It's time to update my 9 month ongoing court fight. As of the 24th of February the district state court had a hearing for dismissal requested by the Minnesota Attorney Generals office. The State entered my property with an ex parte order and shot on sight all my sheep supposedly exposed to scrapie and did a rectal biopsy on the remaining sheep.
For denial of right to redress of grievances and denial of right to show cause why ex parte should be denied, I am suing as a counter plaintiff in the ex parte order.
A week before the hearing of the 24th i entered paper work into the court redefining the court as a court of record which proceeds under the course of common law. It is the birth right of every American to be heard in a court of record, and is the gateway to the 7th amendment.
I freaked out the Attorney from the Attorney Generals office, she broke down and begged the judge to dismiss the case, stating I was terrorising the State employees with my pleading. They are now worried they may lose every thing to me.
In the paper work I am filling today I am writing an order firing the judge and denying the dismissal of this case. In a court of record there is no judge but a magistrate, the tribunal is not in the magistrate but in the plaintiff an jury. A court of record is the highest court in the land and no other court can second guess an order of this court. It can only be done by writ of error after the case has concluded, and if no error is evident not even the supreme court can overturn it's judgement.
All agents best be worried because now the my lose every thing they own to me, below is what I filed on the court.
COUNTY OF LYON FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
February 17, 2016
Diane Sutton, Kris petrini,
William Hartman,Mike Fier,
Michael Curley,Mark Mather,
John doe 1-20 counterdefendants OBJECTION
COURT OF RECORD
FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Leah Hedman pleadings also state I am not entitled to continue to an type of trial in this matter, the Supreme court disagrees in: FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY-THREE CANS OF FROZEN EGG PRODUCT, H. J. Keith Company, Claimant, Appt and Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 226 U.S. 172 It is true that the right of trial by jury is preserved, where demanded by either party. We think Congress inserted this provision with a view to removing any question as to the constitutionality of the act. It was held under the confiscation acts, although no such specific provision is contained, that the action provided was one at common law, with a right to trial by jury. The 7th Amendment to the Constitution preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law involving more than $20, and provides that no fact tried by a jury shall be reviewed otherwise than according to the rules of the common law. Having in mind these provisions, and, as well, the construction of the previous acts, we think it was the purpose of Congress to leave no doubt as to the right of trial by jury in the law proceeding for condemnation which the act intended to provide.
As described above, this Court of Record is a Court of a sovereign, no Judge, State or State Attorney can remove this Court of Record when civil rights are raised as defined in: Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)p. 521Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears [404 U.S. 519, 521] "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 -46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).
Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Another Supreme Court Ruling verifies I the Counter plaintiff have a right to proceed in a Court of record under the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment: Callan v. Wilson 127 U.S. 540 (1888 "The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment) shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not
US Constitution, Article 4 section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Republican Government defined: one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, in whom those powers are specially delegated Blacks law 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] edition 309; In re Duncan 139 US 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L. ED. 219; Minor v Happersett, 21 Wall. 175, 22 L. ED. 627.
The preamble to the US Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insuredomestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In the preamble it clearly states we the people ordained and established the US Constitution for the United States of America. The Us Constitution was not created to bid me or any people to any document, it was created to bid down government from intruding in our everyday lives.
Preamble to the bill of prohibitions of US Constitution: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent
In this Court of Record under the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment I will be suing under the Authority of US 42 § 1983 which is for civil rights violations and property rights, as in: Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. 526 U.S. 687 (1999) p. 709 The Seventh Amendment thus applies not onlyto common-law causes of action but also to statutory causes of action" 'analogous to common-law causes of action ordinarily decided in English law courts in the late 18th century, as opposed to those customarily heard by courts of equity or admiralty.'" Feltner, supra, at 348 (quoting Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 42 (1989)); accord, Curtis, supra, at 193. Del Monte Dunes brought this suit pursuant to § 1983 to vindicate its constitutional rights. We hold that a § 1983 suit seeking legal relief is an action at law within the meaning of the Seventh Amendment. JUSTICE SCALIA'S opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment presents a comprehensive and convincing analysis of the historical and constitutional reasons for this conclusion. We agree with his analysis and conclusion.
The above case shows the Government had no sovereignty when they intruded into the lives of the people. The City lost under the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment and the Supreme Court could not undue the judgment of the jury.
For denial of right to redress of grievances and denial of right to show cause why ex parte should be denied, I am suing as a counter plaintiff in the ex parte order.
A week before the hearing of the 24th i entered paper work into the court redefining the court as a court of record which proceeds under the course of common law. It is the birth right of every American to be heard in a court of record, and is the gateway to the 7th amendment.
I freaked out the Attorney from the Attorney Generals office, she broke down and begged the judge to dismiss the case, stating I was terrorising the State employees with my pleading. They are now worried they may lose every thing to me.
In the paper work I am filling today I am writing an order firing the judge and denying the dismissal of this case. In a court of record there is no judge but a magistrate, the tribunal is not in the magistrate but in the plaintiff an jury. A court of record is the highest court in the land and no other court can second guess an order of this court. It can only be done by writ of error after the case has concluded, and if no error is evident not even the supreme court can overturn it's judgement.
All agents best be worried because now the my lose every thing they own to me, below is what I filed on the court.
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF LYON FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case Type: Civil
File No
State of Minnesota, Plaintiff Judge: Bush
February 17, 2016
VS
No Gmo's Defendant
No Gmo's Counter- Plaintiff
VS
State of Minnesota, Leah Percich Hedman,
Diane Sutton, Kris petrini,
William Hartman,Mike Fier,
Michael Curley,Mark Mather,
John doe 1-20 counterdefendants OBJECTION
COURT OF RECORD
FEDERAL JURISDICTION
In regards to pleading received Dec. 7[SUP]Th[/SUP] 2015
OBJECTION
Comes now, No Gmo's (sui Juris) one of the people, object to Leah Hedman using any affidavit by William Hartman. Unless William Hartman gets on the witness stand and swears under treat of perjury that he has first hand knowledge, his affidavit is just hearsay(1), and must be stricken from the record. Page 1 of 7
I object to Leah Hedman stating that I a pro se litigate pleadings must be held to the same standards of an Attorney. The Supreme Court disagrees in: Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)p. 521 We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears [404 U.S. 519, 521] "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.Leah Hedman pleadings also state I am not entitled to continue to an type of trial in this matter, the Supreme court disagrees in: FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY-THREE CANS OF FROZEN EGG PRODUCT, H. J. Keith Company, Claimant, Appt and Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 226 U.S. 172 It is true that the right of trial by jury is preserved, where demanded by either party. We think Congress inserted this provision with a view to removing any question as to the constitutionality of the act. It was held under the confiscation acts, although no such specific provision is contained, that the action provided was one at common law, with a right to trial by jury. The 7th Amendment to the Constitution preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law involving more than $20, and provides that no fact tried by a jury shall be reviewed otherwise than according to the rules of the common law. Having in mind these provisions, and, as well, the construction of the previous acts, we think it was the purpose of Congress to leave no doubt as to the right of trial by jury in the law proceeding for condemnation which the act intended to provide.
COURT OF RECORD (2)
As defined in my previous pleading, I invoked a court of record as defined in Article Three of our Constitution for the united States of America, as a Judicial court of Law in
Page 2 of 7
our Judicial Branch of government, while in session under the rules of the Common Law as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787(3). In a Court(4) of Record there is no Judge, but a magistrate, the judiciary tribunal (plaintiff and jury) are independent of the magistrate. This court of record is the one Supreme court as which is now styled as Superior court was created by constitutional convention on Sept. 17[SUP]th [/SUP]1787, and is not to be confused with the United States Supreme Court which was created by congress in 1789 as an inferior court to my one supreme court(5) (superior court). Any reference back to the original Judiciary Acts of Congress or other historical documents will confirm that this is what was described by the phrase “one supreme court” in Article Three of the original Constitution for the United States of America. See Callan v. Wilson, 127 US 540 (1888) for authority that Article Three of the United States Constitution provides for and mandates common law jurisdiction and venue.
The US Supreme Court agrees in:443 Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States of America; 226 US 172 (1912) Page 226 "Exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within in their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it, and . . . also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States."
Page 3 of 7
As defined in the Blacks Law dictionary a Court is an agency of the Sovereign, created by and under the authority of the Sovereign for hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law (see footnote 4). My Court of Record has the authority to overturn any Judgment of any Judge acting illegally through a writ of error without appeal to another court.
There is no appeal out of a Court of Record, not even the US Supreme Court can review the one superior court as in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte(6).
As described above, this Court of Record is a Court of a sovereign, no Judge, State or State Attorney can remove this Court of Record when civil rights are raised as defined in: Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)p. 521Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears [404 U.S. 519, 521] "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 -46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).
Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Another Supreme Court Ruling verifies I the Counter plaintiff have a right to proceed in a Court of record under the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment: Callan v. Wilson 127 U.S. 540 (1888 "The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment) shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not
Page 4 of 7
committed within any state, then the trial shall be at such place or places as the legislature may direct." The object of thus amending the section, Mr. Madison says, was "to provide for trial by jury of offenses committed out of any state." 3 Madison Papers, 144. In Reynolds v. United States,98 U. S. 154, it was taken for granted that the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution secured to the people of the territories the right of trial by jury in criminal prosecutions, and it had been previously held in Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437, 52 U. S. 460, that the Seventh Amendment secured to them a like right in civil actions at common law. We cannot think that the people of this District have in that regard less rights than those accorded to the people of the territories of the United States. FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Since there are two Federal agents involved in this case, two more will be added, this State Court does not have Jurisdiction, therefor I am invoking the Savings to Suitor Clause, 28 U.S. Code § 1333(7), which gives a State Court Jurisdiction over violations of Federal rights. This clause gives the plaintiff the right to sue the Federal and State Governments in State Court.
CONCLUSION
I the counter plaintiff have always maintained I was sovereign and not subject to State Statutes as in Spooner v. McConnell(8). Even the federal Government agrees in the following Supreme Court ruling: United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600 (1941)Page 605 ”The Government admits that often the word "person" is used in such a sense as not to include the sovereign, but urges that, where, as in the present instance, its wider application is consistent with, and tends to effectuate, the public policy evidenced by the statute, the term should be held to embrace the Government.”
Page 5 of 7
The above court case clearly states a sovereign is not subject to any Government Statutes, therefor, the State and Federal agents had no authority whatever to enter my land in the first place and there was never any Jurisdiction over me or property without a contract, I maintained this from the very beginning.
The State of Minnesota promised when the State was allowed to become part of the United States that it would maintain a Republican form of government.
Republican Government defined: one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, in whom those powers are specially delegated Blacks law 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] edition 309; In re Duncan 139 US 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L. ED. 219; Minor v Happersett, 21 Wall. 175, 22 L. ED. 627.
The preamble to the US Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insuredomestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In the preamble it clearly states we the people ordained and established the US Constitution for the United States of America. The Us Constitution was not created to bid me or any people to any document, it was created to bid down government from intruding in our everyday lives.
Preamble to the bill of prohibitions of US Constitution: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent
Page 6 of 7
The US Congress and States at the time was worried that the Government would get too abusive unless more restrictions were not in place. The two preambles clearly shows Government was always to be a servant and not a master.In this Court of Record under the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment I will be suing under the Authority of US 42 § 1983 which is for civil rights violations and property rights, as in: Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. 526 U.S. 687 (1999) p. 709 The Seventh Amendment thus applies not onlyto common-law causes of action but also to statutory causes of action" 'analogous to common-law causes of action ordinarily decided in English law courts in the late 18th century, as opposed to those customarily heard by courts of equity or admiralty.'" Feltner, supra, at 348 (quoting Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 42 (1989)); accord, Curtis, supra, at 193. Del Monte Dunes brought this suit pursuant to § 1983 to vindicate its constitutional rights. We hold that a § 1983 suit seeking legal relief is an action at law within the meaning of the Seventh Amendment. JUSTICE SCALIA'S opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment presents a comprehensive and convincing analysis of the historical and constitutional reasons for this conclusion. We agree with his analysis and conclusion.
The above case shows the Government had no sovereignty when they intruded into the lives of the people. The City lost under the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment and the Supreme Court could not undue the judgment of the jury.
All rights reserved, I surrender no Authority to this court.
Date filed January 18[SUP]th[/SUP] , 2016
sign agent
No GMO's (sui juris)
Page 7 of 7
Endnotes
1. Hearsay rule: The rule that no assertion as testimony can be received unless it is or has been open to test by cross examination or an opportunity for cross examination.
2. A COURT OF RECORD. "A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it ... proceeding according to the course of common law". [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. 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]
3. Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and, should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And, in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed..
4. 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 law 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 authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067,1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]
5. SUPERIOR AND INFERIOR COURTS: The former being courts of general original jurisdiction in the first instance, and which exercise a control or supervision over a system of lower courts, either by appeal, error or certiorari: the latter being courts of small or restricted jurisdiction and subject to the review or correction of higher courts. Sometimes the former term is used to denote a particular group or system of courts of high powers and all others are called “inferior courts”.
To constitute a court a superior court as to any class of actions, within the common-law meaning of that term, it's jurisdiction of such actions must be unconditional, so that the only requisite to enable the court to take cognizance of them is the acquisition of jurisdiction of the person of the parties. Simons v, De Barre, 4 Bosw., NY,. 547. Blacks Law dictionary 4[SUP]th[/SUP] edition p. 426
6. COMMON LAW REMEDY: The phrase within the meaning of U.S. judicial code 1911 § 259 (Act March 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 1911, e. 231, 36 stat. 1100, see historical and revision notes under 28 U.S. Code § 1333, was not limited in remedies of common law courts, but embraced all methods of enforcing rights and redressing injuries known to common or statutory law. Kennerson v. Thomas Towboat Co. 89 conn. 367, 94 A. 372, 375, L.R.A. 1916A, 436. See also Northern Pacific S.S. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Commission of California, 174, CAL. 346, 163 P. 199, 202. See notes of decision under 28 U.S. Code § 1333. Blacks Law dictionary 4[SUP]th[/SUP] edition p. 347
7. Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939 @ 943 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.
8. Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939 @ 943 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.
