1 Your name
2 Your address
[City, ST ZIP Code]
3
5
[Court name]
7 [Plaintiff's name] , Case No.: [Number]
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
vs.
11 [Defendant's Name] ,
12 NOTICE OF PETITION
Defendant WRIT OF CERTIORARI
13 WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WRIT OF PROHIBITION
14
15
16
WRIT OF CERTIORARI JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FACTS
17
18
19 1. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT IS A
20
CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION AGENCY WHO HAS INITIATED
21
THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEIZURE OF PROPERTY BY ISSUING
22
23 ADMINISTRATIVE INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDERS THAT ARE
24
NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
25
26
notice of petition
-1
1 THAT IS SECURED UNDER STATE AND U.S. CONSTITUTIONS,
2
THEREFORE THE INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDERS ARE
3
4 WITHOUT SIGNATURE BY A JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND VOID
5 FOR BEING REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION AS PRESCRIBED
6
BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN MATTER
7
8 MARBURY V MADISON 1803.
9 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FACT THAT A STATE CHILD SUPPORT
10
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS WITHOUT JUDICIAL POWERS AND IT
11
12
CANNOT SEIZE OR RESTRAIN LIBERTIES OR SEIZE PROPERTY
13 FROM PEOPLE WITH RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTYAND PROPERTY
14
AS SECURED BY STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS.
15
16
3. IT IS A FACT BEFORE THE COURT THAT DUE PROCESS UNDER 5TH
17 AND 14TH AMENDMENTS REQUIRES A CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
18
TO PETITION A COURT OF LAW TO INITIATE COLLECTIONS
19
20
WHEN IT HAS EVIDENCE OF NONCOMPLIANCE TO A DEBT
21 AGREEMENT.
22
23
24
25
26
notice of petition
-2
1 4. IT IS A FACT BEFORE THE COURT THAT IF THE CHILD SUPPORT
2
AGENCY WISHES TO SEIZE PROPERTY IT MUST PETITION A
3
4 COURT LIKE ANY OTHER AGRIEVED PARTY.
5 5. THE RESPONDENT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO PERFORM A
6
NON-DISCRETIONARY ACT OF REFUSING TO PROVIDE
7
8 DISCOVERY OF A DEBT AGREEMENT, A JUDGMENT OF PEERS OR
9 WARRANT UNDER THE 4TH AMENDMENT, AS REQUIRED BY DUE
10
PROCESS THE LAW OF THE LAND. PLEASE SEE MEMORANDUM
11
12
OF LAWS IN SUPPORT.
13 WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE
14
DISCOVERY EVIDENCE
15
16 1. THE UNDERSIGNED HAS DEMANDED DISCOVERY EVIDENCE BY
17
SENDING AN AFFIDAVIT TO RESPONDENT TO VALIDATE AN
18
ALLEGED DEBT BY PROVIDING A TRUE COPY OF A DEBT
19
20 AGREEMENT OR UNDERTAKING.
21 2. THE UNDERSIGNED HAS DEMANDED DISCOVERY EVIDENCE
22
AND A TRUE COPY OF A COURT ORDER (SEE EXHIBIT MARKED
23
24
25
26
notice of petition
-3
1 AS #1) AUTHORIZING THE SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY OWNED
2
BY THE UNDERSIGNED.
3
4 3. THE UNDERSIGNED UNDERSTANDS THAT HIS PROPERTY CAN
5 ONLY BE SEIZED BY A WARRANT BASED UPON PROBABLE
6
CAUSE OR DEPRIVED BY A JUDGMENT OF PEERS IN
7
8 ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS.
9 4. THE UNDERSIGNED REQUIRES THE COURT TO INTERVENE BY
10
COMPELLING THE RESPONDENT TO BRING TO COURT A
11
12
WARRANT.
13 5. THE UNDERSIGNED REQUIRES THE COURT TO COMPEL THE
14
RESPONDENT TO BRING TO COURT A TRUE COPY OF A
15
16
JUDGMENT OF PEERS ORDERING THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
17 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
18
6. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COURT
19
20
OF APPEALS THE HIGHEST COURT OF NEW YORK HELD THAT
21 PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEPRIVED UNLESS BY A TRIAL BY JURY
22
IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMON LAW RESULTING IN A
23
24
25
26
notice of petition
-4
1 JUDGMENT BY PEERS. PLEASE SEE THE MEMORANDUM OF
2
LAWS IN SUPPORT.
3
5 WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROHIBITING THE SEIZURE OF
6
THE UNDERSIGNED PETITIONER’S PROPERTY
7
8 1. THE UNDERSIGNED PETITIONER REQUIRES THE COURT TO
9
ISSUE WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROHIBITING THE RESPONDENT
10
FROM ANY FURTHER COLLECTION ACTIONS, UNLESS THE
11
12 RESPONDENT HAS DISCOVERY EVIDENCE OF A WARRANT OR
13
JUDGMENT OF PEERS FROM A COURT OF RECORD.
14
2. FEDERAL LAWS AND RIGHTS SECURED BY THE UNITED STATES
15
16 CONSTITUTION ARE ENFORCEABLE IN STATE COURTS AS
17
PRESCRIBED BYTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
18
IN MATTER HOWLETT V ROSE HOLDING THAT FEDERAL LAWS
19
20 ARE APPLICABLE IN STATE COURTS UNDER THE SUPREMACY
21
CLAUSE ARTICLE 6 SECTION 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. “
22
Federal law is enforceable in state courts not because Congress has
23
24 determined that federal courts would otherwise be burdened or that state
25
26
notice of petition
-5
1 courts might provide a more convenient forum — although both might well
2
be true — but because the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it are as
3
4 much laws in the States as laws passed by the state legislature. The
5 Supremacy Clause makes those laws "the supreme Law of the Land," and
6
charges state courts with a coordinate responsibility to enforce that law
7
8 according to their regular modes of procedure. "The laws of the United
9 States are laws in the several States, and just as much binding on the
10
citizens and courts thereof as the State laws are. . . . The two together form
11
12
one system of jurisprudence, which constitutes the law of the land for the
13 State; and the courts of the two jurisdictions are not foreign to each other,
14
nor to be treated by each other as such, but as courts of the same country,
15
16
having jurisdiction partly different and partly concurrent “Howlett v. Rose
17 496 US 356, 110 S. Ct. 2430, 110 L. Ed. 2d 332 - Supreme Court, 1990
18
19
20 FACT BEFORE THIS COURT SUPPORTED BY THE SUPREME COURT
21 OF THE UNITED STATES HELD JUDGMENTS BY NON-JUDICIAL
22
PERSONS ARE VOID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION CORAM NON–
23
24 JUDICE
25
26
notice of petition
-6
1 1. FACT BEFORE THIS COURT, THAT ANY ORDER/JUDGMENT BY A
2
NON-JUDICIAL COURT EMPLOYEE IS VOID CORAM NON-JUDICE
3
4 FOR LACK OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY BEING PRESENT DURING
5 PROCEEDINGS. THE SUPREME COURT IN BURNHAM V SUPERIOR
6
COURT HELD THAT JUDGMENTS BY PERSONS NOT JUDGES IS
7
8 VOID CORAM NON-JUDICE. PLEASE SEE MEMORANDUM OF
9 LAWS IN SUPPORT. "before a person not a judge" — meaning, in effect,
10
that the proceeding in question was not a judicial proceeding because lawful
11
12
judicial authority was not present, and could therefore not yield a
13 judgment” Burnham v. Superior Court 495 U.S. 604 (1990)
14
2. FACT BEFORE THIS COURT, THAT ANY EVIDENCE OF A
15
16
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OR EVIDENCE OR FACTS OF A
17 TRESPASS UPON THE RIGHTS OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
18
REQUIRES THAT THIS COURT MUST ACT WITHOUT DISCRETION
19
20
AND PROVIDE REMEDY BYAPPLYING EQUAL PROTECTION
21 UNDER THE LAW.
22
23
24
25
26
notice of petition
-7
1 NYS COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENT
2
REQUIRING THAT NO MAN OR WOMAN SHALL BE
3
4 DISFRANCHISED, OR DEPRIVED OF ANY OF HIS OR HER RIGHTS
5 AND PRIVILEGES, UNLESS THE MATTER BE ADJUDGED AGAINST
6
HIM OR HER UPON A TRIAL AND ACCORDING TO THE COURSE OF
7
8 COMMON LAW MUST BE HONORED BY ALL COURTS IN THE
9 UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE 4 SECTION 1 FULL FAITH AND
10
CREDIT CLAUSE
11
12
13
THE HIGHEST COURT IN NEW YORK STATE HELD THAT NO
14
15 MEMBER OF THE STATE SHALL BE DISFRANCHISED, OR DEPRIVED OF
16
ANY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, UNLESS THE MATTER BE ADJUDGED
17
AGAINST HIM OR HER UPON TRIAL AND ACCORDING TO THE COURSE
18
19 OF COMMON LAW. THEREFORE, THE OPINION OF THE NYS COURT OF
20
APPEALS IS IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMON LAW BEING UTILIZED
21
22 BEFORE A MAN OR WOMAN SHALL BE DISFRANCHISED, OR
23
DEPRIVED OF ANY OF HIS OR HER RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, UNLESS
24
THE MATTER BE ADJUDGED AGAINST HIM OR HER UPON A TRIAL
25
26
notice of petition
-8
1 AND ACCORDING TO THE COURSE OF COMMON LAW, WHICH IS
2
CONSISTENT WITH THE 7TH AMENDMENT IN CONTROVERSIES OF $20
3
4 AND MORE. WITHOUT A JUDGMENT BY PEERS THE UNDERSIGNED
5
CANNOT BE DISFRANCHISED, OR DEPRIVED OF ANY OF HIS OR HER
6
7
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, UNLESS THE MATTER BE ADJUDGED
8 AGAINST HIM OR HER UPON A TRIAL AND ACCORDING TO THE
9
COURSE OF COMMON LAW AND NOT BY STATE STATUTORY LAWS
10
11 WHICH VIOLATE THE 14TH AMENDMENT BY ALLOWING FOR
12
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT A TRIAL BY JURY. THE
13
UNDERSIGNED DID NOT WAIVE THESE RIGHTS NOR AGREE TO
14
15 STATUTORY LAWS DEPRIVING RIGHTS SECURED BY THE STATE AND
16
U.S. CONSTITUTIONS.
17
18 "The meaning of the section then seems to be, that no member of the state shall be
19
disfranchised, or deprived of any of his rights and privileges, unless the matter be
20
adjudged against him upon trial and according to the course of the common law.
21
22 It must be ascertained judicially that he has forfeited his privileges, or that some
23 one else has a superior title to the property he possesses, before either of them can
24
be taken from him" (Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill 140, 146; see, also, Wynehamer v.
25
26
notice of petition
-9
1 People, 13 N.Y. 378, 394 (1856)). Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc, 45 N.Y.2d
2
152, 161, 379 N.E.2d 1169, 1174, 408 N.Y.S.2d 39, 44 (1978).
3
5 EVIDENCE
6
1. EXHIBIT MARKED # 1 TRUE COPY OF VALIDATION OF DEBT
7
8 AFFIDAVIT DEMANDING PROOF OF A DEBT, PROOF OF AN
9
AGREEMENT OF SERVICES, AND PROOF OF A COURT ORDER
10
FROM A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.
11
12 2. EXHIBIT MARKED # 2 TRUE COPY OF RESPONSE FROM CHILD
13
SUPPORT AGENCY [IF NO RESPONSE, NO EVIDENCE]
14
15
16
Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].
17
18
19
Your NAME
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
notice of petition
- 10
