprisonment."
Damages Awarded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th ClR 1984)
55. "The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he
would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky.
420.
56. "The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it."
Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127
Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).
57. "A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton
v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.
58. "It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade
or calling; thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of
business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the
natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation."
Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213.
59. "... those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess
cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v.
Collins, 51 N.E. 907,910
60. "An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of
his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling
any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77,72 ATL. 260).
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 23 of 70 PageID 23
61. Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually tenned "highways" or "public
roads," are such ways as every citizen has a right to use. Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71
Cal. 62
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in
which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will
testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration,
deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath
states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
is guilty of peljury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is
applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United
States.
63. 18 USC 2384- Seditious Conspiracy. If two or more persons in any State or Territory,
or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put
down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against
them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay
the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any
property ofthe United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
64. 18 USC 2381- Treason. Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United
States or elsewhere, 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 $1 0,000; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
65. "the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer, and not in a
judicial capacity." (Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376.154 SE 579,71 ALR 604 (1930)).
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A
(j - Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 24 of 70 PageID 24
Claimants
v.
Defendants.
NOTICE OF FELONIES
l. This is to serve as notice to all parties, this Notice of Felonies is hereby filed in the UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT OF NORTHERN TEXAS, a court of record, regarding
felonies committed by defendants against a people of Texas.
2. All felons will be prosecuted nnder the authority of the Private attorney General Act.
3. It is the manner of enforcement which gives Title 42 1983 its unique importance, for
enforcement is placed in the hands of the people. Each citizen acts as a Private Attorney
General who "takes on the mantel of the sovereign, guarding for all of us the individual liberties
enunciated in the Constitution".
4. "Judge Frank wrote that instead of designating the Attorney General, or some other public
officer, to bring an action, Congress can constitutionally enact a statute conferring on any non-
official persons, or on a designated group of non-official persons, authority to bring a suit...
even if the sole purpose is to vindicate the public interest. Such persons, so authorized, are, so
to speak, Private Attorney Generals." Associated Industries of New York State v. Ickes, 134
F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1943). (Reference: CHAP. XXXI-An Act to protect all Persons in the
Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 1 of13
ExhibitB v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 25 of 70 PageID 25
United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication, April 9, 1866-
Thirty-Ninth Congress. Session I., Ch. 31, 1866, starting on page 27 of the document and
continuing in that document.)
5. Defendant is not following Congressional Acts as to how words are to be defmed under "Legal
Error" of any administrative claims. Definition of Legal Error: "A mistaken judgment or
incorrect belief as to the existence or effect of matters of fact, or a false or mistaken conception
or application of the law." A reversible error usually refers to the "mistaken application of the
law" by a court, as where, for example, a court may erroneously apply laws and rules to admit
(or deny the admission of) certain crucial evidence in a case, which may prove pivotal or
dispositive to the outcome of the trial and warrant reversal of the judgment.
6. Complaint of ultra vires misbehavior by defendants. Ultra vires: Latin, meaning "beyond the
powers", describes actions taken by government bodies or corporations that exceed the scope of
power given to them by laws or corporate charters. When referring to the acts of government
bodies (e.g., legislatures), a constitution is most often the measuring stick of the proper scope of
power.
7. A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the
people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign
capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations
prescribed by the superior authority. See: Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; 99 NE 1; 231 U.S.
250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.
8. Constitution extends to equal protection of the laws to people, not to interest. Taylor vs
McKeithen, 499 F.2d 893, C.A. La 1974.
9. The defendants named herein have acted against claimant in defiance of an order of a court of
record in Hamilton County District court in case number CV04615 and committed numerous
felonies delineated below.
10. For clarification of a number of issues at hand the following is provided to clarify some facts of
law.
11. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his
regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]
12. COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority,
consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and
determining issues of!aw and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of
applying the sanctions ofthe law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course oflaw at times
and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92
S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]
13. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may
have a fifth. They are:
A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of
the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227,
229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244
N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175
S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v.
Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and
testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex
parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v.
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
D. Has power to fme or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The
Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga.,
37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher,
C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488,2 L.R.A.
229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]
14. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so
as to cause a free man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].
15. On August 18th, 2015 an order from the above mentioned court ordered numerous defendants to
release claimant from their respective jurisdictions. All parties to the action were permitted 30
days to provide evidence to the court why such order was invalid.
16. Defendants were also ordered to pay damages to claimant. Claimant has not been paid any such
damages as of the date of this filing.
17. The State of Texas is a corporation operated by the the Texas state. "The government, by
becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty so far as respects the transactions of the
corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter. " Bank
of United States v. Planters' Bank ofGeorgia, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 904 904 (1824) The inferior
court is a subdivision of said corporation.
18. The defendants herein have conspired against claimant rights, deprived claimant of his rights, made false
statements in a court, and infringed on claimants right of free travel.
CHARGES
COUNT I- Contempt of Court 18 USC 401
19. Defendants herein did, in defiance of an order of a court of record in case number CV04614
decided in the Hamilton County District Court, a court of record, did take action against
claimant under color of law, imprisoning claimant.
20. A previous case to which all parties to the action made the knowledge of claimant nonconsent
abundantly clear.
21. CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE "THE WORD OF GOD" Public Law 97-280, 96 stat
1211, Oct 4 1982 and Executive Order 6100 of Sept 22, 1990.
Exodus 20 15Thou shalt not steal. 16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, ...
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered
30. TITLE 18 2384. Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in
any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to
destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose
by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law
of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States
contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined nnder this title or imprisoned not more
than twenty years, or both.
34. Most heinously, defendants used there positions in government under color of law to conduct
said deprivation of claimant's rights.
35. TITLE 18 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever, under color of any law,
statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, wilfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his
color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fue, shall be fmed under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be
fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
36. Robert McGinnis, Jason Yarbrough, Chance Logan, Beccy Rowe, Randy Mills, Charles
Sparks et al, or any other Judicial Officer I Administrative Officer, Attorney I Esquire, Law
Enforcement Officer or any other who hold a public office of trust having taken an oath to
support and defend the United States Constitution, and the statutes of the United States and of
this State and violate or over rule Congressional Enactment or any Judicial Procedure Manual
created by Congress or the America Bar Association as Court Procedure and the Rules of Court
or over rule any Higher Courts decisions to denial equal protection under 42 USC 1981 the J4lh
amendment with intent to deny fairness and court integrity by violation of 18 USC 1581
Peonage; obstructing enforcement or means of Obstruction of Justice of the Law and making
law from that position by violating 28 USC 454 & 455 and the Bill of Rights of the people by
not up holding his/her constitutional Rights which is a felony are guilty of.
Notice of Felonies Tow:.send Page 8 of 131
Exhibit B
State of Texas et. al.
------~----------------------~
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 32 of 70 PageID 32
37. Defendants in unison did work together to obstruct enforcement of the order of a court of
record.
38. TITLE 18 USC> PART I> CHAPTER 93 > 1918 Sec. 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the
right to strike against the Govermnent Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5
that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Govermnent of the United States or
the government of the District of Columbia if he -
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of govermnent;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our
constitutional form of govermnent;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Govermnent of the
United States or the govermnent of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Govermnent of the United States or
of individuals employed by the govermnent of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts
the right to strike against the Govermnent of the United States or the govermnent of the District
of Columbia; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or
both, for any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded.
(d) Exemption from disclosure.-Any information furnished pursuant to sub-paragraphs (A)
through (C) of subsection (a) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5.
(e) Exclusion.-This section does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the
Internal. Revenue Code of 1986.
39. TITLE 5 7311. Loyalty and striking. An individual may not accept or hold a position in the
Govermnent of the United States or the govermnent of the District of Columbia ifhe-
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of govermnent;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional
form of govermnent;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Govermnent of the United
States or the govermnent of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Govermnent of the United States or of
individuals employed by the govermnent of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the
right to strike against the Government of the United States or the govermnent of the District of
Columbia.
Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 9 of13
ExhibitB v.
State of Texas et. al.
L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
-----
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 33 of 70 PageID 33
41. The term "public officials" means the persons falling under any of the following:
(a) The public officials under the State Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act,
and other persons who are recognized by other Acts as public officials in terms of
qualifications, appointments, education and training, services, remunerations, status guarantee,
etc; and
(b)The heads of organizations related to the civil service provided for in subparagraph 1(d) and
the employees of such organizations.
42. The term "act of corruption" means the act falling under any of the following:
(a) The act of any public official's seeking gains for himself/herself or for any third party by
abusing his/her position or authority or violating Acts and subordinate statutes in connection
with his/her duties; and
(b) The act of causing damages to the property of any public agency in violation of Acts and
subordinate statutes, in the process of executing the budget of the relevant public agency,
acquiring, managing, or disposing ofthe property of the relevant public agency, or entering into
and executing a contract to which the relevant public agency is a party.
43. TITLE 18 >PART I> CHAPTER 63 > 1346. Definition of"scheme or artifice to defraud"
For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or
artifice to deprive another ofthe intangible right of honest services.
44. US Attorneys > USAM >Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual1721
45. 1721Protection of Government Processes-Obstruction of Justice-Scope of 18 U.S.C.
1503- Section 1503 ofTitle 18, United States Code, as amended by the Victim and Witness
Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 10 of 13
Exhibit B v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 34 of 70 PageID 34
Protection Act of 1982, forbids tampering with or retaliating against any grand or petit juror, or
any officer in or of any court of the United States by threats or force or by "endeavors to
influence, intimidate, or impede." Section 1503 also contains an omnibus clause prohibiting the
obstruction of"the due administration of justice." By virtue of the omnibus clause, many courts
have held that it is possible to obstruct justice under section 1503 by means similar to, but
different from, those specifically enumerated in the first part of the provision. United States v.
Saget, 991 F.2d 702, 713 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 950 (1993); United States v. Neal,
951 F.2d 630, 632 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 850-52 (9th Cir.
1981), cert. denied, sub. nom. Phillips v. United States, 454 U.S. 1157 (1982). A party may be
prosecuted under section 1503 for endeavoring to obstruct justice, United States v. Neal, supra;
United States v. Williams, 874 F.2d 968, 976 (5th Cir. 1989); it is no defense that such
obstruction was unsuccessful, United States v. Edwards, 36 F.3d 639, 645 (7th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Neal, supra; or that it was impossible to accomplish, United States v. Bucey,
876 F.2d 1297, (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989); United States v. Brimberry, 744
F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1039 (1987).
46. The term "officer in or of any court of the United States" includes: United States District
Judges, United States v. Jones, 663 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1981) (by implication); United States v.
Glickman, 604 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 1979) (by implication), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080 (1980);
United States v. Fasolino, 586 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (by implication); United
States v. Margoles, 294 F.2d 371, 373 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930 (1961);
47. United States Attorneys, Jones, supra; United States v. Polakoff, 112 F.2d 888, 890 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 311 U.S. 653 (1940);
48. United States Bankruptcy Judges, United States v. Fulbright, 69 F.3d 1468 (9th Cir. 1995) (by
implication);
49. Supreme Court Justices, United States Courts of Appeals Judges, United States Magistrate
Judges, clerks of Federal courts, law clerks to Federal judges, Federal court staff attorneys,
Federal court reporters, Federal prosecutors and defense counsel.
50. Because 18 U.S.C. 1503 applies to civil, as well as criminal judicial proceedings, Roberts v.
United States, 239 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1956); Sneed v. United States, 298 F. 911, 912 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 265 U.S. 590 (1924); see Nye v. United States, 137 F.2d 73 (4th Cir.) (by
implication), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 755 (1943), private attorneys are, arguably, also covered by
the statute.
51. A venireman is a "petit juror" within the meaning of section 1503. United States v. Jackson, 607
F.2d 1219, 1222 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080 (1980); see United States v.
Osborn, 415 F.2d 1021, 1024 (6th Cir. 1969) (en bane), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1015 (1970).
52. The majority of United States Courts of Appeals have held that 18 U.S.C. 1503 may be used
to charge a defendant with witness tampering. United States v. Moody, 977 F.2d 1420 (lith Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 944 (1993); United States v. Kenny, 973 F.2d 339 (4th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Branch, 850 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 (1989);
United States v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 (1986); United
States v. Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1076 (1986); United
States v. Lester, 749 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1984). But see United States v. Masterpol, 940 F.2d 760
(2d Cir. 1991) (construing the 1988 amendment to section 1512 as evidence of Congress's intent
that witnesses were removed entirely from section 1503).
53. US Attorneys> USAM >Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual1724
54. 1724 Protection of Government Processes-Omnibus Clause-- 18 U.S.C. 1503
55. The omnibus clause of section 1503 "makes an offense of any proscribed endeavor, without
regard to the technicalities of the law or to the law of impossibility." United States v. Neal, 951
F.2d 630, 632 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Williams, 874 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1989), citing
Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323 (1966). The clause was "intended to cover all endeavors
to obstruct justice" and as such "was drafted with an eye to the variety of corrupt methods by
which the proper administration of justice may be impeded or thwarted, a variety limited only
by the imagination of the criminally inclined." United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d at 632.The
principal limitation to the scope of the omnibus clause is the pending judicial proceeding
requirement. Courts have given an equally broad reading to the nearly identical, but less
frequently litigated, omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. 1505. See, e.g., United States v. Alo, 439
F.2d 751,753-54 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 850 (1971).
56. Pursuant to the Laws of the United States, We the People DEMAND the arrest of the above
named felons for the seven (7) felonies enumerated herein.
57. Pursuant to the statutes herein, in particular the Laws of the United States in general, We the
People DEMAND that you pursue and prosecute ALL ET AL offenders that have violated their
Oaths and Oaths of Office and the Laws of the United States.
WITNESS THE SEAL OF THE COURT, this 291h day of July, 2016.
The Court
~/Zo~ ?2_
~ Randall Todd Townsend
Attornitus Privatus
PARTIES
plaintiff, in this court of record and complains of each of the following: State of Texas, a
("Lovell"); Gregg Bewley, ("Bewley"); Jailer John Doe; Jailer Jane Doe; Charlie Hall,
answer said action in a plea of trespass and trespass on the case to wit:
INTRODUCTION
3. Each co-conspirator exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law by either directly, or
through an agent, or in concert with another, did cause plaintiff to be unlawfully and
forcefully carried away and imprisoned' against his will, without jurisdiction or good
cause.
4. From the moment he was taken away, plaintiff Townsend, under color of law, has been
locomotion of claimant Townsend under color of law on more than one occasion as
SPECIFICS
6. At all times mentioned in this action, each co-defendant is the agent of the other, and in
!Imprison: To confine a person or restrain his liberty in any way. Black's Law Dictionary, 51tl. Edition
Imprisonment: .. .it may be in a locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual application of any physical agendes of
restraint (such as locks or bars), as by verbal compulsion and the display of available force. Black's Law Dictionary, SthEditton
doing the act alleged in this action, each is acting in course and scope of said agency.
The following paragraphs describe what the co-conspirators, under color of law, either
7. Each defendant exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law. Each defendant acted in
concert with the remaining defendants to effect the unlawful loss of liberty of plaintiff
Townsend.
8. Each defendant acted in such a way, or failed to act in such a way, that plaintiff has been
deprived of his liberty, reputation, and right of free locomotion during his imprisonment.
9. In November of 2013 plaintiff Townsend did not renew his contract with the State of
11. On October 15'h, 2014 plaintiff Townsend complained to the local football coach
12. Plaintiff Townsend went several times to the football field to complain to the coach
13. Plaintiff Townsend was accompanied by his wife, Christie L. Townsend, on his final trip
to the football field to complain to the head coach, Mike Reed ("coach Reed").
14. Plaintiff Townsend was approach by the coach after plaintiff Townsend unplugged the
3 18 U.S. Code 31 -Definitions (a)(6) Motor vehicle.- The tenn "motor vehicle" means every description ofcaniage
or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the higbways in tbe
transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
15. Plaintiff Townsend and Mrs. Townsend had made it into the filed house with coach
Reed. After plaintiff Townsend made his point, he vacated the field house leaving his
16. The local police were called by an unknown caller and a Hamilton city police officer
arrived and asked plaintiff Townsend to stand behind his car and wait for him.
17. Seconds later, defendant Caraway arrived and demanded to see plaintiff Townsend's
18. Plaintiff Townsend informed defendant Caraway that he was not required to show his
identification as no crime had been committed nor was plaintiff Townsend suspected of
committing a crime.
19. Defendant Caraway then, in a fit of rage, yelled at plaintiff Townsend proclaiming, "You
have to show me your id. It's the law." He then told plaintiff Townsend that he was
20. While plaintiff Townsend was explaining to defendant Caraway that defendant Caraway
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace
officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a
peace officer who has:
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a
criminal offense.
Randall Townsend
v.
County of Hamilton et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 41 of 70 PageID 41
was infringing on his rights, and violating Texas penal code', defendant Caraway
roughly place hand cuffs on plaintiff Townsend's wrists so tight his left hand started
21. Plaintiff Townsend later filed a complaint6 against defendant Caraway who was later
23. Since the complaint had been filed, plaintiff Townsend's has been subjected to
harassment and intimidation from the defendants who commonly drive by his home up
24. On December 12'\ 2014 plaintiff Townsend was traveling to numerous places of
25. One of the places of business that he stopped to make such a donation was a day care
26. Defendant Hall informed plaintiff Townsend that she did not want anything from him
27. After plaintiff Townsend had stopped by two other facilities and made a donation,
defendant Slone, who had been waiting for plaintiff Townsend, followed plaintiff
Townsend for six blocks past his domicile to the First Baptist Church on South Bell St.,
[Action-fo_r_T-re--spas-_]------------Ra-;d_a_ll-~w~-sen_d______________]~age S~fj
l
Hamilton TX.
28. While at the First Baptist Church, co-conspirator Slone wrote a falsified "Notice of
29. The "Notice of Criminal Trespass", hereinafter "Notice", states in all capital letters,
"YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFffiD THAT YOU ARE TRESPASSING. YOU ARE
30. The Notice states the location of the warning occurred at 541 N. Rice, Hamilton TX
when, in fact, it occurred on S. Bell, Hamilton TX 76531, the public street on which the
plaintiff is domiciled.
31. The Notice was given at on the street at the First Baptist Church, Hamilton, Tx.
32. The Notice was signed by co-conspirator Hall contrary to Texas Penal Code 30.05."
33. Plaintiff Townsend visited co-conspirator McGinnis to report the incorrect use of the
Notice, and defendant McGinnis stated falsely that the Notice was used per Texas code 9
although plaintiff did not remain on co-conspirator Hall's property after she asked
7 ExhibitA
8 Texas Penal Code 30.05
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another
without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(I) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(I) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) ''Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
---------------=r:J
9 Exhibit D - Transcript of conversation with Chief of Police Robert McGinnis.
34. Defendant McGinnis stated falsely, "What it's saying is, that she doesn't want you there,
so it's putting you on notice that she doesn't want you there." 10
36. Plaintiff Townsend and his family have undergone months of harassment from
defendants who commonly drive by plaintiffs domicile up to ten times per day.
38. On May sh, 2015, plaintiffTownsend was traveling on Highway 281 south of Hamilton,
39. While driving through a construction zone, plaintiff Townsend exited the travel lane of
Highway 281 and traded places with his wife and sat in the passenger seat.
40. After plaintiff Townsend passed defendants Bewley and Lovell, defendants Bewley and
Lovell followed plaintiff Townsend and passed him and turned around rapidly nearly
41. Defendant Bewley quickly approached plaintiff Townsend's door, and without invitation
or consent, opened it grabbing plaintiff Townsend's arm and forcing plaintiff Townsend
42. Defendant Bewley then forced plaintiff Townsend to place his hands on his conveyance
Randall Townsend
v.
County of Hamilton et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 44 of 70 PageID 44
44. Defendant Lovell then aided in the imprisonment by transporting plaintiff Townsend to
the Hamilton County Jail where he was kept in captivity though no injury had been
45. Defendant Bewley wrote a citation" numbered 021108 exceeding his jurisdiction
47. After defendant Lovell transported plaintiff Townsend to the Hamilton County Jail,
48. Counter defendants Jailer John Doe and Jailer Jane Doe kept counter plaintiff Townsend
in captivity while forcing him to provide finger prints against his will.
49. Defendant Jailer Jane Doe caused an intentional interruption in the power under the
guise of and "exercise" to further punish plaintiff Townsend causing him to have to start
50. Plaintiff Townsend was then taken into a confinement cell with defendant Jailer John
Doe who ordered him to remove his clothing causing plaintiff Townsend mental anguish
and embarrassment.
51. Defendant Jailer John Doe then, under color of law, forced plaintiff Townsend to expose
11 Exhibit C I & C2
12 "For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
because of his exercise of his constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 486 F. 945
53. Plaintiff Townsend has suffered damage to his reputation as a result of the unlawful
actions of defendants.
54. Plaintiff Townsend is now viewed by many as a criminal due to the actions of the co-
56. For that cause of action therefore plaintiff brings his suit.
57. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests relief and judgment against defendants as follows:
58. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as
follows:
60. For SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION $50 per day from the date of issue until such time
as the Notice of Criminal Trespass has been ruled unjust and contrary to Texas Penal
Code 30.05;
61. For THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION $100 per day from the date of the filing of the
complaint by plaintiff until the judgment has been ordered in this court;
I
Action for Trespass
L ________________ _
--
- - - -------
Randall Townsend
v.
County of Hamilton et. al.
----- -
1'"" 9 ofl2
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 46 of 70 PageID 46
64. For SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION $20 per day since the trespass committed in the
65. That the court enter a declaratory judgment ordering the State of Texas, a corporation, to
66. That the court enter a declaratory judgment ordering the Hamilton County to update its
67. That the court enter a declaratory judgment ordering the City of Hamilton, a
corporation, to update its records removing plaintiff Townsend from its jurisdiction;
68. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that defendants have acted contrary to
69. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that defendants actions were in excess of
70. That the court permanently enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs lawful
71. That the court enter a judgment dismissing the citation numbered 021108 brought
72. That the court grant plaintiff such other and further relief as the court deems proper;
75. I declare under penalty of peljury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best
of my lmowledge.
: Ii v..
i i County of Hamilton et. al.
:...................................................L..........___________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _____ _j
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 48 of 70 PageID 48
Randall Townsend
v.
l....,,;.m:
County of Hamilton et. al.
--- -----'
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 49 of 70 PageID 49
Dncke; # ________ _
In the Name and By The AUthority of 'lle
STATE OF TEXAS,COUNTY OF HAMllT(,:-J
THf: UNDERSIGNED, BEING 'CULY SWORN, UPQf\,di$/1-~CJ.. I.)ATf: DEP~SES ANC SAYS:
A.W..
./ __ DAYOI:;f~,.:-c>'-----~---- ..Jzoft::. _ __(:Z~C-~ _ _ _ _:P:!Vr.--
J .,-/
ONTHE_
NAME_:. I t> _.,,; ~ ~_;-: <>1{j(
----:-:':>-.--,;-:-----n~--- ----------y;;rtuDr----
--~-"--"---
:::..:":;'.:li::H
aa ,._ ---
R~ c 0 o DID UNLAWFUll-Y (OP~R:i..Ttj
-c;m-. ..
ST._-~ __ - - - - -
sae: ~e:t n_ c.~i~ ~r Q -:hild Sa~e. : ~-' ;-~ Jiol. A child u:1der ? yeats ole'; less ~han :;' ::>'.
''i.;!.,tio.,<: W ~ti.;)t P.-.~~.::-ngtr 0 A c.-:;:..-:::,-;'7: r. ;,.,, i ~..: ": 0 .,rt!o;m 17
- ---- -------~--r- - ---,-- ---- ---- ------
1. ;..::c.m~T _ ..~~AD ::::.vyF:- l . :1-it~~=FlC J , mr.~_;;:JQ.!JI.OF.Tk-'/.EL
-~~---::=~~~ --~J[,'":u~zrp,v i /~;:,.~) ______L::.'-~-ll:;;. ( _____ - -
r,,, urcl2. si .!\ecl fu he;-~
1tes t:.at he/solc nas just :nd_ P"Sonable d"es be g~our{2~?beli<!!ve, ~nr
that :<,- !lev~, tt~P.
:,:,:;or- r:;:m(:.. ..:'"lvve ccmn'itted th~ o~cn~: ner.-.:n ~et "rth, com~or; _;)a'w dnd a~;?ir,s~ t.'"le peace ~.-'U dig;-,jt-J of f:
~.e ~ '~"";. ..--- !.,.....-/"-~~-~.~:.::-
il-!IS_:J _DAY C r...Y - ' ;n ,/
..__ __ - - - Offu:"<il"5"~n*Me - - - - o<
~
POTENTIAL SURCHARGE
"A conviction of an offens~: under a tnffic law of this
State or political subdivision of this State may result in
the assessment on your driver's license of a surcharge
under the Driver Responsibility Program!'
'
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 51 of 70 PageID 51
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above mentioned and styled cause is
scheduled for JURY SELECTION and JURY TRIAL, in the City of Hamilton Municipal
Court at the City of Hamilton Municipal Court, City Hall, 200 East Main Street,
Hamilton, Texas, the 1'1 day of August, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.
Court Clerk
*Notice: To request a continuance to reset the above court date, a written Motion for
Continuance stating the reason (good cause) for the continuance must be filed with this
Court 72 hours prior to the time and date of above court date. Failure to comply with
this notice requirement may result in your motion for continuance being denied.
Filing a continuance is not an automatic reset. All requests must be approved by the
Judge. Phone calls will not reset your court date.
enc/complaint
ExtfrtJt~"'
CaseE.z_- (_t-~tt-I( Document
4:16-cv-00711-A /f;:;::;t:?,AZt/;1
1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 52 of 70 PageID 52
vs CITY OF HAMILTON
RANDALL TODD TOWNSEND HAMILTON COUNTY, TEXAS
I, the undersigned affiant, do solemnly swear that I have good reason and do believe that
RANDALL TODD TOWNSEND, hereinafter called the Defendant, on or about 02/04/2016,
and before the making and filing ofthis complaint, while within the territorial limits of the City
of Hamilton, and the State of Texas, at or near MAIN AND RAILROAD, did unlawfully operate
a motor vehicle on a public highway after hisJher driver's license was canceled and another was
not reissued, during a period that the Defendant's driver's license was suspended or revoked
under any law of the State of Texas that prohibited the Defendant from obtaining a driver's
license in violation of Sections 521.457(a) and (e) of the Transportation Code; after renewal of
the Defendant's driver's license has been denied under any law of the State of Texas, if the
Defendant does not have a driver's license subsequently issued under Chapter 521,
Transportation Code.
cf
. 0
Sworn antsubscri~dbefore me by Beccy Rowe a credible person, this =; -
,) day of
C1'l!t.u (l{JL/ , 20 I 0 .
I
RANDALLTODDTOWNSEND
v.
C:CD '};
,_,._ . . !,
STATE OF TEXAS CAUSE# CV04615
HAMILTON COUNTY
CITY OF HAMILTON
JUSTIN CARAWAY
KENNETH LOVELL WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORUM NOBIS
I. THE COURT COMES NOW, TO review the facts, record, and process resulting in the
SUMMARY
2. On the s day of August, 2015 this court issued and order denying defendants motion to
3. The order also ordered that the hearing requested by defendants be removed from the
schedule and ordered the court administrator and magistrate make no further attempts at
4. That order included an order to show just cause why said order was invalid.
5. None of the parties to the actions brought before this court have shown just cause why
6. The court then issued a fmal judgment on August 18'\ 2015 for the causes of action
The purpose of this writ is to restore the orderly decorum of the court and to correct the
defective impromptu process and usurpation oflegislative and court powers taken by the
8. This court has great admiration for the magistrates. Their training, experience and
wisdom are of great value in guiding this court toward a just resolution of issues.
9. But, we are mindful of the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson when he said, "We all know
that permanent judges acquire and esprit de corps; that, being known, they are liable to
be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party,
decision of cross and pile' than to that of a judge biased to one side."2
10. It is, in part, with that inspiration that this court is established as a court ofrecord. 3
1 Cross and pile: a coin flip.
2 Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Amoux, 1789. Papers, 15:283
3 There shall be established in each county in this State a CoiDlty Court, which shall be a court of record; - Texas
Constitution, Article 5 Section 15
DETAIL
I. Judicial cognizance
I. Judicial Cognizance
12. This court takes judicial cognizance of and decrees the following:
bound to act without having it proved in evidence. [Black's Law Dictionary, sot. Edition,
page 760.]
14. The people of Texas do not waive their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them being
the sovereigns who ordained and established the Constitution for the Texas state. 4
15. Two distinguishing and critical characteristics of a court of record are; A judicial
tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it, AND Proceeding according to the course of
common law.
16. On the 2nd day of September, 2015, the magistrate, without leave of court, issued an
17. Magistrate Robertson has not filed an action against counterclaimant Townsend.
4 Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State ofTexas, do ordain and establish this
Constitution. -Texas Constitution Preamble
GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments
are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of
subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform
19....at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the
sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern
but themselves ..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall419, 454, I LEd 440, 455
20. The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.
(American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed.
21. The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the
rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4
Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 lOC Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3,
228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.)
22. A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the
eye of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute
justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.l86) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is
23. The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.]
24. The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
under the name of local practice. [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24. J
25. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]
26. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
27. That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully
belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new state, to be called the
said republic ... The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, v.5, pp.
797-798,
28. Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the
people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen
by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S.
449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162,22 L.Ed.
29. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding. [Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.]
30. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns
with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page
318.]
31. COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its
authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose
of hearing and determining issues oflaw and fact regarding legal rights and alleged
violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its
powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful
32. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics,
person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App.
220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,
Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]
B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App.
220, 175 S. W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,
Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]
C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory
and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga.,
229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383;
The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v.
U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E.
E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, ll7 N.E. 229, 23l.J[Black's
33 ....our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our
land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgment in all their
points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law.... [Confirmatio Cartarum,
Bar Foundation.]
34. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any
holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. Magna Carta, Article 34.
35. A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A
judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the
judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that
they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testifY voluntarily
as a character witness.6
36. A. The following persons shall comply with all provisions of this Code.
(1) above. 7
37. Trespass. Any misfeasance or act of one man whereby another is injuriously treated or
damnified. 3 Bl. Comm. 208 An injury or misfeasance to the person, or rights of another
person, done with force and violence, either actual or implied in law. s
38. Trespass. In its more limited and ordinary sense, it signifies an injury committed with
violence, and this violence may be either actual or implied; and the law will imply
39. "Inferior courts" are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose
proceedings are not according to the course of the common law." Ex Parte Kearny, 55
Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652; Criminal courts proceed according to statutory
law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and
admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to
statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it
is an inferior court.
court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. "The judgment of a court of
record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of
this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end
to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203.
u.
Findings of Fact, Discussion and Conclusion of Law
41. The records show the plaintiff Townsend filed an action against defendants named
herein;
42. The record shows that the above entitled court of record concluded the issues of the
court and issued an order in favor of the plaintiff on the 18th day of August, 20 15;
43. The record shows that the magistrate assumed the duties of the tribunal without leave of
court, and issued his own order on the 2nd day of September, 2015 after a hearing that
had been ordered by this court to be removed from the calender overturning the court's
order without leave of court and without any party of the action showing just cause why
44. The record shows that the clerk accepted for the record an order entitled FINAL
JUDGMENT and filed September 2nd, 2015 from an officer of the court not authorized
45. The record shows that defendants moved this court to dismiss plaintiff's action against
them citing code foreign to this court of record and said motion was denied by the court.
46. The genius of a court of record is not to be undermined. It is the birthright of every
American to settle issues in a court of record, if he so chooses. That choice has been
made in this matter, and has been so stated in the first paragraph in this action. Further,
Article 5, Section 15, mandates that there shall be in each county a court ofrecord. 10
47. The magistrate is a person appointed or elected to perform ministerial service in a court
of record 11 because all judicial functions in a court of record are reserved to the tribunal,
48. The magistrate of this court has usurped the independent powers of the tribunal of this
court of record by making, under color of law, discretionary judgments which are
reserved to and should have been made by the tribunal independently of the person of
49. On May 28'\ 2015 Randall Todd Townsend filed a claim consisting of Actions for
Trespass and Actions for Trespass on the Case for damages. The opening sentence
50. Nowhere did the magistrate object to the plaintiff being a people of Texas. Nor did the
51. At no time did any of the defendants object to the court being a court of record.
52. It is the design of our system of jurisprudence that conrts have no jurisdiction until a
party comes forth and declares a cause needing resolution. The particular jurisdiction
10 There shall be established in each county in this State a County Coutt, which shall be a court of record; Texas
Constitution, Article 5 Section 15
II Official's duty is "ministerial" when it is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty
arising from fixed and designated filets. (Long v. Seabrook, 260 S.C. 562, 197 S.E. 2d 659, 662; Black's Law
Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 899}
12 One characteristic of a court of record: A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of
the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo. App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex
parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689]
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
may be administrative, at law, in equity, or in any of many other formats. In this case the
jurisdiction is at law in a court of record under the sovereign authority of one of the
people.
53. It is essential to understand what are a sovereign, a magistrate, a court, and a court of
record.
55. Who is the sovereign? It is the people either in plural 14 or in the singular capacity. 15 In
singular capacity in this case, it is Randall Todd Townsend, one of the people as
contemplated in the Constitution for The United States of America and the Texas
Constitution of 1876.
56. Texas, the State of Texas and the United States of America have no general sovereignty.
people without diminishment. 16 When a state attempted to diminish one's rights, it was
determined that the state could not diminish rights of the people. 17
57. It is by the prerogative of the sovereign18 whether and how a court is authorized to
proceed. In this case, the chosen form of the court is that of a court of record.
58. A qualifying feature of a court of record is that the tribunal is independent of the
59. The magistrate is a person appointed or elected to perform ministerial service in a court
of record20 His service is ministerial because all judicial functions in a court of record
are reserved to the tribunal, and, by definition of a court of record, that tribunal must be
independent of the magistrate. The non-judicial functions are "ministerial" because they
are absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of specific duties
60. THE COURT, HAVING REVIEWED THE THE FACTS, THE RECORD, AND THE
PROCESS BY WHICH THE RULING WAS ISSUED, and finding that the magistrate
rendered and wrote rulings without leave of court; and finding that the orderly decorum
of the court was replaced by defective impromptu process and usurpation oflegislative
61. And, finding that the clerk of the court improperly accepted for filing an order from a
62. And, desiring that fair justice be served for all parties, defendants, as well as plaintiff,
63. NOW THEREFORE THE COURT issues this WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM
64. THE COURT HEREBY IMPEACHES AND RESCINDS the order titled FINAL
JUDGMENT filed September 2d, 2015, citing codes foreign to this court and a copy of
65. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that any further rogue
interference with court procedures by any officer of this court including the magistrate,
court administrator or clerk will be a contempt of the court and perpetrators will be held
66. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the original judgment of
this court of record filed on August 181h, 2015 be reinstated as written with the time to
show cause having passed the 30 days allowed in said order on September 241h, 2015,
the date the latest defendant was served a copy of the JUDGMENT.
67. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED the magistrate and the
defendants are hereby invited to file and serve on all other interested parties and
magistrate a brief no later than October 201h, 2015 to show cause to this court why this
order is not valid or should be modified. There will be no oral argument. The court,
mindful of the rights of the parties and the impornmce of fair play, willlibemlly construe
68. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this is the final judgment
that disposes of all claims and causes of action by and against all parties herein and aU
defendants a.re ordered to pay plaintiff damages as decreed in the ruling filed on August
18"', 2015.
THE COURT
Brandi Graham
1108 S Rice St.
Hamilton, TX 76531
Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 2:33:48 PM. The video is 38 seconds long.
BR(Becci Rowe, Municipal Court Clerk and the Police Secretary)
RT(Randall Townsend)
RT: Hi, yea, I need to make sure the Chief of Police gets this paperwork He said he was unaware of
this one that I filed. (Handed BR the Hamilton District Court Cause# CV04615, Filed 21 September,
2015).
BR: OK
RT: That's his copy, Thank You.
The END.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 69 of 70 PageID 69
Created Monday April4'h, 2016 at 10:05.18AM. The video is 1 minute and 17 seconds long.
BR(Becci Rowe, Municipal Court Clerk and the Police Secretary)
RT(Randall Townsend)
(C) Attomeys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Numbe1) Attorneys (If Know11)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X"inOneBoxOnlyJ III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" tn"One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases OnM and One Box for Defendant)
01 U.S. Government 0 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff {U.S. Government Not a Party) Citi1.cn of This State 0 I 0 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 04
of Business In This State
~2 U.S. Government
Defendant
04 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)
Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State
0 5 0 5
0 II 0 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal28 USC !58 a 375 False Claims Act
0 120 Marine 310 Airplane 0 365 Personal Injury - ofPropcrty21 USC881 423 Withdrawal 0 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
0 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 usc 157 3729(a))
0 140 Negotiable Instrument 0 367 Health Care/
f.~~\\!J~~~iil:!iii!!!liil~ 00
Liability
400 State Reapportionment
1
0 150 ~cc~:";;':;;"';,~'~,~;':'/;':;;~~~
320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical 4J0Antitrust
Slander Pcrsonallnj1lr)' 0 430 Banks and Banking
0 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 0 450 Commerce
0 152 Recovery ofDefa\Jltcd Liability 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 460 Deportation
PERS~~~~~YPROPERTY ~~!'~;L,;~.!'.t'~~!!~!JJll!ft~~~~ ~
Smdent Loans 0 340Marine Injury Product !fij!iiliil~ 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ''' '., ! ;' Corrupt Organimtions
0 153 RccovcryofOverpayment 0 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran's Benefit~ 0 370 Other Fraud M 862 0 490 Cable/Sat TV
0 \60 StOckholders' Suits 355 Motor Vehicle a 37 I Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DJWC/DIWW (405(g)) 0 850 Securities/Commodities!
0 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SS!D Title XVI Exchange
0 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 890 Other StaMory Actions
0 196 Franchise 0 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 0 891 Agricultural Acts
Product Liability Leave Act 0 893 Environmental Matters
"'ij~~illJ~~fE]illii!ii)]~~;~
~
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement li!l1!i!J~~~~~gj!i'j~'~i;j;~;' 0 895 ~~dom ofinfonnation
0 Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 0 896 Arbitration
0 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee 0 899 Administrative Procedure
0 230 Rent Lca~e & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate Act/Review or Appeal of
0 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence Agency Decision
0 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 Genera! 950 Constitutionality of
0 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities
Employment
535 Death Penahy
Other:
;;,:,~!!l'"''' State Statutes
446 Amer. w/Disabilities 540 Mandamus & 01her 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
'pt. 1 Original 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict 0 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation- Litigation~
(.~peci. ') Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do rwt citejurisdictimwl statutes U11/i:ss diversity):
RECEIPT#
-----
AMOUNT
--------
APPLYING TFP
---
JUDGE
------ MAG. JUDGE