Preview
CoN DAD WH & WN
Ny MY NY NK N N NY ND YN SF FP Yr SF et FER Sts
ow AA ke wWwNH KF ODO we IN DH FF WN KF
Mark-Douglas: Stokes
One of the People of Texas
:Melinda-Kay: Stokes
One of the People of Texas
5317 Rustic Trail
Colleyville, Texas [76034]
IN THE 96th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
STATE OF TEXAS
Plaintiffs }
Mark Douglas Stokes and
Melinda Kay Stokes Cause # 096 246012 10
Vs
Michael W. Perry, and/or his successor,
individually, and in his official capacity
as CEO of INDYMAC MORTGAGE
SERVICES, an ens legis being used to
conceal fraud,
Terry Laughlin, and/or his successor, )
individually, and in his official capacity)
as President & CEO of ONEWES )
BANK, an ens legis being used to
)
)
)
}
conceal fraud,
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, etal, an ens
legis being used to conceal fraud
(trustee unknown at this time),
Brendetta A, Scott, and/or their = QA.
successors, individually, and in their o f= +
official capacities as officers of 22 5 =
HUGHES, WATTERS, & S> 8 8
ASKANASE, L.L.P an ens legis being BYP. 2a
used to conceal fraud, and unnamed Sp OF =
John Does 1-10,000 2S of
gE BO
Defendants SIT FO =
So wp a
ma F<
AFFIDAVIT AND EXHIBITS 001 THROUGH 00s”
Comes now :Mark-Douglas: Stokes, one of the people in this court of record, Plaintiff,
makes the following Declaration in support of the law and his rights there under.
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
1oon DA nH FF WN
mo MN NY NY N NR NK SF Fe SP GF FESR tS
RBNRBRBR BHR FSO wOANAH FEY N HK SO
EXHIBIT 001 ACCEPTANCE OF OATHS OF OFFICE AND
CONSTITUTIONS, CONTRACT AND WAIVER OF TORT
Hebrews 6:16 instructs that an oath between men is the end of all strife. For this reason
and cause I request Clarity and Information to exhibit evidence and facts that:
1) the proper Oath was given; and,
2) that the Official administering said Oath was properly sworn before administering said
Oath; and,
3) that said Oath is properly recorded, filed, and readily available for inspection and
verification to all; and,
4) that said Oath was to the Original Organic Constitution for the United States of
America, dated 1789, and not to the corporate charter titled Constitution of the United
States, dated 1871 (Act of 1871).
The following Affidavit of "Notice for Acceptance of Oaths of Office and
Constitutions" is made explicitly under reserve and without recourse.
DEFINITIONS;
AKA is; Also Known As
DBA is; Doing Business As
Affiant is; :Mark-Douglas: Stokes
Office Holder is; Judge Jeff Walker DBA, JEFF WALKER, acting as Judge
Office Holder is; Defendants and attorneys acting as counsel for Defendants
For the record, in the name of God Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth,
Amen. I, :Mark-Douglas: Stokes, hereinafter known as Affiant, a Texas Sovereign Living
Soul without the UNITED STATES, hereby duly NOTICE Judge Jeff Walker, DBA, JEFF
WALKER, acting as Judge, and successors, nominees, assignees, agents, and/or holders of
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
2oo Nn AH F&F WN =
pow re vynnndNDdKeeE TSE CESS
RPNRRRESEK FSO ee AA MH EF KHH = SF
the seat, with this instrument entitled, "Notice for Acceptance of Oaths of Office and
Constitutions" (Constitutions, without question are by-laws. which bind public servants to
service), and hereby duly accept Office Holder(s)'s Oaths of Office, being Office
holder(s)'s open and binding offer of contract to form a firm and binding, private contract
between Office Holder(s) and Affiant. Affiant is pleased that when Office holder(s) said
“so help me God,” that Office Holder(s) invoked the Creator of all that is as Witness to
punish all Liars and breakers of Oaths, that Office Holder(s) promise(d), and is/are bound
by Oaths, which make(s) Office Holder(s)’s "Bond(s)" accessible to Affiant, that Office
Holder(s) would perform all of said promises, including, but not limited to, Office
Holder(s) promise to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America, which
includes protecting all of Affiant's rights. I trust Office Holder(s) will be (an) honorable
man/men and/or woman/women whose Oath(s) is/are his/her/their bond(s), and that Office
Holder(s) will honor said private contract with Affiant, consummated by this notice of
acceptance, by keeping said promises, not allowing any third-party agents, acting without
delegated or regulatory authority, to interfere in Office Holder(s) duty to Affiant.
For the record, Affiant, hereby and herein, explicitly reserves all Affiant's rights
without recourse. Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal. Notice to the Principal is
Notice to the Agent. This “Notice for Acceptance of Oaths of Office and Constitutions” is
issued in accordance with administrative process and as an instrument at contract law; at 3
days, without proper rebuttal signed under penalty of perjury, Affiant and Office Holder(s)
has/have Contract; at 7 days, without proper rebuttal signed under penalty of perjury,
Office Holder(s) is/are in Dishonor; at 10 days, without proper rebuttal signed under
penalty of perjury, Affiant has a Summary Judgment against Office Holder(s), said
summary judgment being: (a) Office Holder(s) will honor Office Holder(s) promises to
uphold all of Affiant's rights and not allow any third-party interference in Office Holder(s)
duty to Affiant, and, (b) Office Holder(s)’s acts committed outside Office Holder(s)’s
‘oaths operate under “color of law” and void Office Holder(s)’s immunity and Office
Holder(s) accept(s) all possible liability, not limited by claims and damages unto Affiant, a
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
3oe NY AUN FF WN =
weer rwy wy nrnnnbdeereeeperrnsgtg
BRR aR SS fF SBC wOAR DAH FH KH FR SO
living soul, in (i) unlawful conversion; (ii) fraud and misrepresentations; (iii)
misrepresentation of agreement; (iv) barratry and other acts of bad faith; and, (v) breach of
good faith and fair dealings. Office Holder(s)’s willful choice to either remain silent, write,
or cause a third party to write an ambiguous or convoluted response intended to mislead or
deceive, or imply authority to represent Office Holder(s)’s interests in this contract,
establishes Office Holder(s)’s unconditional acceptance and tacit approval, nihil dicit, for
the foregoing contract and the foregoing contract will stand as final judgment.
For the record, Office Holder(s) has/have been NOTICED. THIS DOCUMENT
WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND WILL BE USED TO
ESTABLISH AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED
AS EVIDENCE IN ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AT LAW OR EQUITY.
WAIVER OF TORT
Definition of terms:
Waiver of tort. "the election, by an injured party, for purposes of redress, to treat the
facts as establishing an implied contract, which he may enforce, instead of an injury by
fraud or wrong, for the committing of which he may demand damages, compensatory or
exemplary". Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed., Page 1418
Note that it is solely the option (election) of the injured_party whether to apply this
option. The injuring party has nothing to say concerning "Waiver of Tort”.
By Affiant's acceptance of the Oath of Office of Judge Jeff Walker, d/b/a JEFF WALKER,
acting as judge of the 96™ DISTRICT COURT IN THE COUNTY OF TARRANT,
STATE OF TEXAS, which is Office Holder's open and binding offer of contract to form a
firm and binding, private contract between Office Holder and Affiant, this implied contract
comes into full force by the choses in action on Office Holder's part to trespass upon
Affiant's rights and freedoms Office Holder(s) has/have openly sworn to protect. The
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
4wo oN Du FF WN
mw NY NY NY NY N KY KN S| TF er FP SF FS SC Ts
oa AA ek oS &§ SO OQ DHA FW NH = OO
constitution for the united States of America clearly states at Article 1, section 10, "No
state shall...... pass any......Law, impairing the Obligation of Contracts" which has been
upheld in the Supreme Court case of Hale v. Hinkel 201 U.S. 43 (1906) over 1600 times.
By Office Holder's offer and Affiant's acceptance we mutually, willingly, and intentionally
agree to the terms of this implied contract:
1. For each injury by trespass, it is agreed that, so long as the injury remains, payment will
be made upon demand, under "Equality under the Law", as per; Trezevant v. City of
Tampa, $18,000.00 per hour in damages to injured party, in Lawful money of the united
States of America, "gold eagle coins," as articulated in the constitution for the united
States of America, in Article 1, section 8, clause (5) and section 10, clause (1), and,
2. For each injury which remains after seven days, it is agreed that payment will be made
upon demand in the amount of, under "Equality under the Law", as per; Trezevant v. City
of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336, (11th Cir. 1984), $432,000.00 per day in damages to injured
party, in Lawful money of the united States of America, "gold eagle coins," as articulated
in the constitution for the united States of America, in Article 1, section 8, clause (5) and
section 10, clause (1), and,
3. If physical injury or private property damage occurs, it is agreed that payment will be
made upon demand in the amount of ten million ($10,000,000) dollars in Lawful money of
the united States of America, "gold eagle coins," as articulated in the constitution for the
united States of America, in Article 1, section 8, clause (5) and section 10, clause (1) and,
4, This Waiver of tort is enforceable by all lawful means and is agreed that an immediate
lien will attach against the assets, wages and property of Judge Jeff Walker, in favor of:
Mark-Douglas: Stokes. SEE UCC ALL PERSONS, EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS
OPERATING UNDER ORDERS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS who commit injury by
trespass upon me, under color of law, without lawful order and verified assessment, will
cause attachment of this Waiver of Tort. Continued proceeding in trespass shows
acceptance of this Contract and provides Evidence of Office Holder(s) intent to implement
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
5wo worn nun FF WwW N
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the terms Waiver of Tort and affix said lien(s). According to several and various UCC
Regulations, "performance is acceptance."
Point 002. Affiant has no record or evidence that Oaths of office are not required by all
public officials, judges, law enforcement personnel, administrators, and many other
persons who have voluntarily submitted themselves into the duties of said offices/positions
and are given monetary and other benefits for such commitment, as made more explicit in
EXHIBIT 002 - NOTICE OF OATHS REQUIRED, with several Points added.
ADMIT - Office Holders listed in this document admit and agree to the truth that Oaths
are required for positions of public servitude.
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
6oo NAH &F WN
wow RYN YN NN YN SF SF FP SF FST TP rs
RBS & aR BH8S fe Fo wMmNKI DHA FE WKH HK SD
EXHIBIT 002 - NOTICE OF OATHS REQUIRED
According to Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution, "All executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation to support this Constitution..."
Affiant hereby makes explicit NOTICE and DECLARATION of one specific Right
granted to Affiant by way of the Constitution of the United States; that being, the right to
demand all judicial, executive, and legislative officers and agents of the United States
government and all sub-corporate governmental entities give their required Oath to
protect and defend my unalienable rights, given to me by my Creator; that it be duly
recorded and made available to all who may from time to time be, questioned by corporate
entities, or, accused of any infamous crime against society.
Affiant’s acceptance of said "required Oaths" consummates a contract, in fact, and, in
force, between all such entities and Affiant with enforceable and punishable ramifications
should the offering party fail to fully, promptly, and properly comply.
Affiant accepts, as fact, that Affiant is not a party to the Constitution, has sworn no
allegiance to the Constitution, and has no other "constitutional" rights; being a man in the
private sector, a Private Man, without the United States and without United States
territorial and "federal area” overlay jurisdiction.
The APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT required by 5 U.S.C. 3332; the Clerk of that Court
is the designated legal custodian of that mandatory credential, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2906.
See also 28 USC 453.
Point 002A. Affiant has no record or evidence that a proper Oath of Offices is not required
by law, as per; "Applicable statutes are controlling and may declare vacancy to exist
if the person chosen for the office fails to accept or qualify as required by law".
Parker v. Overman, 59 U.S. 137, 15 L.Ed 316.
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
7ow wernt Du F&F WN =
by NN RNR NNN BS Be Be ee ee Be eS
ota AAW PB WH KF BG Be we IND NH FF WHY |
Point 002B. A ffiant has no record or evidence that failure to comply with laws for Oath of
Office will not forfeit their right to office, as per; "Failure to comply with such
provisions will absolutely forfeit the right to office". Brannon v. Perky, 127 W Va 103,
31 SE2d 898, 158 ALR 631.
Point 002C. Affiant has no record or evidence that supposed office is not vacant by reason
of failure to file, as per; "Office is vacant by reason of failure to file a required oath".
Boisvert v. County of Ontario, 395 NYS2d 617.
Point 002D. A ffiant has no record or evidence that filing of Oath of Office must not be
timely, as per; "Failure to timely file oath of office, in accordance with a statute so
requiring, neither notice nor judicial procedure is necessary; the office is
automatically vacant and may be filled as provided by law". Comins v. County of
Delaware, 411 NYS2d 533 (borrowed pursuant to Sister States Doctrine).
Point 002E. A ffiant has no record or evidence that failure to qualify within 60 days is not
an action to vacate an-office, as per; "[an] Act Declaring office vacant and to be filled
as provided by law for failure to qualify within 60 days after beginning of term is
unconstitutional and applies to all officers enumerated and similarly situated”. State
Ex Rel. Stain v. Christensen, 84 U. 185, 25 P.2d 775.
Point 002F. Affiant has no record or evidence that a proper Oath of Office does not apply
to the highest levels of law, as per; "Judges of the Supreme Court subscribe to this
oath when entering upon their duties as justices thereof". Critchlow v. Monson, 102
U. 378, 131 P.2d 794.
Point 002G. Affiant has no record or evidence that a late filing is not TOO LATE, as per;
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
8oD ory HH F&F WN
mb wB NN KN NY N NY SF Ff KF FP YP FB PHF Ss
RBOOog-pnsr Bove FS GC weNA DH BF wWwH FS
"Filing an oath of office after the time prescribed by law is not a compliance with the
law, confers no power to act as a public officer or in a public office and any person
who fails to file his oath of office within the time limits required by law creates an
ipso facto vacancy and such person's acts are void and vitiate any subsequent
proceedings". Parker v, Overman, 59 US. 137, 15 L.Ed 316.
Point 005. Affiants have no record or evidence that A ffiants are not qualified to make
Affidavit and Statement of Claims as listed in EXHIBIT 003 - NOTICE OF AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT OF ACCEPTANCE OF OATHS.
ADMIT - Office Holders listed in this document admit to the truth and guilt of usurping
authority and jurisdiction over Affiant where none ever existed and exercising of function
as “actors and pretenders to the cause” in total fiction.
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
9DPD oN A vA F&F WY NH |
ww NY KY KH N NY KY KY FY SF Fe FP FF FT HO DT Is
eo aA ak BOwNYH SF SO ONY DHF WN SK
EXHIBIT 003 - NOTICE OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ACCEPTANCE OF
OATHS.
PART I - AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF “ACCEPTANCE OF OATHS”
Affiant directs delivery and recording of previously mentioned “Acceptance of Oaths” of
Public Officers, to the County Recorder, or proper Document Custodian in charge of
maintaining qualification records of Holders of Public Offices within the jurisdiction of
“the common law venue” of Affiant, the delivery of the “cargo” of said A ffiant, fastened
with sworn affidavits as proof to uphold all of Affiant’s Rights, claims, averments,
indemnifications as exhibited herein, submitted in support thereof, to the Affiant within the
time required by applicable statute or law.
Affiant affirms, FOR THE RECORD, that A ffiant is a civilian, Neutral, Non-Combatant,
under the Law of Nations, with equitable rights and remedies available to any Non-
Corporate, un-enfranchised, living man upon the land.
Affiant has knowledge of the performance bonds, bid bonds, insurance bonds, books,
ledgers and the interlocking equity ties of the court and its’ BAR members to a commercial
“Enterprise” operated for the benefit of its’ members and those it serves. Facts of
interlocking equity ties of the court and its’ members, with book ledgers of said enterprise
maintained by the clerks, accounts and finance department are well established, and
wherefore, bonds are traded, issued and posted, in clearly stated financial reports,
including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Affiant seeks remedy for fraud from over-zealous “Officers” of the judicial system for
submitting unsolicited unregistered securities offerings to Affiant, using Affiant’s own
credit(s), while claiming to be a neutral party and not having a financial interest in the
instant matter, is decidedly a non-sequitir in law and Ultra vires.
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
10CoN AH FF WH
bow NN KR NNN ee Se ee ee sts
BHR RPE BHF SO we ADAH FH KH KEK SO
Affiants seek Estoppel of Actors and Actors acting in excess of jurisdiction, as per; “ Acts
which exceed defined power of court in any instance.” Abelleira v. District Court of
Appeal, Third Dist., 17 Cal.2d 942, 948, and, “ A departure by a court from those
recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence
to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one ofa
constitutional right, is an "excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 53 Cal.App.2d 339,
127 P.2d 934, 937.
Affiant is attempting, with fervent intent, to prevent Affiant from becoming the victim of
further contrivance and artifice with disenfranchisement of ‘rights’, guaranteed, afforded
and protected under federal law(s) by the Officers within the Union Justice Court system
now operating for an unknown entity based upon the information that the rights of the
People of the Sovereign Republic having a Constitution for the People, by the People and
of the People, are being systematically denied constitutionally protected rights, and have
been denied access to the public records by a Government that has abandoned said natives
as foreigners in their own (e)state, ‘alienated and disenfranchised’ by declaring them
“enemies of the State”, from their own government, who are, by systematic denial of
federally protected rights, forced into, not a Constitutional court—but a court for
restitution of the public debts, and are actually being forced into quasi-Military courts,
duped by contrivance, artifice and force of arms under a “military flag”, under military
rule, wherein performance for indebtedness is extracted under bills of “pains and
penalties” by said judges, enforcing codes, thus violating Affiant’s federally protected
rights to a Court of law, presided over by a Constitutional Judge, who will faithfully
perform the duty of his or her office and uphold the God-given unalienable Rights affirmed
by the oath of each state judge.
Therefore, without Acceptance of Constitutions and Oaths to uphold such
Constitutions, all actors would be interested parties to the cause, exhibiting partial,
prejudiced, and biased decisions and opinions against Affiants, to promote corporate,
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
aCen nn WN =
wy NyYNY NR N NNKNNK He Pe TH £ESS 6S
PNR RE BSK FSS MAA AwH RYH HE SO
governmental, interlocking equity ties and bring the scales of justice into greater
imbalance.
THUS, THIS DOCUMENT, WITH NO APOLOGIES.
PART II - CONTINUUM OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF “ACCEPTANCE OF
OATHS"
Affiant, further, reminds the Court that defendants have never produced the genuine,
original note required to establish authority to sell, or otherwise proved that it/they had
standing and authority to attempt to foreclose on the property of :Mark-Douglas: Stokes;
that is required to state a claim, injury, damage, a registered priority lien, or show any other
instrument proving any right, title, or interest in Affiant or Affiant’s property.
In the interests of justice, Judgment against the Defendants with prejudice, Quiet Title and
exoneration of the record to eliminate further action against A ffiant is demanded. Affiant’s
claims, damages for fraud, high crimes, and felonious acts by state, county, and city
officers, under “saving to suitors” clause in Sec. 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 therefore
constitutes malfeasance, breach of oath, breach of the peace, breach of duty of office,
treason to the Constitution, misprision of felony, trespass, fraud, conversion, conspiracy,
abuse of process, and abuse of Rights of Affiant.
Affiant therefore affirms, based upon the foregoing facts that total and complete
exoneration of Affiant's good name regarding this case is mandatory due to the above-
stated, and due to felonious acts of collusion, by the STATE OF TEXAS, the County
TARRANT, their agents and officers to ignore the truth, and unlawfully deprive Affiant of
Affiant’s rights, freedom, and property for personal gain and enrichment.
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
12oC on nun & WN
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Affiant avers that the (ab)use of the practice and forms of law, by state court officers, to
commit (a) fraud upon the court, and upon Affiant, depriving and denying Affiant, the
guarantee(s) of Constitutional Right(s), ‘(un)(a)lien(able)’ Right of Due Process, and
therefore Affiant has a bona fide tort claim.
JN FURTHER SUPPORT of Affiant's Acceptance of Oaths, Constitutions, and by-laws,
Affiant reminds the entire world that "un-clean hands" are not lawful at any level of
administration, as per 18 USC 1016, Acknowledgment of appearance or oath.
Whoever, being an officer authorized to administer oaths or to take and certify
acknowledgments, knowingly makes any false acknowledgment, certificate, or statement
concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation by any person
with respect to any proposal, contract, bond, undertaking, or other matter submitted to,
made with, or taken on behalf of the United States or any department or agency thereof,
concerning which an oath or affirmation is required by law or lawful regulation, or with
respect to the financial standing of any principal, surety, or other party to any such
proposal, contract, bond, undertaking, or other instrument, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Affiant reserves the right to amend in order that the truth be ascertained.
Point 003. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant is, or ever has been, a corporation
and denies any such corporate status or having ever been a "14th Amendment
Enfranchised Person", or “a benefit acceptant Enfranchised Person under the 14th
Amendment, liable for your share of the National Debt", as per Exhibit 004 - NOTICE OF
NON-CORPORATE STATUS.
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
13oo WA nH FF WN
Ronny ry VYPNNNN ee eK Ee Se eos
RRR BREAKS SF SO we HAH FW NH KF OS
EXHIBIT 004 - NOTICE OF CORPORATE DENIAL AND NON-CORPORATE
STATUS
With the knowledge of the fact that “Assumption” and “Presumption” may prevail unless
rebutted, or explicitly denied, this Affiant plainly states that Affiant is in no way to be
considered, termed as, or thought as, a person, legal entity, legal fiction, fictional
character, or corporation of any form; with the knowledge that all such entities are not
living, breathing, sentient men. Therefore, Affiants hereby make express and explicit
claim and affirmation to the living, whose Creator is Affiant’s Heavenly Father; and,
express and explicit claim that Affiant is not a “person” or any other form of corporation.
The word “person” is according to several references and: 22 USC Sec. 1621 Definitions:
For the purposes of this subchapter - (a) The term ‘person’ shall include an individual,
partnership, corporation, or the Government of the United States.
Point 003A. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Texas Rule 52, applies in Civil and
Criminal actions with equal force and effect because criminal is always civil in nature. No
civil or criminal cause of action can arise lest there be a contract. See Eads v. Marks, 249
P. 2d 257, 260. There is always a presumption that a contract exists and that the
responding party is a Corporation. Under Rule 52, which is the same in all states as in
the Federal Rules, the Texas Court of appeals (5™ Cir) has ruled of the finding of fact, by
the Court, that “the failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is
incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact’. Thus, a presumption
becomes a finding of fact by the court unless rebutted before trial.
Point 003B. Dr. Pepper Co. v. Crow, 621 S. W.2d 464, 465 (Tex App.-Waco 1981, no
Writ) “Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified
pleading pursuant to [TRCP] 52 and 83 ... that it was not a corporation; thus, such fact
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
14was established.
Point 003C. Federal Rules Evidence, R.301 Agreement by Acquiescence
Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states, “,..a presumption imposes on the party
against whom it is directed the burden _of proof {see 556(d)|_of going forward _with
evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.”
Point 003D. When the complaint is lodged by the Government for a fine. fee or a tax, all
of which are revenue, they are imposed only on Corporations. See Colonial Pipe Line
Co. v. Triangle, 421 US 100 (1975). Thus, this instant complaint, for the collection of
some form of tax, must have been lodged against a Corporation whose name is similar to
my name. This Affiant rebuts the presumption that this Affiant is presumed to be a
Corporation in the alleged. complaint.
Point 003E. When brought into Court by its Corporate name, its existence as a
Corporation is admitted. See Mud Creek Drain Co. v State, 43 Ind. 157; Johnson _v.
Gibson, 73 Ind. 282; Ewing v. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26; Callender v. Railroad Co, 11 Ohio St.
Caiender Vv. hee
516; Com. Ins. Etc. Co. v Taylor, 8 S.C. 107. Compare Ware v. St. Louis Bagging and
Rope Co., 47 Ala. 667.
Point 003F. Stating not facts, but a conclusion only, is insufficient. It has been held that
where the representative of a railroad corporation is served with process, he may plead in
abatement in his own name, that the Corporation is extinct. See Kelly v. Railroad Co., 2
Flip C.C. 581; Callender v. Plainsville Co., 11 Ohio St. 516; Quarrier v. Peabody Co., 10
W. Va. 507; Evarts v. Killingworth Co., 20 Conn. 447; Stewart v. Dunn, 12 Mees. & W.
655; Stevenson y. Thorn, 13 Mees & W. 149. Where the person is so served with that he
may, by plea, deny that he/she sustains any such relation to the Corporation that authorizes
the service of process on him/her. See Kelly v. Railroad Co.,2 Flip C.C. 581. In 1886 the
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
15Oo oN DH F&F WY NY =
wy Me Ye KY KY NY N NY DY SF Fr TF Fe Fs STS
So Ua ok WNnHK SCH HOI DAU FF WN = SF
Supreme Court did not grant corporate-personhood to any State of the Union or Federal
Government and that this doctrine derives from a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme
Court reporter’s notes. See Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118
US. 394 (1886)].
Point 003G. No laws were passed by Congress granting that corporations should be
treated the same under the constitution as living, breathing human beings, and none have
been passed since then. No court decisions, state or federal, held that corporations were
“persons” instead of “artificial persons.” The Supreme Court did not rule in Santa Clara
County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394] (1886) on the issue of
corporate personhood. As railroad attorney Sanderson and his two colleagues watched,
Chief Justice Johnon Remick Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues the attorneys for
the opposing party that: “The court does not_wish to hear _argument_on the question
whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a
state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal_protection of the laws, applies
to these corporations. We are of the opinion that it does. This written statement, that
corporations were “persons” rather than “artificial persons”. with an equal footing under
the Bill of Rights as humans, was not a formal ruling of the court, but was reportedly a
simple statement_by its Chief Justice. recorded _by the court recorder". See Vermont
Supreme Court building. Volume 118 of United States Reports: Cases adjudged in the
Supreme Court at October Term 1885 and October Terms 1886 published in New York in
1886 by Banks & Brothers Publishers, and written by J.C. Bancroft Davis, Supreme
Court’s Reporter.
Point 003H. Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme
Court that “in common usage, statutes employing the terms person and corporation are
ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign man or woman.” Wilson v. Omaha Tribe,
442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
16wo wor Aw F&F WN =
bow wN YN NN KY Ferme HC FE BH eS
RBRNXRRE BS FSO MO ADHA EHH KS
(1941). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).
Point 0031. US Supreme Court in Luther vy Borden, 48 USI, 12 Led 581: “...The
government are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate
what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain, might take away
what they have delegated and in trust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every
state_resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of
government at their own pleasure.” US Supreme Court in Wilson v Omaha India Tribe
442 US 653, 667 (1979): “In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the
sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinary construed to exclude it.”
Point 003J. Affiant is NOT a “United States Person”, “United States Resident”, "U.S.
Citizen", “U.S. Individual”, “U.S. Corporation” or “citizen subjected to its jurisdiction”, as
such “words of art”, corporation created under the laws of the United States or any state of
the Union States, the District of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth or possession
of the United States or a foreign state or country, public or private.
Point 003K. Affiant is NOT a “resident of”, “inhabitant of’, a “franchisee of”, “subject
of”, “ward of”, property of”, “chattel of”, or “subject to the jurisdiction of” the State of the
Forum of any United States, corporate State, corporate County, or corporate City, or
Municipal body politics created under the primary authority of Art. 1, Sec. 8,CI.17 and Art.
IV, Sec. 3 Cl. 2 of the Constitution for the united States of America and not subjected to
any legislation created by or under the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agents
deriving their authority thereof. Further, Affiant is NOT a subject of the Administrative
and Legislative Article I Courts or bound by precedents of such courts created by the
“United States”, as “Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior courts in
the exercise of the power under Article III_of the Constitution cannot be affected by
legislation enacted by Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8.CI.17, of the Constitution, “D.C.
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
17Co ont nun F&F WN =
ww N NY NY NHN NN NY FY FT TF SF ST FS DT xr Ss
Bex & aes BHR Fe SC BO wDeN HH FE BW HFK
Code, Title 11 at p. 13.an officer, agent, shareholder, franchise or fiduciary agent, surety,
resident inhabitant or domiciled in any corporation.
Point 003L. Affiant declares, revokes and cancels all of Affiant's signatures on any and all
forms which may be construed to give the Federal Government or any other agency or
department of the United States Government, created under the authority of Article I, Sec.
8, CI. 17 and Article IV, Sec. 3, CI.2 of the Constitution for the United States, authority or
jurisdiction over Affiant. Affiant also, revokes, rescinds and makes void ab initio, all
powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by Affiant or
anyone else, with or without Affiant's consent, as such power of attorney pertains to
Affiant, by, but not limited to, any and all government/quasi/colorable, public,
Government entities or corporations, on the grounds of constructive fraud, and non-
disclosure of pertinent facts.
Point 003M. Affiant is NOT a vessel documented under Chapter 121 of Title 46, United
States Code or a vessel numbered as provided in Chapter 123 of said Title.
Point 003N. Affiant hereby, cancels any presumed election made by the United States
Government or any agency or department, thereof, that Affiant is, or ever has been, a
citizen, alien citizen or resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave,
under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in the
Constitution for the united States of America in Art. I, Sec.8 CI. 17 and Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl.
2. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant does not cancel any presumption that
Affiant ever voluntarily elected to be treated as such a citizen or resident.
Point 0030. Affiant is NOT an enemy of the United States or any corporation created
under the laws of the United States or any state of the Union States, the District of
Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth or possession of the United States or a foreign
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
18owe NDA Hh FF WN
Bb wMNYN NY NR NN YD SF Ff KF SF SF FS STIs
ou AA Pk WHF SO we ND H FF WN SK SS
state or country, public or private.
Point 003P. Affiant’s name is a Possession of Affiant’s and is not given to any other.
However, the Christian Appellation that A ffiant answers to is; :Mark-Douglas: of the
Stokes Community, with location of domicile where the living Man Stands, who may be
NOTICED at 5317 Rustic Trail, Colleyville, Texas and is particularly unique to this
Affiant, although not affiliated with the “Corporate Body Politic” near the same location
and is determined as complete, necessary and sufficient identification evidencing Affiant’s
neutral standing (15 USC 1681(h)).
Point 003Q. Affiant is NOT a pirate, or affiliated with or an enemy of any public or
private corporation, domestic or foreign, but is a neutral body. Any past or future reference
to Affiant as such by any agency and its officer(s) will be considered “defamation of
character” and will be litigated as such in the foreign jurisdiction where offenders,
oppressors, and all Office Holders will have no immunity, “Within the Admiralty”. 28
USC 1333 or 1337, Bills of lading Act, The Public Vessel Act, Foreign Sovereign
Immunity Act. False Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(7) and Federal Tort Claims
Act. Any of the facts or Laws presented herein are NOT contrary to the Communications
Act of 1934, or Court decisions applicable to Affiant. All facts contained herein are based
upon ruling case law and un-overruled decisions of the Supreme Court of the united
States. None of these facts have been found to be “frivolous” by any court, when argued in
their exact and proper context. These are technical facts that, under Commercial Law must
be rebutted with “case law” or acquiesced to.
Point 003R. Any statements or claims in this Affidavit must be properly rebutted by facts
of law, or overriding Article III Supreme Court rulings, and shall not prejudice the lawful
validity of other claims not properly rebutted or invalidated by facts of law. Therefore, an
Affidavit of Truth, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied: (i) through a rebuttal
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
19wont Au F&F YN
wowryny wPNNKN KD Fee SF FEB HE AS
prrReRe BRFSS Sa AAHA RYH NTS
Affidavit of Truth, point for point, (ii) by payment, (iii) by agreement, (iv) by resolution
by a jury by the rules of Common Law.
Point 0038. For reasons explicitly defined within this Point, Affiant denies having, or ever
having had, a “birthday”; but rather, Affiant DID have a “Nativity” upon the Soil and
celebrates his day of Nativity as such.
Point 003T. Affiant makes it perfectly clear that A ffiant is an Adverse Party denying under
oath the allegation that Affiant is incorporated; as per: "The failure of an adverse party to
deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated with the necessity of proof of the
fact [it becomes part of the official record]." Galleria Bank v. Southwest Properties, 498
Southwest 2".
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO CLARIFY MEANING OF “U.S. CITIZEN”
The term "Citizen of the United States", as found in the Qualifications Clauses, is properly
constructed to mean a Citizen of ONE OF the States which are united by and under the
US. Constitution. This construction -- ONE OF -- is reiterated in the following passage
from Words and Phrases, to wit:
“Citizens of a state, within the removal act [18 Stat. 473, March 3, 1875] means
citizens of one of the United States, and the suits contemplated are suits between
citizens of one of the states of the Union on one side, and foreign states, or citizens or
subjects on the other.” citing Roberts v. Pacific & A. Ry. & Navigation Co., 121 F. 785,
789, 58 C.C.A. 61. (9th Cir. 1903)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT
OF AFFIDAVIT OF NON CORPORATE STATUS
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
20oe AY Du FF WN
wy MN NY NY YY NY N NY S| FS KF SP FP ee ee Ss
ow A mA eB BwNH KF SB mA NKN DUH FF WBN KH
3.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, applies in Civil and Criminal
actions with equal force and effect because criminal is always civil in nature. No
civil or criminal cause of action can arise lest there be a contract. See Eads v.
Marks, 249 P, 2d 257, 260. There is always a presumption that a contract exists
and that the responding party is a Corporation. Under Rule 52, which is the
same in all states as in the Federal Rules, the Texas Court of appeals (5" Cir ;)
has ruled of the finding of fact, by the Court, that “the failure of an adverse
party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the
necessity of proof of the fact”. Thus, a presumption becomes a finding of fact by
the court unless rebutted before trial.
Federal Rules Evidence, R.301 Agreement by Acquiescence
“Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states:”....a presumption imposes
on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proof [see 556(d) ] of
going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.
No laws were passed by Congress granting that corporations should be
treated the same under the constitution as living, breathing human beings,
and none have been passed since then.
No court decisions, state or federal, held that corporations were “persons”
instead of “artificial persons.” The Supreme Court did not rule in Santa Clara
County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394] (1886). In this
case or any case, on the issue of corporate personhood. As railroad attorney
Sanderson and his two colleagues watched, Chief Justice Morrison Remick
Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues the attorneys for the opposing party
that: “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the
provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a
state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws, applies to these corporations. I am of the opinion that it does. This written
statement, that corporations were “persons” rather than “artificial persons” with
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
21ow YN A wW F&F WN
borwrny PNNNNNeEeE AER ESBS
BNR RRPBBKRHESSEwHMAAwWHE YN ES SO
an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as humans, was not a formal ruling of
the court, but was reportedly a simple statement by its Chief Justice, recorded
by the court recorder. See Vermont Supreme Court building. Volume 118 of
United States Reports: Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term
1885 and October Terms 1886 published in New York in 1886 by banks &
Brothers Publishers, and written by J.C. Bancroft Davis, Supreme Court’s
Reporter.
Here is the often-expressed understanding from the United States Supreme
Court that “in common usage, the term Sovereign, statutes employing the
person and corporation are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign man or
woman.” Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United
States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941). See also United States v.
Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).
US Supreme Court in Luther v Borden, 48 USI, 12 Led 581:
“,..The government are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no
power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original
fountain might take away what they have delegated and in trust to whom they
please. ... The sovereign in every state resides in the people of the state and they
may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.”
US Supreme Court in Wilson v Omaha India Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979):
“In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and
statutes employing the word are ordinary construed to exclude it.”
Rebuttable presumptions are in effect inferences that, in the absence of any
controverting evidence, the jury is required to make and, in civil cases, to accept
as established facts. [89. People v Wong Sang Lung, 3 CA 221, 84 P 843.]
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6" Ed. (1990), p. 1267.
Rebuttable presumption. In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be
rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a “disputable” presumption. A species of
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
22Co woe ND WwW FF WN
mb MY YY KR NN DN SF Fe SF FERPA Ss
BuHR ABER FE SO we HN DH BF WN ES
legal presumption which holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced.
Beck v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo. App., 48 S.W. 2d 213, 215. It
shifts burden of proof. Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S. Ct. 358, 362, 76
L.Ed. 772. It gives particular effect to certain group of facts in absence of
further evidence, and presumption provides prima facie case which shifts to
defendant the burden to go forward with evidence to contradict or rebut fact
presumed. Gulle v. Boggs, Fla., 174 So.2d 26, 28.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6" Ed. (1990), p. 1185
Presumption. An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule
of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to
existing of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. Van Wart v. Cook, OKI.
App., 557 P2d 1161, 1163. A legal device which operates in the absence of
other proof to require that certain inference be drawn from the available
evidence. Port Terminal & Warehousing Co. v. John S. James Co., D. C. GA.,
92 F.R. D. 100, 106.
A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from
another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. A
presumption is not evidence. A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable.
I, :Mark-Douglas: Stokes, Declare and Affirm that I am not nor have I ever been
(individually or corporately) a Corporation, Fiction of Law, Fictitious Entity, Corporate
Persona, Non-Entity, Legal Entity or as a Surety for any of the previously mentioned and
that I further Declare and Affirm that I am a living man, American Sovereign as stated in
the original Constitution for the united States of America, of which all public
servants/public officials are sworn by their Oaths of Office to protect and defend, both
State and National, in which is also enumerated the type and size of bonds required by
both elected and appointed positions, in order to assure the Sovereign public that their trust
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
23ood An FF WN
mw NWN N NN KY NN YN FY SF FF YY SF SDP xs
RBoaewFanvnfrF FS owe NANA H FF WN EK S
and faith in those public servants/public officials are well founded and that their duties will
be discharged in the most Honorable means until completion of their term of office.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge.
September 14, 2010, Colleyville, Texas By: wn Work Rouges ele
:Mark-Douglas(Stokes
State of Texas )
) ss. SURAT
County of Tarrant )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this Y4- day September 2010, as
to the matters set forth herein, by :Mark-Douglas: Stokes and :Melinda-Kay: Stokes.
SHERRY | ROE
J 60 & eS OF PAS
q COMMISSION EXPIRES p>
q JULY 8, 2011
My Commission Expires:
Certificate of Mailing
I, 5 jaintand-hereby certify that a true
and correct copy of the above and foregoing Plaintiffs’ -FINDINGS-OF FACT, JUDICIAL
NOFICE; AFFIDAVIT with EXHIBITS 001—004 was served to:
Brendetta A. Scott, @ the office of HUGHES, WATTERS, & ASKANASE, L.L.P
333Clay, 29" floor
Houston, TX 77002-4168
And the attorneys for defendants and/or Defendants at their normal place of business:
HUGHES, WATTERS, & ASKANASE, L.L.P
333Clay, 29" floor
Houston, TX 77002-4168
Date_ 14 Sep/7 BY: AR: Vinh Duglba: Sif
09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al
24Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) Page 39 of 48
Investigation Request #8663299 for Applicant SSN 382-50-7147 Archival Copy
Education: { }
Tourism: { x }
Visit family or friends: { }
Other: { }
Countries visited
1. Countries visited: Country: Mexico:
(End of Countries visited List)
Number of days: 10
Many short trips: { x }
Additional comments
€ j2gSi Se
Section 21: Mental and Emotional Health
Mental health counseling in and of itself} isnot a reason to revoke or deny a clearance.
In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental health
condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition?
Answer "No’ if the counseling was for any of the following reasons and was not court-ordered:
- strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or
. stricty related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment.
Yes: {} No: {x}
If you answered "Yes," indicate who conducted the treatment and/or counseling, provide the following information, and sign
the Authorization for Release of Medical Information Pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA).
(No Entry Provided)
Section 22: Police Record
For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise
ae tcken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled
Certified at 2010-09-13 15:37:03.959 PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION
Data Hash Code: 91ccdc91b4 £e9367c53ad£207e05e60a5c552972Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing {e-QIP) Page 40 of 48
Investigation Request #8663299 for Applicant SSN 382-50-7147 Archival Copy
Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be
sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
For questions a and b, respond for the timeframe of the last 7 years (ifan SSBI go back 10 years). Exclude any fines of less
than $300 for traffic offenses that do not involve alcohol or drugs.
@. Have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in criminal proceeding against you;
are you on trial or awaiting a trial on criminat charges; or are you currently awaiting sentencing for a criminal
offense?
Yes:{ } No:{x}
Bb Tiave you been rested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal, or any other type of law enforcement officer?
Yes: { } No:{x}
c. Have you EVER been charged with any fetony offense? (Include those under Uniform Code of Military Justice.)
Yes: { } No:{x}
d. Have you EVER been charged with a firearms or explosives offense?
Yes: { } No: {x}
@. Have you EVER been charged with any affense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?
Yes: { } No:{x}
If you answered "Yes" to any question above, explain below, providing information for each and every offense.
(No Entry Provided)
Section 23: Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity
“The following questions pertain to the illegal use of drugs or drug activity. You are required to answer the questions fuly and
truthfully, and your failure to do ‘so could be grounds for an adverse employment decision of action against you. Neither your
truthful responses nor information derived from your responses will be used as evidence against you in any subsequent
minal di
ain the lack 7 yours, have you legally used any controlled substance, for example, c
Preview
CoN DAD WH & WN Ny MY NY NK N N NY ND YN SF FP Yr SF et FER Sts ow AA ke wWwNH KF ODO we IN DH FF WN KF Mark-Douglas: Stokes One of the People of Texas :Melinda-Kay: Stokes One of the People of Texas 5317 Rustic Trail Colleyville, Texas [76034] IN THE 96th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY STATE OF TEXAS Plaintiffs } Mark Douglas Stokes and Melinda Kay Stokes Cause # 096 246012 10 Vs Michael W. Perry, and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as CEO of INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES, an ens legis being used to conceal fraud, Terry Laughlin, and/or his successor, ) individually, and in his official capacity) as President & CEO of ONEWES ) BANK, an ens legis being used to ) ) ) } conceal fraud, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etal, an ens legis being used to conceal fraud (trustee unknown at this time), Brendetta A, Scott, and/or their = QA. successors, individually, and in their o f= + official capacities as officers of 22 5 = HUGHES, WATTERS, & S> 8 8 ASKANASE, L.L.P an ens legis being BYP. 2a used to conceal fraud, and unnamed Sp OF = John Does 1-10,000 2S of gE BO Defendants SIT FO = So wp a ma F< AFFIDAVIT AND EXHIBITS 001 THROUGH 00s” Comes now :Mark-Douglas: Stokes, one of the people in this court of record, Plaintiff, makes the following Declaration in support of the law and his rights there under. 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 1oon DA nH FF WN mo MN NY NY N NR NK SF Fe SP GF FESR tS RBNRBRBR BHR FSO wOANAH FEY N HK SO EXHIBIT 001 ACCEPTANCE OF OATHS OF OFFICE AND CONSTITUTIONS, CONTRACT AND WAIVER OF TORT Hebrews 6:16 instructs that an oath between men is the end of all strife. For this reason and cause I request Clarity and Information to exhibit evidence and facts that: 1) the proper Oath was given; and, 2) that the Official administering said Oath was properly sworn before administering said Oath; and, 3) that said Oath is properly recorded, filed, and readily available for inspection and verification to all; and, 4) that said Oath was to the Original Organic Constitution for the United States of America, dated 1789, and not to the corporate charter titled Constitution of the United States, dated 1871 (Act of 1871). The following Affidavit of "Notice for Acceptance of Oaths of Office and Constitutions" is made explicitly under reserve and without recourse. DEFINITIONS; AKA is; Also Known As DBA is; Doing Business As Affiant is; :Mark-Douglas: Stokes Office Holder is; Judge Jeff Walker DBA, JEFF WALKER, acting as Judge Office Holder is; Defendants and attorneys acting as counsel for Defendants For the record, in the name of God Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Amen. I, :Mark-Douglas: Stokes, hereinafter known as Affiant, a Texas Sovereign Living Soul without the UNITED STATES, hereby duly NOTICE Judge Jeff Walker, DBA, JEFF WALKER, acting as Judge, and successors, nominees, assignees, agents, and/or holders of 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 2oo Nn AH F&F WN = pow re vynnndNDdKeeE TSE CESS RPNRRRESEK FSO ee AA MH EF KHH = SF the seat, with this instrument entitled, "Notice for Acceptance of Oaths of Office and Constitutions" (Constitutions, without question are by-laws. which bind public servants to service), and hereby duly accept Office Holder(s)'s Oaths of Office, being Office holder(s)'s open and binding offer of contract to form a firm and binding, private contract between Office Holder(s) and Affiant. Affiant is pleased that when Office holder(s) said “so help me God,” that Office Holder(s) invoked the Creator of all that is as Witness to punish all Liars and breakers of Oaths, that Office Holder(s) promise(d), and is/are bound by Oaths, which make(s) Office Holder(s)’s "Bond(s)" accessible to Affiant, that Office Holder(s) would perform all of said promises, including, but not limited to, Office Holder(s) promise to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America, which includes protecting all of Affiant's rights. I trust Office Holder(s) will be (an) honorable man/men and/or woman/women whose Oath(s) is/are his/her/their bond(s), and that Office Holder(s) will honor said private contract with Affiant, consummated by this notice of acceptance, by keeping said promises, not allowing any third-party agents, acting without delegated or regulatory authority, to interfere in Office Holder(s) duty to Affiant. For the record, Affiant, hereby and herein, explicitly reserves all Affiant's rights without recourse. Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal. Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent. This “Notice for Acceptance of Oaths of Office and Constitutions” is issued in accordance with administrative process and as an instrument at contract law; at 3 days, without proper rebuttal signed under penalty of perjury, Affiant and Office Holder(s) has/have Contract; at 7 days, without proper rebuttal signed under penalty of perjury, Office Holder(s) is/are in Dishonor; at 10 days, without proper rebuttal signed under penalty of perjury, Affiant has a Summary Judgment against Office Holder(s), said summary judgment being: (a) Office Holder(s) will honor Office Holder(s) promises to uphold all of Affiant's rights and not allow any third-party interference in Office Holder(s) duty to Affiant, and, (b) Office Holder(s)’s acts committed outside Office Holder(s)’s ‘oaths operate under “color of law” and void Office Holder(s)’s immunity and Office Holder(s) accept(s) all possible liability, not limited by claims and damages unto Affiant, a 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 3oe NY AUN FF WN = weer rwy wy nrnnnbdeereeeperrnsgtg BRR aR SS fF SBC wOAR DAH FH KH FR SO living soul, in (i) unlawful conversion; (ii) fraud and misrepresentations; (iii) misrepresentation of agreement; (iv) barratry and other acts of bad faith; and, (v) breach of good faith and fair dealings. Office Holder(s)’s willful choice to either remain silent, write, or cause a third party to write an ambiguous or convoluted response intended to mislead or deceive, or imply authority to represent Office Holder(s)’s interests in this contract, establishes Office Holder(s)’s unconditional acceptance and tacit approval, nihil dicit, for the foregoing contract and the foregoing contract will stand as final judgment. For the record, Office Holder(s) has/have been NOTICED. THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND WILL BE USED TO ESTABLISH AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED AS EVIDENCE IN ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AT LAW OR EQUITY. WAIVER OF TORT Definition of terms: Waiver of tort. "the election, by an injured party, for purposes of redress, to treat the facts as establishing an implied contract, which he may enforce, instead of an injury by fraud or wrong, for the committing of which he may demand damages, compensatory or exemplary". Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Ed., Page 1418 Note that it is solely the option (election) of the injured_party whether to apply this option. The injuring party has nothing to say concerning "Waiver of Tort”. By Affiant's acceptance of the Oath of Office of Judge Jeff Walker, d/b/a JEFF WALKER, acting as judge of the 96™ DISTRICT COURT IN THE COUNTY OF TARRANT, STATE OF TEXAS, which is Office Holder's open and binding offer of contract to form a firm and binding, private contract between Office Holder and Affiant, this implied contract comes into full force by the choses in action on Office Holder's part to trespass upon Affiant's rights and freedoms Office Holder(s) has/have openly sworn to protect. The 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 4wo oN Du FF WN mw NY NY NY NY N KY KN S| TF er FP SF FS SC Ts oa AA ek oS &§ SO OQ DHA FW NH = OO constitution for the united States of America clearly states at Article 1, section 10, "No state shall...... pass any......Law, impairing the Obligation of Contracts" which has been upheld in the Supreme Court case of Hale v. Hinkel 201 U.S. 43 (1906) over 1600 times. By Office Holder's offer and Affiant's acceptance we mutually, willingly, and intentionally agree to the terms of this implied contract: 1. For each injury by trespass, it is agreed that, so long as the injury remains, payment will be made upon demand, under "Equality under the Law", as per; Trezevant v. City of Tampa, $18,000.00 per hour in damages to injured party, in Lawful money of the united States of America, "gold eagle coins," as articulated in the constitution for the united States of America, in Article 1, section 8, clause (5) and section 10, clause (1), and, 2. For each injury which remains after seven days, it is agreed that payment will be made upon demand in the amount of, under "Equality under the Law", as per; Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336, (11th Cir. 1984), $432,000.00 per day in damages to injured party, in Lawful money of the united States of America, "gold eagle coins," as articulated in the constitution for the united States of America, in Article 1, section 8, clause (5) and section 10, clause (1), and, 3. If physical injury or private property damage occurs, it is agreed that payment will be made upon demand in the amount of ten million ($10,000,000) dollars in Lawful money of the united States of America, "gold eagle coins," as articulated in the constitution for the united States of America, in Article 1, section 8, clause (5) and section 10, clause (1) and, 4, This Waiver of tort is enforceable by all lawful means and is agreed that an immediate lien will attach against the assets, wages and property of Judge Jeff Walker, in favor of: Mark-Douglas: Stokes. SEE UCC ALL PERSONS, EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS OPERATING UNDER ORDERS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS who commit injury by trespass upon me, under color of law, without lawful order and verified assessment, will cause attachment of this Waiver of Tort. Continued proceeding in trespass shows acceptance of this Contract and provides Evidence of Office Holder(s) intent to implement 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 5wo worn nun FF WwW N 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the terms Waiver of Tort and affix said lien(s). According to several and various UCC Regulations, "performance is acceptance." Point 002. Affiant has no record or evidence that Oaths of office are not required by all public officials, judges, law enforcement personnel, administrators, and many other persons who have voluntarily submitted themselves into the duties of said offices/positions and are given monetary and other benefits for such commitment, as made more explicit in EXHIBIT 002 - NOTICE OF OATHS REQUIRED, with several Points added. ADMIT - Office Holders listed in this document admit and agree to the truth that Oaths are required for positions of public servitude. 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 6oo NAH &F WN wow RYN YN NN YN SF SF FP SF FST TP rs RBS & aR BH8S fe Fo wMmNKI DHA FE WKH HK SD EXHIBIT 002 - NOTICE OF OATHS REQUIRED According to Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution, "All executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution..." Affiant hereby makes explicit NOTICE and DECLARATION of one specific Right granted to Affiant by way of the Constitution of the United States; that being, the right to demand all judicial, executive, and legislative officers and agents of the United States government and all sub-corporate governmental entities give their required Oath to protect and defend my unalienable rights, given to me by my Creator; that it be duly recorded and made available to all who may from time to time be, questioned by corporate entities, or, accused of any infamous crime against society. Affiant’s acceptance of said "required Oaths" consummates a contract, in fact, and, in force, between all such entities and Affiant with enforceable and punishable ramifications should the offering party fail to fully, promptly, and properly comply. Affiant accepts, as fact, that Affiant is not a party to the Constitution, has sworn no allegiance to the Constitution, and has no other "constitutional" rights; being a man in the private sector, a Private Man, without the United States and without United States territorial and "federal area” overlay jurisdiction. The APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT required by 5 U.S.C. 3332; the Clerk of that Court is the designated legal custodian of that mandatory credential, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2906. See also 28 USC 453. Point 002A. Affiant has no record or evidence that a proper Oath of Offices is not required by law, as per; "Applicable statutes are controlling and may declare vacancy to exist if the person chosen for the office fails to accept or qualify as required by law". Parker v. Overman, 59 U.S. 137, 15 L.Ed 316. 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 7ow wernt Du F&F WN = by NN RNR NNN BS Be Be ee ee Be eS ota AAW PB WH KF BG Be we IND NH FF WHY | Point 002B. A ffiant has no record or evidence that failure to comply with laws for Oath of Office will not forfeit their right to office, as per; "Failure to comply with such provisions will absolutely forfeit the right to office". Brannon v. Perky, 127 W Va 103, 31 SE2d 898, 158 ALR 631. Point 002C. Affiant has no record or evidence that supposed office is not vacant by reason of failure to file, as per; "Office is vacant by reason of failure to file a required oath". Boisvert v. County of Ontario, 395 NYS2d 617. Point 002D. A ffiant has no record or evidence that filing of Oath of Office must not be timely, as per; "Failure to timely file oath of office, in accordance with a statute so requiring, neither notice nor judicial procedure is necessary; the office is automatically vacant and may be filled as provided by law". Comins v. County of Delaware, 411 NYS2d 533 (borrowed pursuant to Sister States Doctrine). Point 002E. A ffiant has no record or evidence that failure to qualify within 60 days is not an action to vacate an-office, as per; "[an] Act Declaring office vacant and to be filled as provided by law for failure to qualify within 60 days after beginning of term is unconstitutional and applies to all officers enumerated and similarly situated”. State Ex Rel. Stain v. Christensen, 84 U. 185, 25 P.2d 775. Point 002F. Affiant has no record or evidence that a proper Oath of Office does not apply to the highest levels of law, as per; "Judges of the Supreme Court subscribe to this oath when entering upon their duties as justices thereof". Critchlow v. Monson, 102 U. 378, 131 P.2d 794. Point 002G. Affiant has no record or evidence that a late filing is not TOO LATE, as per; 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 8oD ory HH F&F WN mb wB NN KN NY N NY SF Ff KF FP YP FB PHF Ss RBOOog-pnsr Bove FS GC weNA DH BF wWwH FS "Filing an oath of office after the time prescribed by law is not a compliance with the law, confers no power to act as a public officer or in a public office and any person who fails to file his oath of office within the time limits required by law creates an ipso facto vacancy and such person's acts are void and vitiate any subsequent proceedings". Parker v, Overman, 59 US. 137, 15 L.Ed 316. Point 005. Affiants have no record or evidence that A ffiants are not qualified to make Affidavit and Statement of Claims as listed in EXHIBIT 003 - NOTICE OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ACCEPTANCE OF OATHS. ADMIT - Office Holders listed in this document admit to the truth and guilt of usurping authority and jurisdiction over Affiant where none ever existed and exercising of function as “actors and pretenders to the cause” in total fiction. 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 9DPD oN A vA F&F WY NH | ww NY KY KH N NY KY KY FY SF Fe FP FF FT HO DT Is eo aA ak BOwNYH SF SO ONY DHF WN SK EXHIBIT 003 - NOTICE OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ACCEPTANCE OF OATHS. PART I - AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF “ACCEPTANCE OF OATHS” Affiant directs delivery and recording of previously mentioned “Acceptance of Oaths” of Public Officers, to the County Recorder, or proper Document Custodian in charge of maintaining qualification records of Holders of Public Offices within the jurisdiction of “the common law venue” of Affiant, the delivery of the “cargo” of said A ffiant, fastened with sworn affidavits as proof to uphold all of Affiant’s Rights, claims, averments, indemnifications as exhibited herein, submitted in support thereof, to the Affiant within the time required by applicable statute or law. Affiant affirms, FOR THE RECORD, that A ffiant is a civilian, Neutral, Non-Combatant, under the Law of Nations, with equitable rights and remedies available to any Non- Corporate, un-enfranchised, living man upon the land. Affiant has knowledge of the performance bonds, bid bonds, insurance bonds, books, ledgers and the interlocking equity ties of the court and its’ BAR members to a commercial “Enterprise” operated for the benefit of its’ members and those it serves. Facts of interlocking equity ties of the court and its’ members, with book ledgers of said enterprise maintained by the clerks, accounts and finance department are well established, and wherefore, bonds are traded, issued and posted, in clearly stated financial reports, including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Affiant seeks remedy for fraud from over-zealous “Officers” of the judicial system for submitting unsolicited unregistered securities offerings to Affiant, using Affiant’s own credit(s), while claiming to be a neutral party and not having a financial interest in the instant matter, is decidedly a non-sequitir in law and Ultra vires. 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 10CoN AH FF WH bow NN KR NNN ee Se ee ee sts BHR RPE BHF SO we ADAH FH KH KEK SO Affiants seek Estoppel of Actors and Actors acting in excess of jurisdiction, as per; “ Acts which exceed defined power of court in any instance.” Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 17 Cal.2d 942, 948, and, “ A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one ofa constitutional right, is an "excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 53 Cal.App.2d 339, 127 P.2d 934, 937. Affiant is attempting, with fervent intent, to prevent Affiant from becoming the victim of further contrivance and artifice with disenfranchisement of ‘rights’, guaranteed, afforded and protected under federal law(s) by the Officers within the Union Justice Court system now operating for an unknown entity based upon the information that the rights of the People of the Sovereign Republic having a Constitution for the People, by the People and of the People, are being systematically denied constitutionally protected rights, and have been denied access to the public records by a Government that has abandoned said natives as foreigners in their own (e)state, ‘alienated and disenfranchised’ by declaring them “enemies of the State”, from their own government, who are, by systematic denial of federally protected rights, forced into, not a Constitutional court—but a court for restitution of the public debts, and are actually being forced into quasi-Military courts, duped by contrivance, artifice and force of arms under a “military flag”, under military rule, wherein performance for indebtedness is extracted under bills of “pains and penalties” by said judges, enforcing codes, thus violating Affiant’s federally protected rights to a Court of law, presided over by a Constitutional Judge, who will faithfully perform the duty of his or her office and uphold the God-given unalienable Rights affirmed by the oath of each state judge. Therefore, without Acceptance of Constitutions and Oaths to uphold such Constitutions, all actors would be interested parties to the cause, exhibiting partial, prejudiced, and biased decisions and opinions against Affiants, to promote corporate, 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al aCen nn WN = wy NyYNY NR N NNKNNK He Pe TH £ESS 6S PNR RE BSK FSS MAA AwH RYH HE SO governmental, interlocking equity ties and bring the scales of justice into greater imbalance. THUS, THIS DOCUMENT, WITH NO APOLOGIES. PART II - CONTINUUM OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF “ACCEPTANCE OF OATHS" Affiant, further, reminds the Court that defendants have never produced the genuine, original note required to establish authority to sell, or otherwise proved that it/they had standing and authority to attempt to foreclose on the property of :Mark-Douglas: Stokes; that is required to state a claim, injury, damage, a registered priority lien, or show any other instrument proving any right, title, or interest in Affiant or Affiant’s property. In the interests of justice, Judgment against the Defendants with prejudice, Quiet Title and exoneration of the record to eliminate further action against A ffiant is demanded. Affiant’s claims, damages for fraud, high crimes, and felonious acts by state, county, and city officers, under “saving to suitors” clause in Sec. 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 therefore constitutes malfeasance, breach of oath, breach of the peace, breach of duty of office, treason to the Constitution, misprision of felony, trespass, fraud, conversion, conspiracy, abuse of process, and abuse of Rights of Affiant. Affiant therefore affirms, based upon the foregoing facts that total and complete exoneration of Affiant's good name regarding this case is mandatory due to the above- stated, and due to felonious acts of collusion, by the STATE OF TEXAS, the County TARRANT, their agents and officers to ignore the truth, and unlawfully deprive Affiant of Affiant’s rights, freedom, and property for personal gain and enrichment. 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 12oC on nun & WN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Affiant avers that the (ab)use of the practice and forms of law, by state court officers, to commit (a) fraud upon the court, and upon Affiant, depriving and denying Affiant, the guarantee(s) of Constitutional Right(s), ‘(un)(a)lien(able)’ Right of Due Process, and therefore Affiant has a bona fide tort claim. JN FURTHER SUPPORT of Affiant's Acceptance of Oaths, Constitutions, and by-laws, Affiant reminds the entire world that "un-clean hands" are not lawful at any level of administration, as per 18 USC 1016, Acknowledgment of appearance or oath. Whoever, being an officer authorized to administer oaths or to take and certify acknowledgments, knowingly makes any false acknowledgment, certificate, or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation by any person with respect to any proposal, contract, bond, undertaking, or other matter submitted to, made with, or taken on behalf of the United States or any department or agency thereof, concerning which an oath or affirmation is required by law or lawful regulation, or with respect to the financial standing of any principal, surety, or other party to any such proposal, contract, bond, undertaking, or other instrument, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Affiant reserves the right to amend in order that the truth be ascertained. Point 003. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant is, or ever has been, a corporation and denies any such corporate status or having ever been a "14th Amendment Enfranchised Person", or “a benefit acceptant Enfranchised Person under the 14th Amendment, liable for your share of the National Debt", as per Exhibit 004 - NOTICE OF NON-CORPORATE STATUS. 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 13oo WA nH FF WN Ronny ry VYPNNNN ee eK Ee Se eos RRR BREAKS SF SO we HAH FW NH KF OS EXHIBIT 004 - NOTICE OF CORPORATE DENIAL AND NON-CORPORATE STATUS With the knowledge of the fact that “Assumption” and “Presumption” may prevail unless rebutted, or explicitly denied, this Affiant plainly states that Affiant is in no way to be considered, termed as, or thought as, a person, legal entity, legal fiction, fictional character, or corporation of any form; with the knowledge that all such entities are not living, breathing, sentient men. Therefore, Affiants hereby make express and explicit claim and affirmation to the living, whose Creator is Affiant’s Heavenly Father; and, express and explicit claim that Affiant is not a “person” or any other form of corporation. The word “person” is according to several references and: 22 USC Sec. 1621 Definitions: For the purposes of this subchapter - (a) The term ‘person’ shall include an individual, partnership, corporation, or the Government of the United States. Point 003A. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Texas Rule 52, applies in Civil and Criminal actions with equal force and effect because criminal is always civil in nature. No civil or criminal cause of action can arise lest there be a contract. See Eads v. Marks, 249 P. 2d 257, 260. There is always a presumption that a contract exists and that the responding party is a Corporation. Under Rule 52, which is the same in all states as in the Federal Rules, the Texas Court of appeals (5™ Cir) has ruled of the finding of fact, by the Court, that “the failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact’. Thus, a presumption becomes a finding of fact by the court unless rebutted before trial. Point 003B. Dr. Pepper Co. v. Crow, 621 S. W.2d 464, 465 (Tex App.-Waco 1981, no Writ) “Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading pursuant to [TRCP] 52 and 83 ... that it was not a corporation; thus, such fact 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 14was established. Point 003C. Federal Rules Evidence, R.301 Agreement by Acquiescence Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states, “,..a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden _of proof {see 556(d)|_of going forward _with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.” Point 003D. When the complaint is lodged by the Government for a fine. fee or a tax, all of which are revenue, they are imposed only on Corporations. See Colonial Pipe Line Co. v. Triangle, 421 US 100 (1975). Thus, this instant complaint, for the collection of some form of tax, must have been lodged against a Corporation whose name is similar to my name. This Affiant rebuts the presumption that this Affiant is presumed to be a Corporation in the alleged. complaint. Point 003E. When brought into Court by its Corporate name, its existence as a Corporation is admitted. See Mud Creek Drain Co. v State, 43 Ind. 157; Johnson _v. Gibson, 73 Ind. 282; Ewing v. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26; Callender v. Railroad Co, 11 Ohio St. Caiender Vv. hee 516; Com. Ins. Etc. Co. v Taylor, 8 S.C. 107. Compare Ware v. St. Louis Bagging and Rope Co., 47 Ala. 667. Point 003F. Stating not facts, but a conclusion only, is insufficient. It has been held that where the representative of a railroad corporation is served with process, he may plead in abatement in his own name, that the Corporation is extinct. See Kelly v. Railroad Co., 2 Flip C.C. 581; Callender v. Plainsville Co., 11 Ohio St. 516; Quarrier v. Peabody Co., 10 W. Va. 507; Evarts v. Killingworth Co., 20 Conn. 447; Stewart v. Dunn, 12 Mees. & W. 655; Stevenson y. Thorn, 13 Mees & W. 149. Where the person is so served with that he may, by plea, deny that he/she sustains any such relation to the Corporation that authorizes the service of process on him/her. See Kelly v. Railroad Co.,2 Flip C.C. 581. In 1886 the 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 15Oo oN DH F&F WY NY = wy Me Ye KY KY NY N NY DY SF Fr TF Fe Fs STS So Ua ok WNnHK SCH HOI DAU FF WN = SF Supreme Court did not grant corporate-personhood to any State of the Union or Federal Government and that this doctrine derives from a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter’s notes. See Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 US. 394 (1886)]. Point 003G. No laws were passed by Congress granting that corporations should be treated the same under the constitution as living, breathing human beings, and none have been passed since then. No court decisions, state or federal, held that corporations were “persons” instead of “artificial persons.” The Supreme Court did not rule in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394] (1886) on the issue of corporate personhood. As railroad attorney Sanderson and his two colleagues watched, Chief Justice Johnon Remick Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues the attorneys for the opposing party that: “The court does not_wish to hear _argument_on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal_protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are of the opinion that it does. This written statement, that corporations were “persons” rather than “artificial persons”. with an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as humans, was not a formal ruling of the court, but was reportedly a simple statement_by its Chief Justice. recorded _by the court recorder". See Vermont Supreme Court building. Volume 118 of United States Reports: Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term 1885 and October Terms 1886 published in New York in 1886 by Banks & Brothers Publishers, and written by J.C. Bancroft Davis, Supreme Court’s Reporter. Point 003H. Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court that “in common usage, statutes employing the terms person and corporation are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign man or woman.” Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 16wo wor Aw F&F WN = bow wN YN NN KY Ferme HC FE BH eS RBRNXRRE BS FSO MO ADHA EHH KS (1941). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947). Point 0031. US Supreme Court in Luther vy Borden, 48 USI, 12 Led 581: “...The government are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have delegated and in trust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state_resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.” US Supreme Court in Wilson v Omaha India Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979): “In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinary construed to exclude it.” Point 003J. Affiant is NOT a “United States Person”, “United States Resident”, "U.S. Citizen", “U.S. Individual”, “U.S. Corporation” or “citizen subjected to its jurisdiction”, as such “words of art”, corporation created under the laws of the United States or any state of the Union States, the District of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth or possession of the United States or a foreign state or country, public or private. Point 003K. Affiant is NOT a “resident of”, “inhabitant of’, a “franchisee of”, “subject of”, “ward of”, property of”, “chattel of”, or “subject to the jurisdiction of” the State of the Forum of any United States, corporate State, corporate County, or corporate City, or Municipal body politics created under the primary authority of Art. 1, Sec. 8,CI.17 and Art. IV, Sec. 3 Cl. 2 of the Constitution for the united States of America and not subjected to any legislation created by or under the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their authority thereof. Further, Affiant is NOT a subject of the Administrative and Legislative Article I Courts or bound by precedents of such courts created by the “United States”, as “Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior courts in the exercise of the power under Article III_of the Constitution cannot be affected by legislation enacted by Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8.CI.17, of the Constitution, “D.C. 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 17Co ont nun F&F WN = ww N NY NY NHN NN NY FY FT TF SF ST FS DT xr Ss Bex & aes BHR Fe SC BO wDeN HH FE BW HFK Code, Title 11 at p. 13.an officer, agent, shareholder, franchise or fiduciary agent, surety, resident inhabitant or domiciled in any corporation. Point 003L. Affiant declares, revokes and cancels all of Affiant's signatures on any and all forms which may be construed to give the Federal Government or any other agency or department of the United States Government, created under the authority of Article I, Sec. 8, CI. 17 and Article IV, Sec. 3, CI.2 of the Constitution for the United States, authority or jurisdiction over Affiant. Affiant also, revokes, rescinds and makes void ab initio, all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by Affiant or anyone else, with or without Affiant's consent, as such power of attorney pertains to Affiant, by, but not limited to, any and all government/quasi/colorable, public, Government entities or corporations, on the grounds of constructive fraud, and non- disclosure of pertinent facts. Point 003M. Affiant is NOT a vessel documented under Chapter 121 of Title 46, United States Code or a vessel numbered as provided in Chapter 123 of said Title. Point 003N. Affiant hereby, cancels any presumed election made by the United States Government or any agency or department, thereof, that Affiant is, or ever has been, a citizen, alien citizen or resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave, under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in the Constitution for the united States of America in Art. I, Sec.8 CI. 17 and Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant does not cancel any presumption that Affiant ever voluntarily elected to be treated as such a citizen or resident. Point 0030. Affiant is NOT an enemy of the United States or any corporation created under the laws of the United States or any state of the Union States, the District of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth or possession of the United States or a foreign 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 18owe NDA Hh FF WN Bb wMNYN NY NR NN YD SF Ff KF SF SF FS STIs ou AA Pk WHF SO we ND H FF WN SK SS state or country, public or private. Point 003P. Affiant’s name is a Possession of Affiant’s and is not given to any other. However, the Christian Appellation that A ffiant answers to is; :Mark-Douglas: of the Stokes Community, with location of domicile where the living Man Stands, who may be NOTICED at 5317 Rustic Trail, Colleyville, Texas and is particularly unique to this Affiant, although not affiliated with the “Corporate Body Politic” near the same location and is determined as complete, necessary and sufficient identification evidencing Affiant’s neutral standing (15 USC 1681(h)). Point 003Q. Affiant is NOT a pirate, or affiliated with or an enemy of any public or private corporation, domestic or foreign, but is a neutral body. Any past or future reference to Affiant as such by any agency and its officer(s) will be considered “defamation of character” and will be litigated as such in the foreign jurisdiction where offenders, oppressors, and all Office Holders will have no immunity, “Within the Admiralty”. 28 USC 1333 or 1337, Bills of lading Act, The Public Vessel Act, Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. False Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(7) and Federal Tort Claims Act. Any of the facts or Laws presented herein are NOT contrary to the Communications Act of 1934, or Court decisions applicable to Affiant. All facts contained herein are based upon ruling case law and un-overruled decisions of the Supreme Court of the united States. None of these facts have been found to be “frivolous” by any court, when argued in their exact and proper context. These are technical facts that, under Commercial Law must be rebutted with “case law” or acquiesced to. Point 003R. Any statements or claims in this Affidavit must be properly rebutted by facts of law, or overriding Article III Supreme Court rulings, and shall not prejudice the lawful validity of other claims not properly rebutted or invalidated by facts of law. Therefore, an Affidavit of Truth, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied: (i) through a rebuttal 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 19wont Au F&F YN wowryny wPNNKN KD Fee SF FEB HE AS prrReRe BRFSS Sa AAHA RYH NTS Affidavit of Truth, point for point, (ii) by payment, (iii) by agreement, (iv) by resolution by a jury by the rules of Common Law. Point 0038. For reasons explicitly defined within this Point, Affiant denies having, or ever having had, a “birthday”; but rather, Affiant DID have a “Nativity” upon the Soil and celebrates his day of Nativity as such. Point 003T. Affiant makes it perfectly clear that A ffiant is an Adverse Party denying under oath the allegation that Affiant is incorporated; as per: "The failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated with the necessity of proof of the fact [it becomes part of the official record]." Galleria Bank v. Southwest Properties, 498 Southwest 2". ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO CLARIFY MEANING OF “U.S. CITIZEN” The term "Citizen of the United States", as found in the Qualifications Clauses, is properly constructed to mean a Citizen of ONE OF the States which are united by and under the US. Constitution. This construction -- ONE OF -- is reiterated in the following passage from Words and Phrases, to wit: “Citizens of a state, within the removal act [18 Stat. 473, March 3, 1875] means citizens of one of the United States, and the suits contemplated are suits between citizens of one of the states of the Union on one side, and foreign states, or citizens or subjects on the other.” citing Roberts v. Pacific & A. Ry. & Navigation Co., 121 F. 785, 789, 58 C.C.A. 61. (9th Cir. 1903) MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT OF NON CORPORATE STATUS 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 20oe AY Du FF WN wy MN NY NY YY NY N NY S| FS KF SP FP ee ee Ss ow A mA eB BwNH KF SB mA NKN DUH FF WBN KH 3. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, applies in Civil and Criminal actions with equal force and effect because criminal is always civil in nature. No civil or criminal cause of action can arise lest there be a contract. See Eads v. Marks, 249 P, 2d 257, 260. There is always a presumption that a contract exists and that the responding party is a Corporation. Under Rule 52, which is the same in all states as in the Federal Rules, the Texas Court of appeals (5" Cir ;) has ruled of the finding of fact, by the Court, that “the failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact”. Thus, a presumption becomes a finding of fact by the court unless rebutted before trial. Federal Rules Evidence, R.301 Agreement by Acquiescence “Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states:”....a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proof [see 556(d) ] of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. No laws were passed by Congress granting that corporations should be treated the same under the constitution as living, breathing human beings, and none have been passed since then. No court decisions, state or federal, held that corporations were “persons” instead of “artificial persons.” The Supreme Court did not rule in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394] (1886). In this case or any case, on the issue of corporate personhood. As railroad attorney Sanderson and his two colleagues watched, Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues the attorneys for the opposing party that: “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. I am of the opinion that it does. This written statement, that corporations were “persons” rather than “artificial persons” with 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 21ow YN A wW F&F WN borwrny PNNNNNeEeE AER ESBS BNR RRPBBKRHESSEwHMAAwWHE YN ES SO an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as humans, was not a formal ruling of the court, but was reportedly a simple statement by its Chief Justice, recorded by the court recorder. See Vermont Supreme Court building. Volume 118 of United States Reports: Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term 1885 and October Terms 1886 published in New York in 1886 by banks & Brothers Publishers, and written by J.C. Bancroft Davis, Supreme Court’s Reporter. Here is the often-expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court that “in common usage, the term Sovereign, statutes employing the person and corporation are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign man or woman.” Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947). US Supreme Court in Luther v Borden, 48 USI, 12 Led 581: “,..The government are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and in trust to whom they please. ... The sovereign in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.” US Supreme Court in Wilson v Omaha India Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979): “In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinary construed to exclude it.” Rebuttable presumptions are in effect inferences that, in the absence of any controverting evidence, the jury is required to make and, in civil cases, to accept as established facts. [89. People v Wong Sang Lung, 3 CA 221, 84 P 843.] BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6" Ed. (1990), p. 1267. Rebuttable presumption. In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a “disputable” presumption. A species of 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 22Co woe ND WwW FF WN mb MY YY KR NN DN SF Fe SF FERPA Ss BuHR ABER FE SO we HN DH BF WN ES legal presumption which holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced. Beck v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo. App., 48 S.W. 2d 213, 215. It shifts burden of proof. Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S. Ct. 358, 362, 76 L.Ed. 772. It gives particular effect to certain group of facts in absence of further evidence, and presumption provides prima facie case which shifts to defendant the burden to go forward with evidence to contradict or rebut fact presumed. Gulle v. Boggs, Fla., 174 So.2d 26, 28. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6" Ed. (1990), p. 1185 Presumption. An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existing of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. Van Wart v. Cook, OKI. App., 557 P2d 1161, 1163. A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inference be drawn from the available evidence. Port Terminal & Warehousing Co. v. John S. James Co., D. C. GA., 92 F.R. D. 100, 106. A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. A presumption is not evidence. A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable. I, :Mark-Douglas: Stokes, Declare and Affirm that I am not nor have I ever been (individually or corporately) a Corporation, Fiction of Law, Fictitious Entity, Corporate Persona, Non-Entity, Legal Entity or as a Surety for any of the previously mentioned and that I further Declare and Affirm that I am a living man, American Sovereign as stated in the original Constitution for the united States of America, of which all public servants/public officials are sworn by their Oaths of Office to protect and defend, both State and National, in which is also enumerated the type and size of bonds required by both elected and appointed positions, in order to assure the Sovereign public that their trust 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 23ood An FF WN mw NWN N NN KY NN YN FY SF FF YY SF SDP xs RBoaewFanvnfrF FS owe NANA H FF WN EK S and faith in those public servants/public officials are well founded and that their duties will be discharged in the most Honorable means until completion of their term of office. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. September 14, 2010, Colleyville, Texas By: wn Work Rouges ele :Mark-Douglas(Stokes State of Texas ) ) ss. SURAT County of Tarrant ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this Y4- day September 2010, as to the matters set forth herein, by :Mark-Douglas: Stokes and :Melinda-Kay: Stokes. SHERRY | ROE J 60 & eS OF PAS q COMMISSION EXPIRES p> q JULY 8, 2011 My Commission Expires: Certificate of Mailing I, 5 jaintand-hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Plaintiffs’ -FINDINGS-OF FACT, JUDICIAL NOFICE; AFFIDAVIT with EXHIBITS 001—004 was served to: Brendetta A. Scott, @ the office of HUGHES, WATTERS, & ASKANASE, L.L.P 333Clay, 29" floor Houston, TX 77002-4168 And the attorneys for defendants and/or Defendants at their normal place of business: HUGHES, WATTERS, & ASKANASE, L.L.P 333Clay, 29" floor Houston, TX 77002-4168 Date_ 14 Sep/7 BY: AR: Vinh Duglba: Sif 09/14/10 Stokes vs. Brendetta Scott, et. al 24Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) Page 39 of 48 Investigation Request #8663299 for Applicant SSN 382-50-7147 Archival Copy Education: { } Tourism: { x } Visit family or friends: { } Other: { } Countries visited 1. Countries visited: Country: Mexico: (End of Countries visited List) Number of days: 10 Many short trips: { x } Additional comments € j2gSi Se Section 21: Mental and Emotional Health Mental health counseling in and of itself} isnot a reason to revoke or deny a clearance. In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition? Answer "No’ if the counseling was for any of the following reasons and was not court-ordered: - strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or . stricty related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment. Yes: {} No: {x} If you answered "Yes," indicate who conducted the treatment and/or counseling, provide the following information, and sign the Authorization for Release of Medical Information Pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). (No Entry Provided) Section 22: Police Record For this item, report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise ae tcken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Certified at 2010-09-13 15:37:03.959 PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION Data Hash Code: 91ccdc91b4 £e9367c53ad£207e05e60a5c552972Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing {e-QIP) Page 40 of 48 Investigation Request #8663299 for Applicant SSN 382-50-7147 Archival Copy Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad. For questions a and b, respond for the timeframe of the last 7 years (ifan SSBI go back 10 years). Exclude any fines of less than $300 for traffic offenses that do not involve alcohol or drugs. @. Have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in criminal proceeding against you; are you on trial or awaiting a trial on criminat charges; or are you currently awaiting sentencing for a criminal offense? Yes:{ } No:{x} Bb Tiave you been rested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal, or any other type of law enforcement officer? Yes: { } No:{x} c. Have you EVER been charged with any fetony offense? (Include those under Uniform Code of Military Justice.) Yes: { } No:{x} d. Have you EVER been charged with a firearms or explosives offense? Yes: { } No: {x} @. Have you EVER been charged with any affense(s) related to alcohol or drugs? Yes: { } No:{x} If you answered "Yes" to any question above, explain below, providing information for each and every offense. (No Entry Provided) Section 23: Illegal Use of Drugs or Drug Activity “The following questions pertain to the illegal use of drugs or drug activity. You are required to answer the questions fuly and truthfully, and your failure to do ‘so could be grounds for an adverse employment decision of action against you. Neither your truthful responses nor information derived from your responses will be used as evidence against you in any subsequent minal di ain the lack 7 yours, have you legally used any controlled substance, for example, c