Preview
FROM THE DESK OF Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, American Man, Beneficiary in Equity-Executor
DOCKET NO. FST-CV15-6026844-S : SUPERIOR COURT
DOCKET NO. NWH-CV22-6006923-S
DOCKET NO. FST-CV23-5028567-S
DOCKET NO. FST-CV23-5029576-S
CITIMORTGAGE, INC. : J.D. STAMFORD/NORWALK
LD PROPERTIES LLC; LUTHY, THOMAS E.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
S01S-CR22-0169490-T; S01S-CR23-0250191-S;
S01S-CR23-0251706-S; S01S-CR23-0251708-S;
S01S-CR23-0251790-S
V. : AT STAMFORD
PRITCHARD, ANDREW H., ET AL : MAY 22, 2024
PRITCHARD, BRIDGET R., ET AL
BILL OF COMPLAINT ("CAUSE OF FRAUD & SWINDLE; RAILROADING; RACKETEERING;
SEIZURE and TREASON”): DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY.
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States
wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the
land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that
"no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without
violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v.
Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19
U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Justice Warren E. Burger, (1907-1995) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1969-1986)
"... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad manners.
Ineptness, bungling, malpractice, and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this
country every day ... these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of
the profession. ... the harsh truth is that ... we may well be on our way to a society, overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated."
1
“There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts,
documents, and even judgments” (United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1878).
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 (April 14, 2023),
"Cases involving ... deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property constitute a core of cases
that ... MUST be resolved by Article III courts—not executive adjudicators dressed up as courts".
COUNTERCLAIM OF NON-SUIT(“FICTION”)/CLAIM/SUIT/PETITION OF
BANK FRAUD AND THEFT OF PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION; THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT;
CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES CHAPTER 952 Section 53a-119
Larceny; CGA SEC. 53a-121 Value of Property; CGA SEC. 42a-9-109(a)(3);
CGA SEC. 42a-9-203(b);CGA SEC. 42a-9-607(b) 12 CFR 1026 Truth in
Lending Act (TILA) Regulation Z, 12 USC 2605 Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) Section 6; CGS Sec. 53- 379(a) Residential Mortgage
Fraud; CGS 47-30 Ejectment. Set-Off of Defendant's Improvements; C G S
S e c . 5 2 - 4 3 4 S t a t e R e f e r e e s ; CGS Sec. 53a-138 Forgery in the First
Degree; CGS Sec. 53a-139 Forgery in the Second degree; CGS Sec. 53a-142a
Filing a False Record; CGS Sec. 8- 265ee Notice to Mortgagee of Foreclosure;
CGS Sec. 49-8a Penalty for Recording False Information; CGS Sec. 49-10
Assignment of Mortgage Debt-Requirements- Sufficient Notice of Assignment;
CGS Sec. 47-36aa Validations re Conveyancing Defects of Instruments
Recorded after January 1, 1997, Insubstantial Defects-Defects re Power of
Attorney-Defects re Conveyance by Fiduciary; CGS Sec. 47-5 Requirements re
Conveyance of Land-Conveyance pursuant to Power of Attorney; CGS Sec. 53a-
129a. Identity theft defined; CGS Sec. 53a-129b. Identity theft in the first degree:
Class B felony; CGS Sec. 53a-129c. Identity theft in the second degree: Class C
felony; CGS Sec. 53a-129d. Identity theft in the third degree: Class D felony; CGS
2
Sec. 53a-129e. Trafficking in personal identifying information: Class D felony; CGS
Sec. 52-571h. Action for damages resulting from identity theft; CGS 53a-130 Criminal
Impersonation; CGS Sec. 53a-157b. (Formerly Sec. 53a-157). False statement: Class A
misdemeanor; CGS Sec. 54-64a. Release by judicial authority; CGS Sec. 53a-180. Falsely
reporting an incident in the first degree: Class D or C felony; CGS Sec. 53a-180b. Falsely
reporting an incident concerning serious physical injury or death: Class D or C felony; CGS Sec.
53a-183. Harassment in the second degree: Class C misdemeanor; CGS 54-82m Speedy
Trial: CGS Sec. 7-254. Delinquent assessments. Liens. Assignment of liens; CGS Sec. 52-215.
Dockets. Jury cases. Court cases; CGS Sec. 52-218 Jury May Try Facts in Equitable
Action; the Connecticut Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act
(CORA) CGS 53-393 et seq.; no DUE PROCESS as per the Constitution of
Connecticut, the 5th Amendment, the 7th Amendment and 14th Amendment of
the US Constitution; plus, The Right to Privacy' addressed in the 1st
Amendment, 3rd Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment and the "Liberty"
Guarantee of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution; 18 US Code 4
Misprision of felony; 18 U.S. Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact; Title 18 US
Code 153 Embezzlement Against Estate; Title 18 U.S.C Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights; Title 18 U.S.C Section 242 Deprivation of Rights
Under the Color of Law; Title 42 US Code 122203 Prohibition Against
Retaliation and Coercion; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of
proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees; Title 9 18 U.S.C
1951 Hobbs Act; Title 5 Administrative Procedure Act 1946; Executive Order
13818 Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights
Abuse or Corruption; Executive Order 13848 Imposing Certain Sanctions in the
Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election; Title 50 U.S. Code
3
2204 Definitions “ENEMY”, “SPOILS OF WAR”, etc.; Title 5 U.S. Code § 3331 -
Oath of office; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1918 - Disloyalty and asserting the right to
strike against the Government; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1346 - Definition of
“scheme or artifice to defraud”; Title 8 U.S. Code § 1481 - Loss of nationality by
native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof;
presumptions; Title 22 U.S. Code § 611 – Definitions; Title 28 U.S. Code
Chapter 176 - FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE; Title 22 U.S.
Code § 286 - Acceptance of membership by United States in International
Monetary Fund; Title 15 U.S. Code § 1122 - Liability of United States and
States, and instrumentalities and officials thereof; Title 42 U.S. Code § 12202 -
State immunity; Title 42 U.S. Code § 2000d–7 - Civil rights remedies
equalization; Title 5 U.S. Code § 558 - Imposition of sanctions; determination of
applications for licenses; suspension, revocation, and expiration of licenses;
Title 18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions “Domestic Terrorism”; Title 18 U.S.
Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries; Title 18
U.S. Code 2441 War Crimes; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason;
Title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason; and CGS 54-170 Arrest without warrant.
"Persons charged" CGS 54-170 & Parties to the Counterclaim (Bill of Complaint):
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
CHASE THEODORA ROGERS (RET. 2018)
RICHARD A. ROBINSON
Superior Court Judges
ROBERT L. GENUARIO
KEVIN M TIERNEY
KEVIN A. RANDOLPH
JOHN F. BLAWIE
CHARLES T. LEE
A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE
JOHN F. KAVANEWSKY, JR.
4
RONALD E. KOWALSKI, II
DOUGLAS C. MINTZ
DAVID R. TOBIN
KENNETH B. POVODATOR
WALTER MICHAEL SPADER, JR.
BRUCE P. HUDOCK
VIKKI COOPER
ROBERT G. GOLGER
KEVIN A. HERNANDEZ
SHEILA ANN OZALIS
TAGGART D. ADAMS
YAMINI MENON
Chief Court Administrator, Judge
PATRICK L. CARROLL, III
Appellate Court Judges
JOSEPH P. FLYNN
BETHANY JEAN ALVORD
ALEXANDRA DAVIS DIPENTIMA
Attorney General
William Tong
Court Committee
Stephen Conover (Carmody Law)
William J. Lasko
Liam Burke (Carmody Law)
Atlas Appraisal Group
Guy Rocco
CitiMortgage, Inc.
John R. James
Linda Dominguez
Tenia Henderson
Consteinella Brown
Daniel Martin
Tammy Monday
5
Mancini Sign Services
Claudio Mancini
Lovejoy & Rimer, PC
John Hall
LD Properties LLC
David Chen
Le Ong
David Vichea
Clerks
Amy Melashvili
Megan McCaffrey
Nadine Lesperance
Jonathan Bubar
Rhonda Andrews
Charles Kim
Elizabeth Hayes
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
Geoffrey K. Milne
Christopher Picard
Peter A. Ventre
Jeffrey T. Schuyler
Joseph R. Dunaj
Benjamin T. Stankiewicz
Victoria Forcella
Christina Turano
Housing Clerk
6
Attorney Edmond O'Garro
U.S. Marshal
Matt Parker
State Farm Insurance
Agent Soribel Holguin
Turn Key Realty Group/Houlihan Lawrence
Anthony Saraco Jr.
Stephen Mele
CSC Holdings, LLC
Matthew Grover
Raveis Realtors
Ted Sibilia
Goldman, Gruder & Woods
Michael Goldman
Francis Lieto
New April 4, 2023 Buyer
Thomas E. Luthy
Norwalk Police Department Attorney
Chief, Thomas Kulhawik Michael L. Witherspoon
Deputy Chief, James Walsh
Lieutenant, Thomas Rocinske US Bank Home Mortgage
Sergeant, Thomas Fern Raymond R. Laflamme, Originator
7
State Marshal
Alan Freedman
William Kemp
Dawn Fortunato (Impersonator)
Norwalk Health Department
Adrian Leahy
Third Taxing District Electric
Ronald Scofield
Governor
Ned Lamont
Norwalk Mayor
Harry Rilling
Norwalk Town Clerk
Richard McQuaid
Deputy Assistant State Attorney
Laurence Tamaccio
Pursuant to CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant, Complicit Judges must be brought before a Grand
Jury of the People CGS 54-45 (not an Investigatory Grand Jury made up of one or three Judges) in
compliance with the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to determine that a Trial by Jury must
commence for crimes listed above and Treason.
In their individual & corporate capacity as corporate shareholders of corporations including:
JUDICIARY COURTS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
D-U-N-S® Number: 360707004
Company Address:
231 Capitol Ave 06106 Hartford
JUDICIARY COURTS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
D-U-N-S® Number: 602051823
Company Address:
123 Hoyt St 06905 Stamford
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 075410415
Company Address:
125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk
8
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 067597398
Company Address:
125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 077123732
Company Address:
125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 102564452
Company Address:
125 East Ave Rm 324 06851 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 102592636
Company Address:
125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 102592644
Company Address:
125 East Ave Rm 221 06851 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 102592669
Company Address:
125 East Ave Rm 237 06851 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 102592735
Company Address:
125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 102592743
Company Address:
125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 102592750
Company Address:
125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 101442254
Company Address:
24 Monroe St 06854 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 022716620
9
Company Address:
1 Monroe St 06854 Norwalk
CITY OF NORWALK
D-U-N-S® Number: 199679184
Company Address:
100 Water St 06854 Norwalk
NORWALK POLICE UNION 1727
D-U-N-S® Number: 964564665
Company Address:
297 West Ave 06850 Norwalk
NORWALK POLICE EMERALD SOCIETY, INC.
D-U-N-S® Number: 068723049
Company Address:
11 Falcon Ln 06484 Shelton
NORWALK POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE INC
D-U-N-S® Number: 965367068
Company Address:
1 Monroe St 06854 Norwalk
NORWALK POLICE FUND, INCORPORATED
D-U-N-S® Number: 969684757
Company Address:
1 Monroe St 06854 Norwalk
JURISDICTION:
By the grace of God almighty, and through the supremacy clause of the
Constitution (Article VI Clause 2 & 3) and the below-listed treaties of supreme law, it
is I alone, who shall determine my status, standing, honor and jurisdiction.
I hereby invoke and stand upon all my natural rights, given by my God, which are
written in the documents listed below. These, and all others, are universally
known as supreme law of the land:
• The Holy Bible, KJV 1611 GOD's Law's are Superior Law
• 1215 Magna Charta
• 1606 The First Charter of Virginia
• 1620 Mayflower Compact
• 1628 Petition of Rights
• 1639 Fundamental Orders of 1639
• 1641 Grand Remonstrance
• 1689 English bill of rights
• 1765 The Declaration of rights in congress at New York
• 1774 The Declaration of rights in congress at Philadelphia
• 1775 The Declaration of Arms
• 1776 The Virginia Declaration of rights
10
• 1777 the Articles of Confederation
• 1783 Treaty of Peace
• 1787 Northwest Ordinance
• 1789 The Constitution for the United States of America
• 1791 The Bill of Rights
• 1868 The Constitution of The United States of America
• 1864, 1929 and 1949 The Geneva Conventions
• 1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• 23 March 1976 The International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights, Articles 1-27*
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, hereby and forever stand firm upon these natural
rights listed above, giving the free man of God, one of "We the People".
The Supreme Court said that the "rights of life and personal liberty are the natural
rights of man. To secure these rights ... governments are instituted among men"
U.S. v.
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto 542, 23 L. Ed. 588.
Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United
States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it
infringes upon the provisions of either, it is so far void." Houston v. Moore, 18 US
1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840)
The constitution is the law of the land and there can be no statutes or rule making
that would abrogate the constitution. The general principal is: anything that is
repugnant to or abrogates the constitution is null and void of law.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) "Where rights secured by the Constitution
are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate
them."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, (1803) "The Constitution of these United
States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the
Constitution is null and void of law."
"An officer of the court may be held liable in damages to any person injured in
consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability
for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'Individual
Capacity' , not his official capacity..." see 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability
"When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against
them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials
11
perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose
the shield of immunity." Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d.
369, ACLU
Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457,293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991). The
same rule applies to state officials.
MORE RELEVENT CASE LAW
Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272 Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases
apply to State Court Cases.
Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the
obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get
their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from
legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that
constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally
construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and
leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in
substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of
the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be
Obsta Principiis."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals
The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal
judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a
suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe
Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) It was held that a pro se
complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice
Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f)
that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal
rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by
counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of
pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f)
FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) "It will be an evil day for American Liberty if
12
the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional
jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to
prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.
Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694 Acts in
excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge
deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.
U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) "No man in this
country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at
defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the
lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it." "It is the only supreme power
in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in
its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to
observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it
gives."
Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894) Due process of law and the equal
protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject
the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government."
HABEAS CORPUS: Duncan v. Bradley, No. 01-55290 (9th Circ., 12-24-02)
42 USC 1983 - Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges. Note: [Copied
verbiage; we are not lawyers.] Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for
their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding,
assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their
administrative/ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen's constitutional rights. When
a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a
judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act. Nowhere was the judiciary given
immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to
have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less
possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10, respectively, in fact expressly
prohibit such, stating, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and
"No state shall... grant any Title of Nobility." Most of us are certain that Congress
itself doesn't understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges. Article III, Sec. 1,
"The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in
such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior." Tort & Insurance
Law Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516, "Federal tort law: judges cannot invoke
judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants' civil rights." - Robert Craig Waters.
Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859) "No judicial process, whatever form it may
assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the
13
court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these
boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence."
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does not
comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that
Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The
judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no
state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without
violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188);
U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens
v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) "... the particular phraseology
of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,
supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the
constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that
instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution
itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those
only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law
(rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the
14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of
the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity
unconstitutional.
Recent US Supreme Court Rulings:
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 (April
14, 2023), "Cases involving ... deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property
constitute a core of cases that ... MUST be resolved by Article III courts—not
executive adjudicators dressed up as courts".
In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S.(2019), Chief
Justice John Roberts made it clear that property owners do not need to exhaust state
courts before seeking redress at the federal level, stating that a “property owner has
an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his
property without paying for it."
The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598
U.S. 631 (2023), an important Takings Clause property rights case addressing the
issue of "home equity theft." The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such
practices qualify as takings requiring the payment of "just compensation" under
14
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Importantly, it also concluded that state
law is not the sole source of the definition of property rights under the Takings
Clause, and therefore state governments cannot seize private property without
compensation simply by redefining it as the state's property.
Discussion in the Case:
SEC v. Jarkesy
Docket Number: 22-859
Date Argued: 11/29/23
JUSTICE GORSUCH: So, Mr. Fletcher, with respect to your argument that
Congress can move something from courts into agencies and the Seventh
Amendment doesn't speak to that because it's not a suit, I think Noel Webster
described a suit as any action or process for the recovery of a right or a claim
before any tribunal, which would seem to be a problem. That's a pretty
contemporaneous definition. And then Justice Brennan in Granfinanciera I
think addressed your argument pretty squarely when he said Congress cannot
eliminate a party's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial merely by
relabeling the cause of action and placing jurisdiction in an administrative
agency. Thoughts?
MR. FLETCHER: Yeah. So I -- I guess I think that's still inconsistent with what
the Court has said in Granfinanciera.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: I just quoted from Granfinanciera.
MR. FLETCHER: I -- I'm sorry. I -- I misspoke. I don't think that's what the
Court held in Granfinanciera. It's inconsistent with what the Court said.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: Are you saying I misread it, Mr. Fletcher?
MR. FLETCHER: No, Justice Gorsuch. I'm saying --
JUSTICE GORSUCH: You said -- you said that that's a purely taxonomic
change.
MR. FLETCHER: Yes.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: And that that's not enough to render it no longer a suit
for purposes of the Seventh Amendment, right?
MR. FLETCHER: Yes. I think, in context, Granfinanciera is talking about a
proceeding that was in a bankruptcy court in the Article III setting. I think the
Court's subsequent cases, including Oil States, have Heritage Reporting
Corporation said, if you're permissibly in an Article III tribunal, then the
Seventh Amendment doesn't have independent work to do. I apologize for
misidentifying the case I was relying on.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: All right. But it -- it would seem strange. And we don't
usually say the government can avoid a constitutional mandate merely by
relabeling or moving things around. It's -- it's as much a violation to do
something indirectly as it is directly we usually say, right?
15
Maxim: Maxim of Law 4b. He who does a thing by another is considered as
doing it himself [i.e., the acts of an agent are the acts of the principal.] Broom,
Max. 817, 818, et seq.; A Collection Maxims of Law by Charles A. Weisman
Please take notice that as agency workers, state judges, presiding judges, state legislators,
etc… that you are bound by the Constitutions that you have all sworn to uphold, and from this
time forward please be advised that taking children, cars, houses, weapons, rights, property,
etc.. without a trial by jury in a court of record following the course of the common law is
unlawful. Please also take further notice that attorneys, who don’t have their name on the line,
as they are not in positions of service and contract with the people, presenting you with the idea
that it’s acceptable to trample the people’s rights by device or artifice does not in any way
remove your responsibility for your wrongdoings. Furthermore, there is another element of
wrong being committed when you are working in a federal program and make money outside of
your normal salary for carrying out the functions of that program, leaving one with unclean
hands on top of taking property or rights from the people without right! All past cases that
bypassed the common law are unlawful. Therefore, it is my immediate demand, wish, and order
that you restore all that has been unlawfully taken without constitutionally mandated due
process, and notify all those who were harmed, or you agree that any wrong that is done in this
regard in the future, or that has not been corrected from past trespasses, is done purposely,
with full knowledge, intent and malice, and will be recognized as such by the People, whom you
swore to serve and protect. This notice is sent to you in the peace and love of Jesus Christ, that
you may repent and do works worthy of the same.
Maxim: “Judicial notice is a form of evidence.”
Mann v Mann, 172 P. 2d 369, 375, 76 Cal. App. 2d 32.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187,
The Supreme Court has warned: "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface,
many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving
their rights, due to ignorance."
The undersigned, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says:
1. I am over the age of 18 and understand the meaning and obligation of an oath.
2. I, the Defendant Andrew H. Pritchard Sui Juris, submit this Bill of Complaint
("Cause of Fraud and Swindle") for Case No.: FST-CV15-6026844-S; AC-
41070 CITIMORTGAGE INC. v. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. ET AL; and
NWH-CV22- 6006923-S LO PROPERTIES LLC v. PRITCHARD, BRIDGET
R. ET AL; STATE OF CNNECTICUT V. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. S01S-
CR22-0169490-T; S01S-CR23-0250191-S S01S-CR23-0251706-S; S01S-
CR23-0251708-S; and S01S-CR23-0251790-S before the Court.
3. I, the Sui Juris Defendant Andrew H. Pritchard as a living private
individual, submit the following deposition for the Court.
4. I do solemnly swear support to the Constitution "We the People" of the
United States, and the Constitution of Connecticut, and as a private
individual and property owner thereof will faithfully recognize my inalienable
rights and power to act to protect those rights.
5. I recognize in the year 2000, the State of Connecticut abolished County
Sheriffs by Public Act 00-01 amending and eliminating Section 25 of the
Constitution of the State of Connecticut; thus, abdicating Sheriff's Power not
16
conferred to the State & Judicial Marshals back to the people of the county
such as Posse Comitatus, to assemble a militia or posse, and the power to
deputize people and require them to assist in the keeping of the peace and
the enforcement of laws.
The Defendant demands a trial by jury as per the Constitution of Connecticut.
Sec. 7. In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be
given in evidence, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law
and the facts, under the direction of the court.
Sec. 21. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.
ANSWERS to Case NWH-CV22-6006923-S:
1. ADMIT
2. DENY
3. DENY
4. DENY
5. DENY
6. DENY
SPECIAL DEFENSES to Case NWH-CV22-6006923-S:
1. The Plaintiff is a complicit participant in Connecticut Corrupt Organizations
and Racketeering Act (CORA) CGS 53-393 et.seq..
2. The Plaintiff has no claim to title (see FST-CV15-6026844-S Doc. #330.00)
3. The Plaintiff does not have subject matters jurisdiction to bring the suit
(see Complaint Doc. #100.31).
4. The Plaintiff is charged in the Motion for Capias CITIMORTGAGE INC. V.
PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. ET AL DOCKET NO. FST-CV15-6026844-S for
THE WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF CGS 53a-119 LARCENY; CGS 53a-121
VALUE OF PROPERTY; CGS 47-30 EJECTMENT; SET-OFF OF
DEFENDANT'S IMPROVEMENTS; CGS 53-379a RESIDENTIAL
MORTGAGE FRAUD; CGS 53- 393 ET.SEQ. CONNECTICUT CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS AND RACKETEERING ACTIVITY ACT (CORA); TITLE
18 U.S. CODE 4 MISPRISION OF FELONY; TITLE 18 U.S.C SECTION 241
CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS; TITLE 18 U.S.C SECTION 242
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW; TITLE 9 18
U.S.C 1951 HOBBS ACT AND TITLE 5 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT 1946.
5. The Plaintiff illegally took title without cure of $9,159,430 UCC lien,
criminal conversion.
6. The Plaintiff is a "Straw Man" buyer.
7. Unclean Hands, the Plaintiff has brought a fraudulent action against
17
Andrew- Hamilton: Pritchard, Beneficiary in Equity, c/o: 9 Sylvester
Court, Norwalk, Connecticut; near [06855) as described in attached
counterclaim.
8. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. is named as a party in the COUNTERCLAIM
OF NON-SUIT(“FICTION”)/CLAIM/SUIT/PETITION with damages related
to 20+ Judges and Clerks. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. has a financial
interest in Case CITIMORTGAGE INC. V. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. ET
AL FST-CV15- 6026844-S and Case LD PROPERTIES LLC V.
PRITCHARD, BRIDGET R. ET AL.
9. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. is being charged pursuant to CGS 54-170 for
THE WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF CGS 53a-119 LARCENY; CGS 53a-121
VALUE OF PROPERTY; CGS 47-30 EJECTMENT. SET-OFF OF
DEFENDANT'S IMPROVEMENTS; CGS 53-379a RESIDENTIAL
MORTGAGE FRAUD; CGS 53- 393 ET.SEQ. CONNECTICUT CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS AND RACKETEERING ACTIVITY ACT (CORA); AND 18
U.S. CODE 4 MISPRISION
OF FELONY. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. CANNOT be a judge in his own
case [NEMO JUDEX IN SUA CAUSA].
10. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. has illegally passed title to "Straw Man" buyer
David Chen and Le Ong with the complicit participation of Attorney John Hall
in case CITIMORTGAGE INC. V. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. ET AL FST-
CV15-
6026844-S. Complicit participants moved this into the housing court to
manipulate and obfuscate their criminal activity. It can even be seen by
the change in the party title LD PROPERTIES LLC v. PRITCHARD,
BRIDGET R. ET AL.
11. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. continues to willfully disregard his administrative
authority and duty to enable "Straw Man" buyer David Chen with the
complicit participation of Attorney John Hall steal 9 Sylvester Court,
Norwalk, Connecticut.
12. Criminally charged Judge Spader Jr. is in violation of Title 18 U.S.C Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights; Title 18 U.S.C Section 242 Deprivation of Rights
Under the Color of Law; Title 9 18 U.S.C 1951 Hobbs Act; and Title 5
Administrative Procedure Act 1946.
13. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. does not have the authority to hear this case
because of the serious charges against him and violation of Canon Law. All
of his orders are null and void.
14. The Sui Juris Defendant is being "Railroaded" for financial gain of
$2,000,000+, "Unjust Enrichment".
15. On August 29, 2022, 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut was SEIZED.
This is TREASON.
16. This is a fictional case with fraudulent Summons entered, not filed;
fraudulent complaint entered, not filed; fraudulent Lis Pendens entered at
18
Town Hall, not recorded, not entered or filed by the Civil Clerk; No
Appearance entered or filed by the fictitious Plaintiff; No “Competent Fact
Witness” ever appeared and ALL the fraudulent motions and orders
documented by the fictious court dockets.
Any Constitutional Rights violation by is one of irreparable harm and
demands “Strict Scrutiny” in adjudication by an Article III Court.
This is a Court of Executive adjudicators ‘dressed as Court’, only a real Court,
an article III court, has constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate dispossession
of person from his home.
ArtIII.S2.C1.2.5.1 Standing Requirement:
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:
The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to
Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies
between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming
Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof,
and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Chase Rogers (Ret. 2018) established the Bench-
Bar Foreclosure Committee in October 2007 which has enabled "Racketeering" and
"Railroading" with no restraints, rogue power.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Chase Rogers (Ret. 2018)
REASON WHY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CHASE ROGERS SHOULD NOT BE
REAPPOINTED TO THE BENCH by Vivian Winslow Thumser gives a breakdown
of how the corrupt Foreclosure Courts operate as a Connecticut Corrupt
Organization & Racketeering Act (CORA) enterprise (the Hobbs Act, the
Administrative Procedures Act). The structure was created and developed by Chief
Justice Chase Rogers (Ret. 2018) and continues today with most of the same
complicit participants.
The following is Vivian Winslow Thumser's statement with links provided:
19
1. On October 23, 2007, Chief Justice Rogers issued a press release that
she was creating a Foreclosure Bench Bar Committee.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/press250.htm
20
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION Quick Link
231 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(860) 757-2270, Fax (860) 757-2215
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 23, 2007
21
Judicial Committees,
Commissions and Boards
latest News and Updates
Chief Justice Rogers Appoints Bench-Bar Foreclosure Committee
Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers announced today that she has appointed a Bench-Bar Foreclosure
Committee that will review current practices and practices in the courts regarding foreclosure cases, and
make recommendations on ways to improve those procedures and practices.
The Honorable Douglas C. Mintz, Administrative Judge for the Danbury Judicial District, will chair the
committee. "The purpose of the committee is to promote cooperation between the bench and the bar in
this sensitive area," Judge Mintz said.
'The number of foreclosure cases added in court during the 2005-06 fiscal year totaled 11,764. That
number increased to 15,773 for the 2006-07 fiscal year," Chief Justice Rogers said. "Whether this is a
trend that will continue remains to be seen, but I believe that our state courts must be as well prepared as
possible to process these cases."
The first meeting of the committee will be Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007, at 2 p.m. in the Attorney Conference
Room, located in the Supreme Court Building, 231 Capitol Ave, Hartford. The meeting is open to the
public.
Committee members include judges, attorneys and Judicial Branch employees. Other members include:
Judge Salvatore C. Agati; Attorney Ronald M. Bender; Attorney Adam L. Bendett; Attorney Jessica L.
Braus; Attorney Denis R. Caron; Attorney Robert F. Frankel; Judge Samuel Freed; Attorney Peggy
George; Judge Robert G. Gilligan; Judge Arthur A. Hiller, who is chief administrative judge of civil matters;
Ms. Catherine Lapolla; Attorney Leanne M. Larson; Attorney Richard M. Leibert; Attorney Geoffrey Kent
Milne; Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman; Judge Richard A. Robinson; Danbury Chief Clerk Therese Servas;
Judge Theodore R. Tyma; Attorney Thomas W. Witherspoon; and Attorney Louis C. Zowine.
For further information, please contact Rhonda Stearley-Hebert, manager of communications, at 860-757-
2270.
2. The purpose of the Foreclosure Bench Bar Committee as stated in the press release
was to "review current practices and practices in the courts regarding foreclosure
cases, and make recommendations on ways to improve those procedures and
practices."
3. In order to carry out this mission Justice Rogers handpicked members included
Judges who presided over foreclosure cases and attorneys who prosecuted
foreclosure cases.
4. On the list of handpicked attorneys were the owners and partners of the two
largest foreclosure mill law firms Hunt Leibert Jacobson PC and Reiner Reiner and
Bendett
PC1: Attorney Richard Leibert, Attorney Geoffrey Milne and Attorney Adam Bendett.
5. At the time Justice Rogers chose these attorneys and during their continued tenure
on the Foreclosure Bench Bar Committee the attorney firms have been charged,
22
investigated and settled for running illegal kickback schemes, inducement schemes,
double billing schemes and other fraudulent activities.
6. For instance, at the time Adam Bendett was chosen to sit amongst the Judges armed
with the Constitutional Power of deciding foreclosure cases in this State, Reiner,
Reiner and Bendett PC was charged, investigated and would eventually settled on
December 10, 2007 with the Office of the Attorney General, the Insurance
Commissioner and the Department of Consumer Protection of the State of
Connecticut for running "Illegal kickback and Inducement Schemes." See link:
http://www.ct.gov/cid/lib/cid/Reinerkickbacksettlement.pdf
$700,000 payout resolves mortgage kickbacks
lawsuit.
Hartford, CT: (Dec-10-07) State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office brought charges
against Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, a law firm, Absolute Mortgage Solutions, a mortgage
company and Century 21 Access America, a real estate broker, alleging that they engaged in
kickback schemes that cheated hundreds of home buyers for mortgage-related services. Sources
at the AG's office stated that the allegations came to Blumenthal's attention with complaints from
consumers and a lawyer who questioned why Reiner, Reiner & Bendett were receiving so much
business from Absolute Mortgage Solutions.
The suit claimed that the allegations expose an uneven playing field between the real estate
industry, which is involved in numerous property transactions, and less-experienced home
buyers. Blumenthal sued Farmington law firm of Reiner, Reiner & Bendett in October 2007,
accusing it of concealing $142,200 in kickbacks and inducements between 2002 and 2005. The
law firm, which also sells title insurance, used sham service, rental and other agreements to
conceal the payments.
The suit alleged that Reiner agreed to pay mortgage broker Absolute Mortgage Solutions of East
Hartford $200 per customer for closing services, including ordering a title search, assembling
closing documents and coordinating the closing. Reiner paid Absolute $76,200 in 2004 under the
agreement. Century 21 Access America of Wethersfield was also accused of steering title
insurance business to Reiner, Reiner & Bendett. Connecticut law prohibits title insurance agents
from paying for referrals. As part of a settlement reached, the three companies have agreed to
pay $700,000 in fines, forfeitures and restitution to resolve kickback allegations.
23
7. Despite this fact Justice Rogers allowed Adam Bendett to remain a member of the
Foreclosure Bench Bar Committee with full access to the states Judiciary with
callous disregard to the decorum of the Judiciary associating itself with Attorneys
who carry out illegal kickback and inducement schemes.
8. Then, there was the issue of the corruption of the State's Marshalls where Reiner,
Reiner and Bendett, who reorganized under the name Bendett and McHugh along with
Richard M. Leibert of Hunt Leibert Jacobson P.C., started to run a "Double Billing"
Scheme where the Marshalls that worked for Hunt Leibert Jacobson P.C. and
Bendett and McHugh would double bill homeowners for the delivery of papers. The
Hartford Courant reported:
"The double-billing began in early 2007, with a small group of marshals who regularly
worked for the state's two large foreclosure law firms, Hunt Leibert and Bendett &
McHugh. The marshals included a three-page lien document known as a lis pendens
each time they delivered legal papers in a foreclosure suit, but treated the delivery of
that document as an entirely separate action, charging a second service fee and even
double-charging for mileage. The practice typically added $30 to $150 to each service.
After the fee increases, the firms filed about 30,000 foreclosure suits before abandoning
the practice following reports in The Courant and questions from Blumenthal's office.
Blumenthal said that not only were the extra fees excessive, but that state law does
not even require that the document be served on defendants in a foreclosure suit.
Marshals, however, typically serve papers at the direction of law firms. And if there
are efforts to recover money retroactively for unnecessary deliveries, marshals are
expected to argue that they were merely following the firms' instructions." See link
http://articles.courant.com/2009-09-22/news/marshals0922.art_1_marshals-law-
firms-foreclosure-actions. See also this link
http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2009/06/law-firms-probed-in-
mortgage-foreclosure-cases.htmI.
Law Firms Probed in Mortgage Foreclosure Cases
To date, it's been primarily overreaching, greedy mortgage companies that have played the role
of the villains in the national mortgage foreclosure crisis. But now, at least in Connecticut, it
appears that law firms may be implicated as well.
The Hartford Courant reports that State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has sent letters to
24
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as a third mortgage company to find out why they
repeatedly retained the same two law firms to handle all of their foreclosure proceedings in
Connecticut.
According to Blumenthal, the two law firms -- Hunt Leibert Jacobson in Hartford, Conn., and
Bendett & McHugh in Farmington, Conn. -- file nearly two-thirds of the foreclosure actions
clogging Connecticut courts. Records show that these two firms filed about 1,200 suits last
month, with 99 percent of them foreclosure actions. The firms have so much work that even their
process servers are getting rich. Hunt Leibert gave one process server, Joe Fiorillo, more than
$2.2 million in business last year while Bendett & McHugh provided him with $762,000-worth
of work. After expenses, Fiorillo netted over a million dollars.
Blumenthal is already investigating Hunt Liebert and Bendett & McHugh for complaints related
to improper service, illegal practices and allocating work to process servers who fail to serve
papers or take kickbacks. The question is will Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also wind up liable
for these activities?
9. The illegal activities of these Foreclosure Mills including filing fraudulent paperwork,
bogus affidavits and robo-signed documents led to the Office of the Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal to implement a moratorium on all foreclosures in the state of
Connecticut which the Washington Post dubbed as "radical." This was an act that would
soon be followed by the other 49 States of the Union. See link
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-
CONNECTICUT halts all foreclosures for all
banks
(Photo Credit: Jessica Hill/AP)
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Friday ordered a moratorium on all
25
foreclosures by all banks for 60 days--the most radical action taken by a state on issue of
document irregularities.
California also expanded the moratorium on foreclosures it announced last week on Ally
Financial foreclosures to include those by J.P. Morgan Chase.
Calling the companies' review of key foreclosure documents "a ruse," California Attorney
General Jerry Brown (D) ordered J.P. Morgan to prove it is following the law before it continues
foreclosures in the state.
Both J.P. Morgan Chase and Ally have frozen foreclosures in 23 states because some employees
had signed off on foreclosure paperwork without properly reviewing the files.
Colorado and Illinois have stopped foreclosures by Ally and at least seven other states have
launched probes into the issue. But Connecticut is the first to institute an industry-wide ban.
in Connecticut, Blumenthal said in a statement that he is investigating J.P. Morgan Chase and
Ally, formerly GMAC, which is the recipient of a $17 billion federal bailout and majority-owned
by the U.S. Treasury, as well as other lenders.
He said the actions of J.P. Morgan and Ally are a "possible fraud on the court undermining the
integrity of the legal process and consumers' ability to fight foreclosures.
"This freeze should stop a foreclosure steamroller based on defective documents and enable
effective remedies," Blumenthal said.
Ally Financial had already voluntarily suspended evictions and resales of homes in 23 states that
require a court order for foreclosures. J.P. Morgan's actions were a bit broader--the bank
suspended all foreclosures in the same 23 states. Connecticut was on the original list of 23 but
California was not.
Both Blumenthal and Brown are running in high-profile races for higher office in their respective
states in the Nov. 2 election -- Blumenthal for U.S. Senate, and Brown for gov
Preview
FROM THE DESK OF Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, American Man, Beneficiary in Equity-Executor DOCKET NO. FST-CV15-6026844-S : SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. NWH-CV22-6006923-S DOCKET NO. FST-CV23-5028567-S DOCKET NO. FST-CV23-5029576-S CITIMORTGAGE, INC. : J.D. STAMFORD/NORWALK LD PROPERTIES LLC; LUTHY, THOMAS E. STATE OF CONNECTICUT S01S-CR22-0169490-T; S01S-CR23-0250191-S; S01S-CR23-0251706-S; S01S-CR23-0251708-S; S01S-CR23-0251790-S V. : AT STAMFORD PRITCHARD, ANDREW H., ET AL : MAY 22, 2024 PRITCHARD, BRIDGET R., ET AL BILL OF COMPLAINT ("CAUSE OF FRAUD & SWINDLE; RAILROADING; RACKETEERING; SEIZURE and TREASON”): DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821). Justice Warren E. Burger, (1907-1995) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1969-1986) "... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice, and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day ... these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession. ... the harsh truth is that ... we may well be on our way to a society, overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated." 1 “There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments” (United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1878). Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 (April 14, 2023), "Cases involving ... deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property constitute a core of cases that ... MUST be resolved by Article III courts—not executive adjudicators dressed up as courts". COUNTERCLAIM OF NON-SUIT(“FICTION”)/CLAIM/SUIT/PETITION OF BANK FRAUD AND THEFT OF PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT; CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES CHAPTER 952 Section 53a-119 Larceny; CGA SEC. 53a-121 Value of Property; CGA SEC. 42a-9-109(a)(3); CGA SEC. 42a-9-203(b);CGA SEC. 42a-9-607(b) 12 CFR 1026 Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Regulation Z, 12 USC 2605 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Section 6; CGS Sec. 53- 379(a) Residential Mortgage Fraud; CGS 47-30 Ejectment. Set-Off of Defendant's Improvements; C G S S e c . 5 2 - 4 3 4 S t a t e R e f e r e e s ; CGS Sec. 53a-138 Forgery in the First Degree; CGS Sec. 53a-139 Forgery in the Second degree; CGS Sec. 53a-142a Filing a False Record; CGS Sec. 8- 265ee Notice to Mortgagee of Foreclosure; CGS Sec. 49-8a Penalty for Recording False Information; CGS Sec. 49-10 Assignment of Mortgage Debt-Requirements- Sufficient Notice of Assignment; CGS Sec. 47-36aa Validations re Conveyancing Defects of Instruments Recorded after January 1, 1997, Insubstantial Defects-Defects re Power of Attorney-Defects re Conveyance by Fiduciary; CGS Sec. 47-5 Requirements re Conveyance of Land-Conveyance pursuant to Power of Attorney; CGS Sec. 53a- 129a. Identity theft defined; CGS Sec. 53a-129b. Identity theft in the first degree: Class B felony; CGS Sec. 53a-129c. Identity theft in the second degree: Class C felony; CGS Sec. 53a-129d. Identity theft in the third degree: Class D felony; CGS 2 Sec. 53a-129e. Trafficking in personal identifying information: Class D felony; CGS Sec. 52-571h. Action for damages resulting from identity theft; CGS 53a-130 Criminal Impersonation; CGS Sec. 53a-157b. (Formerly Sec. 53a-157). False statement: Class A misdemeanor; CGS Sec. 54-64a. Release by judicial authority; CGS Sec. 53a-180. Falsely reporting an incident in the first degree: Class D or C felony; CGS Sec. 53a-180b. Falsely reporting an incident concerning serious physical injury or death: Class D or C felony; CGS Sec. 53a-183. Harassment in the second degree: Class C misdemeanor; CGS 54-82m Speedy Trial: CGS Sec. 7-254. Delinquent assessments. Liens. Assignment of liens; CGS Sec. 52-215. Dockets. Jury cases. Court cases; CGS Sec. 52-218 Jury May Try Facts in Equitable Action; the Connecticut Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act (CORA) CGS 53-393 et seq.; no DUE PROCESS as per the Constitution of Connecticut, the 5th Amendment, the 7th Amendment and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution; plus, The Right to Privacy' addressed in the 1st Amendment, 3rd Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment and the "Liberty" Guarantee of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution; 18 US Code 4 Misprision of felony; 18 U.S. Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact; Title 18 US Code 153 Embezzlement Against Estate; Title 18 U.S.C Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights; Title 18 U.S.C Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law; Title 42 US Code 122203 Prohibition Against Retaliation and Coercion; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees; Title 9 18 U.S.C 1951 Hobbs Act; Title 5 Administrative Procedure Act 1946; Executive Order 13818 Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption; Executive Order 13848 Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election; Title 50 U.S. Code 3 2204 Definitions “ENEMY”, “SPOILS OF WAR”, etc.; Title 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1918 - Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1346 - Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”; Title 8 U.S. Code § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions; Title 22 U.S. Code § 611 – Definitions; Title 28 U.S. Code Chapter 176 - FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE; Title 22 U.S. Code § 286 - Acceptance of membership by United States in International Monetary Fund; Title 15 U.S. Code § 1122 - Liability of United States and States, and instrumentalities and officials thereof; Title 42 U.S. Code § 12202 - State immunity; Title 42 U.S. Code § 2000d–7 - Civil rights remedies equalization; Title 5 U.S. Code § 558 - Imposition of sanctions; determination of applications for licenses; suspension, revocation, and expiration of licenses; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions “Domestic Terrorism”; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries; Title 18 U.S. Code 2441 War Crimes; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason; and CGS 54-170 Arrest without warrant. "Persons charged" CGS 54-170 & Parties to the Counterclaim (Bill of Complaint): Chief Justice of the Supreme Court CHASE THEODORA ROGERS (RET. 2018) RICHARD A. ROBINSON Superior Court Judges ROBERT L. GENUARIO KEVIN M TIERNEY KEVIN A. RANDOLPH JOHN F. BLAWIE CHARLES T. LEE A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE JOHN F. KAVANEWSKY, JR. 4 RONALD E. KOWALSKI, II DOUGLAS C. MINTZ DAVID R. TOBIN KENNETH B. POVODATOR WALTER MICHAEL SPADER, JR. BRUCE P. HUDOCK VIKKI COOPER ROBERT G. GOLGER KEVIN A. HERNANDEZ SHEILA ANN OZALIS TAGGART D. ADAMS YAMINI MENON Chief Court Administrator, Judge PATRICK L. CARROLL, III Appellate Court Judges JOSEPH P. FLYNN BETHANY JEAN ALVORD ALEXANDRA DAVIS DIPENTIMA Attorney General William Tong Court Committee Stephen Conover (Carmody Law) William J. Lasko Liam Burke (Carmody Law) Atlas Appraisal Group Guy Rocco CitiMortgage, Inc. John R. James Linda Dominguez Tenia Henderson Consteinella Brown Daniel Martin Tammy Monday 5 Mancini Sign Services Claudio Mancini Lovejoy & Rimer, PC John Hall LD Properties LLC David Chen Le Ong David Vichea Clerks Amy Melashvili Megan McCaffrey Nadine Lesperance Jonathan Bubar Rhonda Andrews Charles Kim Elizabeth Hayes McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC Geoffrey K. Milne Christopher Picard Peter A. Ventre Jeffrey T. Schuyler Joseph R. Dunaj Benjamin T. Stankiewicz Victoria Forcella Christina Turano Housing Clerk 6 Attorney Edmond O'Garro U.S. Marshal Matt Parker State Farm Insurance Agent Soribel Holguin Turn Key Realty Group/Houlihan Lawrence Anthony Saraco Jr. Stephen Mele CSC Holdings, LLC Matthew Grover Raveis Realtors Ted Sibilia Goldman, Gruder & Woods Michael Goldman Francis Lieto New April 4, 2023 Buyer Thomas E. Luthy Norwalk Police Department Attorney Chief, Thomas Kulhawik Michael L. Witherspoon Deputy Chief, James Walsh Lieutenant, Thomas Rocinske US Bank Home Mortgage Sergeant, Thomas Fern Raymond R. Laflamme, Originator 7 State Marshal Alan Freedman William Kemp Dawn Fortunato (Impersonator) Norwalk Health Department Adrian Leahy Third Taxing District Electric Ronald Scofield Governor Ned Lamont Norwalk Mayor Harry Rilling Norwalk Town Clerk Richard McQuaid Deputy Assistant State Attorney Laurence Tamaccio Pursuant to CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant, Complicit Judges must be brought before a Grand Jury of the People CGS 54-45 (not an Investigatory Grand Jury made up of one or three Judges) in compliance with the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to determine that a Trial by Jury must commence for crimes listed above and Treason. In their individual & corporate capacity as corporate shareholders of corporations including: JUDICIARY COURTS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT D-U-N-S® Number: 360707004 Company Address: 231 Capitol Ave 06106 Hartford JUDICIARY COURTS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT D-U-N-S® Number: 602051823 Company Address: 123 Hoyt St 06905 Stamford CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 075410415 Company Address: 125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk 8 CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 067597398 Company Address: 125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 077123732 Company Address: 125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 102564452 Company Address: 125 East Ave Rm 324 06851 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 102592636 Company Address: 125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 102592644 Company Address: 125 East Ave Rm 221 06851 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 102592669 Company Address: 125 East Ave Rm 237 06851 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 102592735 Company Address: 125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 102592743 Company Address: 125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 102592750 Company Address: 125 East Ave 06851 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 101442254 Company Address: 24 Monroe St 06854 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 022716620 9 Company Address: 1 Monroe St 06854 Norwalk CITY OF NORWALK D-U-N-S® Number: 199679184 Company Address: 100 Water St 06854 Norwalk NORWALK POLICE UNION 1727 D-U-N-S® Number: 964564665 Company Address: 297 West Ave 06850 Norwalk NORWALK POLICE EMERALD SOCIETY, INC. D-U-N-S® Number: 068723049 Company Address: 11 Falcon Ln 06484 Shelton NORWALK POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE INC D-U-N-S® Number: 965367068 Company Address: 1 Monroe St 06854 Norwalk NORWALK POLICE FUND, INCORPORATED D-U-N-S® Number: 969684757 Company Address: 1 Monroe St 06854 Norwalk JURISDICTION: By the grace of God almighty, and through the supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI Clause 2 & 3) and the below-listed treaties of supreme law, it is I alone, who shall determine my status, standing, honor and jurisdiction. I hereby invoke and stand upon all my natural rights, given by my God, which are written in the documents listed below. These, and all others, are universally known as supreme law of the land: • The Holy Bible, KJV 1611 GOD's Law's are Superior Law • 1215 Magna Charta • 1606 The First Charter of Virginia • 1620 Mayflower Compact • 1628 Petition of Rights • 1639 Fundamental Orders of 1639 • 1641 Grand Remonstrance • 1689 English bill of rights • 1765 The Declaration of rights in congress at New York • 1774 The Declaration of rights in congress at Philadelphia • 1775 The Declaration of Arms • 1776 The Virginia Declaration of rights 10 • 1777 the Articles of Confederation • 1783 Treaty of Peace • 1787 Northwest Ordinance • 1789 The Constitution for the United States of America • 1791 The Bill of Rights • 1868 The Constitution of The United States of America • 1864, 1929 and 1949 The Geneva Conventions • 1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights • 23 March 1976 The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, Articles 1-27* I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, hereby and forever stand firm upon these natural rights listed above, giving the free man of God, one of "We the People". The Supreme Court said that the "rights of life and personal liberty are the natural rights of man. To secure these rights ... governments are instituted among men" U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto 542, 23 L. Ed. 588. Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisions of either, it is so far void." Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840) The constitution is the law of the land and there can be no statutes or rule making that would abrogate the constitution. The general principal is: anything that is repugnant to or abrogates the constitution is null and void of law. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them." Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, (1803) "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." "An officer of the court may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'Individual Capacity' , not his official capacity..." see 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials 11 perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity." Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457,293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991). The same rule applies to state officials. MORE RELEVENT CASE LAW Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272 Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases. Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis." Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities." Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section). Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice. Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) "It will be an evil day for American Liberty if 12 the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution. Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694 Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it." "It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives." Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894) Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government." HABEAS CORPUS: Duncan v. Bradley, No. 01-55290 (9th Circ., 12-24-02) 42 USC 1983 - Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges. Note: [Copied verbiage; we are not lawyers.] Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their administrative/ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen's constitutional rights. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act. Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and "No state shall... grant any Title of Nobility." Most of us are certain that Congress itself doesn't understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges. Article III, Sec. 1, "The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior." Tort & Insurance Law Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516, "Federal tort law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants' civil rights." - Robert Craig Waters. Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859) "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the 13 court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821). Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) "... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional. Recent US Supreme Court Rulings: Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 (April 14, 2023), "Cases involving ... deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property constitute a core of cases that ... MUST be resolved by Article III courts—not executive adjudicators dressed up as courts". In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S.(2019), Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear that property owners do not need to exhaust state courts before seeking redress at the federal level, stating that a “property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it." The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), an important Takings Clause property rights case addressing the issue of "home equity theft." The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such practices qualify as takings requiring the payment of "just compensation" under 14 the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Importantly, it also concluded that state law is not the sole source of the definition of property rights under the Takings Clause, and therefore state governments cannot seize private property without compensation simply by redefining it as the state's property. Discussion in the Case: SEC v. Jarkesy Docket Number: 22-859 Date Argued: 11/29/23 JUSTICE GORSUCH: So, Mr. Fletcher, with respect to your argument that Congress can move something from courts into agencies and the Seventh Amendment doesn't speak to that because it's not a suit, I think Noel Webster described a suit as any action or process for the recovery of a right or a claim before any tribunal, which would seem to be a problem. That's a pretty contemporaneous definition. And then Justice Brennan in Granfinanciera I think addressed your argument pretty squarely when he said Congress cannot eliminate a party's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial merely by relabeling the cause of action and placing jurisdiction in an administrative agency. Thoughts? MR. FLETCHER: Yeah. So I -- I guess I think that's still inconsistent with what the Court has said in Granfinanciera. JUSTICE GORSUCH: I just quoted from Granfinanciera. MR. FLETCHER: I -- I'm sorry. I -- I misspoke. I don't think that's what the Court held in Granfinanciera. It's inconsistent with what the Court said. JUSTICE GORSUCH: Are you saying I misread it, Mr. Fletcher? MR. FLETCHER: No, Justice Gorsuch. I'm saying -- JUSTICE GORSUCH: You said -- you said that that's a purely taxonomic change. MR. FLETCHER: Yes. JUSTICE GORSUCH: And that that's not enough to render it no longer a suit for purposes of the Seventh Amendment, right? MR. FLETCHER: Yes. I think, in context, Granfinanciera is talking about a proceeding that was in a bankruptcy court in the Article III setting. I think the Court's subsequent cases, including Oil States, have Heritage Reporting Corporation said, if you're permissibly in an Article III tribunal, then the Seventh Amendment doesn't have independent work to do. I apologize for misidentifying the case I was relying on. JUSTICE GORSUCH: All right. But it -- it would seem strange. And we don't usually say the government can avoid a constitutional mandate merely by relabeling or moving things around. It's -- it's as much a violation to do something indirectly as it is directly we usually say, right? 15 Maxim: Maxim of Law 4b. He who does a thing by another is considered as doing it himself [i.e., the acts of an agent are the acts of the principal.] Broom, Max. 817, 818, et seq.; A Collection Maxims of Law by Charles A. Weisman Please take notice that as agency workers, state judges, presiding judges, state legislators, etc… that you are bound by the Constitutions that you have all sworn to uphold, and from this time forward please be advised that taking children, cars, houses, weapons, rights, property, etc.. without a trial by jury in a court of record following the course of the common law is unlawful. Please also take further notice that attorneys, who don’t have their name on the line, as they are not in positions of service and contract with the people, presenting you with the idea that it’s acceptable to trample the people’s rights by device or artifice does not in any way remove your responsibility for your wrongdoings. Furthermore, there is another element of wrong being committed when you are working in a federal program and make money outside of your normal salary for carrying out the functions of that program, leaving one with unclean hands on top of taking property or rights from the people without right! All past cases that bypassed the common law are unlawful. Therefore, it is my immediate demand, wish, and order that you restore all that has been unlawfully taken without constitutionally mandated due process, and notify all those who were harmed, or you agree that any wrong that is done in this regard in the future, or that has not been corrected from past trespasses, is done purposely, with full knowledge, intent and malice, and will be recognized as such by the People, whom you swore to serve and protect. This notice is sent to you in the peace and love of Jesus Christ, that you may repent and do works worthy of the same. Maxim: “Judicial notice is a form of evidence.” Mann v Mann, 172 P. 2d 369, 375, 76 Cal. App. 2d 32. U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, The Supreme Court has warned: "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." The undersigned, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says: 1. I am over the age of 18 and understand the meaning and obligation of an oath. 2. I, the Defendant Andrew H. Pritchard Sui Juris, submit this Bill of Complaint ("Cause of Fraud and Swindle") for Case No.: FST-CV15-6026844-S; AC- 41070 CITIMORTGAGE INC. v. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. ET AL; and NWH-CV22- 6006923-S LO PROPERTIES LLC v. PRITCHARD, BRIDGET R. ET AL; STATE OF CNNECTICUT V. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. S01S- CR22-0169490-T; S01S-CR23-0250191-S S01S-CR23-0251706-S; S01S- CR23-0251708-S; and S01S-CR23-0251790-S before the Court. 3. I, the Sui Juris Defendant Andrew H. Pritchard as a living private individual, submit the following deposition for the Court. 4. I do solemnly swear support to the Constitution "We the People" of the United States, and the Constitution of Connecticut, and as a private individual and property owner thereof will faithfully recognize my inalienable rights and power to act to protect those rights. 5. I recognize in the year 2000, the State of Connecticut abolished County Sheriffs by Public Act 00-01 amending and eliminating Section 25 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut; thus, abdicating Sheriff's Power not 16 conferred to the State & Judicial Marshals back to the people of the county such as Posse Comitatus, to assemble a militia or posse, and the power to deputize people and require them to assist in the keeping of the peace and the enforcement of laws. The Defendant demands a trial by jury as per the Constitution of Connecticut. Sec. 7. In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court. Sec. 21. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. ANSWERS to Case NWH-CV22-6006923-S: 1. ADMIT 2. DENY 3. DENY 4. DENY 5. DENY 6. DENY SPECIAL DEFENSES to Case NWH-CV22-6006923-S: 1. The Plaintiff is a complicit participant in Connecticut Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Act (CORA) CGS 53-393 et.seq.. 2. The Plaintiff has no claim to title (see FST-CV15-6026844-S Doc. #330.00) 3. The Plaintiff does not have subject matters jurisdiction to bring the suit (see Complaint Doc. #100.31). 4. The Plaintiff is charged in the Motion for Capias CITIMORTGAGE INC. V. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. ET AL DOCKET NO. FST-CV15-6026844-S for THE WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF CGS 53a-119 LARCENY; CGS 53a-121 VALUE OF PROPERTY; CGS 47-30 EJECTMENT; SET-OFF OF DEFENDANT'S IMPROVEMENTS; CGS 53-379a RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE FRAUD; CGS 53- 393 ET.SEQ. CONNECTICUT CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS AND RACKETEERING ACTIVITY ACT (CORA); TITLE 18 U.S. CODE 4 MISPRISION OF FELONY; TITLE 18 U.S.C SECTION 241 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS; TITLE 18 U.S.C SECTION 242 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW; TITLE 9 18 U.S.C 1951 HOBBS ACT AND TITLE 5 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 1946. 5. The Plaintiff illegally took title without cure of $9,159,430 UCC lien, criminal conversion. 6. The Plaintiff is a "Straw Man" buyer. 7. Unclean Hands, the Plaintiff has brought a fraudulent action against 17 Andrew- Hamilton: Pritchard, Beneficiary in Equity, c/o: 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut; near [06855) as described in attached counterclaim. 8. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. is named as a party in the COUNTERCLAIM OF NON-SUIT(“FICTION”)/CLAIM/SUIT/PETITION with damages related to 20+ Judges and Clerks. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. has a financial interest in Case CITIMORTGAGE INC. V. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. ET AL FST-CV15- 6026844-S and Case LD PROPERTIES LLC V. PRITCHARD, BRIDGET R. ET AL. 9. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. is being charged pursuant to CGS 54-170 for THE WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF CGS 53a-119 LARCENY; CGS 53a-121 VALUE OF PROPERTY; CGS 47-30 EJECTMENT. SET-OFF OF DEFENDANT'S IMPROVEMENTS; CGS 53-379a RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE FRAUD; CGS 53- 393 ET.SEQ. CONNECTICUT CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS AND RACKETEERING ACTIVITY ACT (CORA); AND 18 U.S. CODE 4 MISPRISION OF FELONY. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. CANNOT be a judge in his own case [NEMO JUDEX IN SUA CAUSA]. 10. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. has illegally passed title to "Straw Man" buyer David Chen and Le Ong with the complicit participation of Attorney John Hall in case CITIMORTGAGE INC. V. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H. ET AL FST- CV15- 6026844-S. Complicit participants moved this into the housing court to manipulate and obfuscate their criminal activity. It can even be seen by the change in the party title LD PROPERTIES LLC v. PRITCHARD, BRIDGET R. ET AL. 11. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. continues to willfully disregard his administrative authority and duty to enable "Straw Man" buyer David Chen with the complicit participation of Attorney John Hall steal 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut. 12. Criminally charged Judge Spader Jr. is in violation of Title 18 U.S.C Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights; Title 18 U.S.C Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law; Title 9 18 U.S.C 1951 Hobbs Act; and Title 5 Administrative Procedure Act 1946. 13. Complicit Judge Spader Jr. does not have the authority to hear this case because of the serious charges against him and violation of Canon Law. All of his orders are null and void. 14. The Sui Juris Defendant is being "Railroaded" for financial gain of $2,000,000+, "Unjust Enrichment". 15. On August 29, 2022, 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut was SEIZED. This is TREASON. 16. This is a fictional case with fraudulent Summons entered, not filed; fraudulent complaint entered, not filed; fraudulent Lis Pendens entered at 18 Town Hall, not recorded, not entered or filed by the Civil Clerk; No Appearance entered or filed by the fictitious Plaintiff; No “Competent Fact Witness” ever appeared and ALL the fraudulent motions and orders documented by the fictious court dockets. Any Constitutional Rights violation by is one of irreparable harm and demands “Strict Scrutiny” in adjudication by an Article III Court. This is a Court of Executive adjudicators ‘dressed as Court’, only a real Court, an article III court, has constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate dispossession of person from his home. ArtIII.S2.C1.2.5.1 Standing Requirement: Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Chase Rogers (Ret. 2018) established the Bench- Bar Foreclosure Committee in October 2007 which has enabled "Racketeering" and "Railroading" with no restraints, rogue power. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Chase Rogers (Ret. 2018) REASON WHY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CHASE ROGERS SHOULD NOT BE REAPPOINTED TO THE BENCH by Vivian Winslow Thumser gives a breakdown of how the corrupt Foreclosure Courts operate as a Connecticut Corrupt Organization & Racketeering Act (CORA) enterprise (the Hobbs Act, the Administrative Procedures Act). The structure was created and developed by Chief Justice Chase Rogers (Ret. 2018) and continues today with most of the same complicit participants. The following is Vivian Winslow Thumser's statement with links provided: 19 1. On October 23, 2007, Chief Justice Rogers issued a press release that she was creating a Foreclosure Bench Bar Committee. http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/press250.htm 20 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION Quick Link 231 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 757-2270, Fax (860) 757-2215 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 23, 2007 21 Judicial Committees, Commissions and Boards latest News and Updates Chief Justice Rogers Appoints Bench-Bar Foreclosure Committee Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers announced today that she has appointed a Bench-Bar Foreclosure Committee that will review current practices and practices in the courts regarding foreclosure cases, and make recommendations on ways to improve those procedures and practices. The Honorable Douglas C. Mintz, Administrative Judge for the Danbury Judicial District, will chair the committee. "The purpose of the committee is to promote cooperation between the bench and the bar in this sensitive area," Judge Mintz said. 'The number of foreclosure cases added in court during the 2005-06 fiscal year totaled 11,764. That number increased to 15,773 for the 2006-07 fiscal year," Chief Justice Rogers said. "Whether this is a trend that will continue remains to be seen, but I believe that our state courts must be as well prepared as possible to process these cases." The first meeting of the committee will be Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007, at 2 p.m. in the Attorney Conference Room, located in the Supreme Court Building, 231 Capitol Ave, Hartford. The meeting is open to the public. Committee members include judges, attorneys and Judicial Branch employees. Other members include: Judge Salvatore C. Agati; Attorney Ronald M. Bender; Attorney Adam L. Bendett; Attorney Jessica L. Braus; Attorney Denis R. Caron; Attorney Robert F. Frankel; Judge Samuel Freed; Attorney Peggy George; Judge Robert G. Gilligan; Judge Arthur A. Hiller, who is chief administrative judge of civil matters; Ms. Catherine Lapolla; Attorney Leanne M. Larson; Attorney Richard M. Leibert; Attorney Geoffrey Kent Milne; Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman; Judge Richard A. Robinson; Danbury Chief Clerk Therese Servas; Judge Theodore R. Tyma; Attorney Thomas W. Witherspoon; and Attorney Louis C. Zowine. For further information, please contact Rhonda Stearley-Hebert, manager of communications, at 860-757- 2270. 2. The purpose of the Foreclosure Bench Bar Committee as stated in the press release was to "review current practices and practices in the courts regarding foreclosure cases, and make recommendations on ways to improve those procedures and practices." 3. In order to carry out this mission Justice Rogers handpicked members included Judges who presided over foreclosure cases and attorneys who prosecuted foreclosure cases. 4. On the list of handpicked attorneys were the owners and partners of the two largest foreclosure mill law firms Hunt Leibert Jacobson PC and Reiner Reiner and Bendett PC1: Attorney Richard Leibert, Attorney Geoffrey Milne and Attorney Adam Bendett. 5. At the time Justice Rogers chose these attorneys and during their continued tenure on the Foreclosure Bench Bar Committee the attorney firms have been charged, 22 investigated and settled for running illegal kickback schemes, inducement schemes, double billing schemes and other fraudulent activities. 6. For instance, at the time Adam Bendett was chosen to sit amongst the Judges armed with the Constitutional Power of deciding foreclosure cases in this State, Reiner, Reiner and Bendett PC was charged, investigated and would eventually settled on December 10, 2007 with the Office of the Attorney General, the Insurance Commissioner and the Department of Consumer Protection of the State of Connecticut for running "Illegal kickback and Inducement Schemes." See link: http://www.ct.gov/cid/lib/cid/Reinerkickbacksettlement.pdf $700,000 payout resolves mortgage kickbacks lawsuit. Hartford, CT: (Dec-10-07) State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office brought charges against Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, a law firm, Absolute Mortgage Solutions, a mortgage company and Century 21 Access America, a real estate broker, alleging that they engaged in kickback schemes that cheated hundreds of home buyers for mortgage-related services. Sources at the AG's office stated that the allegations came to Blumenthal's attention with complaints from consumers and a lawyer who questioned why Reiner, Reiner & Bendett were receiving so much business from Absolute Mortgage Solutions. The suit claimed that the allegations expose an uneven playing field between the real estate industry, which is involved in numerous property transactions, and less-experienced home buyers. Blumenthal sued Farmington law firm of Reiner, Reiner & Bendett in October 2007, accusing it of concealing $142,200 in kickbacks and inducements between 2002 and 2005. The law firm, which also sells title insurance, used sham service, rental and other agreements to conceal the payments. The suit alleged that Reiner agreed to pay mortgage broker Absolute Mortgage Solutions of East Hartford $200 per customer for closing services, including ordering a title search, assembling closing documents and coordinating the closing. Reiner paid Absolute $76,200 in 2004 under the agreement. Century 21 Access America of Wethersfield was also accused of steering title insurance business to Reiner, Reiner & Bendett. Connecticut law prohibits title insurance agents from paying for referrals. As part of a settlement reached, the three companies have agreed to pay $700,000 in fines, forfeitures and restitution to resolve kickback allegations. 23 7. Despite this fact Justice Rogers allowed Adam Bendett to remain a member of the Foreclosure Bench Bar Committee with full access to the states Judiciary with callous disregard to the decorum of the Judiciary associating itself with Attorneys who carry out illegal kickback and inducement schemes. 8. Then, there was the issue of the corruption of the State's Marshalls where Reiner, Reiner and Bendett, who reorganized under the name Bendett and McHugh along with Richard M. Leibert of Hunt Leibert Jacobson P.C., started to run a "Double Billing" Scheme where the Marshalls that worked for Hunt Leibert Jacobson P.C. and Bendett and McHugh would double bill homeowners for the delivery of papers. The Hartford Courant reported: "The double-billing began in early 2007, with a small group of marshals who regularly worked for the state's two large foreclosure law firms, Hunt Leibert and Bendett & McHugh. The marshals included a three-page lien document known as a lis pendens each time they delivered legal papers in a foreclosure suit, but treated the delivery of that document as an entirely separate action, charging a second service fee and even double-charging for mileage. The practice typically added $30 to $150 to each service. After the fee increases, the firms filed about 30,000 foreclosure suits before abandoning the practice following reports in The Courant and questions from Blumenthal's office. Blumenthal said that not only were the extra fees excessive, but that state law does not even require that the document be served on defendants in a foreclosure suit. Marshals, however, typically serve papers at the direction of law firms. And if there are efforts to recover money retroactively for unnecessary deliveries, marshals are expected to argue that they were merely following the firms' instructions." See link http://articles.courant.com/2009-09-22/news/marshals0922.art_1_marshals-law- firms-foreclosure-actions. See also this link http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2009/06/law-firms-probed-in- mortgage-foreclosure-cases.htmI. Law Firms Probed in Mortgage Foreclosure Cases To date, it's been primarily overreaching, greedy mortgage companies that have played the role of the villains in the national mortgage foreclosure crisis. But now, at least in Connecticut, it appears that law firms may be implicated as well. The Hartford Courant reports that State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has sent letters to 24 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as a third mortgage company to find out why they repeatedly retained the same two law firms to handle all of their foreclosure proceedings in Connecticut. According to Blumenthal, the two law firms -- Hunt Leibert Jacobson in Hartford, Conn., and Bendett & McHugh in Farmington, Conn. -- file nearly two-thirds of the foreclosure actions clogging Connecticut courts. Records show that these two firms filed about 1,200 suits last month, with 99 percent of them foreclosure actions. The firms have so much work that even their process servers are getting rich. Hunt Leibert gave one process server, Joe Fiorillo, more than $2.2 million in business last year while Bendett & McHugh provided him with $762,000-worth of work. After expenses, Fiorillo netted over a million dollars. Blumenthal is already investigating Hunt Liebert and Bendett & McHugh for complaints related to improper service, illegal practices and allocating work to process servers who fail to serve papers or take kickbacks. The question is will Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also wind up liable for these activities? 9. The illegal activities of these Foreclosure Mills including filing fraudulent paperwork, bogus affidavits and robo-signed documents led to the Office of the Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to implement a moratorium on all foreclosures in the state of Connecticut which the Washington Post dubbed as "radical." This was an act that would soon be followed by the other 49 States of the Union. See link http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political- CONNECTICUT halts all foreclosures for all banks (Photo Credit: Jessica Hill/AP) Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Friday ordered a moratorium on all 25 foreclosures by all banks for 60 days--the most radical action taken by a state on issue of document irregularities. California also expanded the moratorium on foreclosures it announced last week on Ally Financial foreclosures to include those by J.P. Morgan Chase. Calling the companies' review of key foreclosure documents "a ruse," California Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) ordered J.P. Morgan to prove it is following the law before it continues foreclosures in the state. Both J.P. Morgan Chase and Ally have frozen foreclosures in 23 states because some employees had signed off on foreclosure paperwork without properly reviewing the files. Colorado and Illinois have stopped foreclosures by Ally and at least seven other states have launched probes into the issue. But Connecticut is the first to institute an industry-wide ban. in Connecticut, Blumenthal said in a statement that he is investigating J.P. Morgan Chase and Ally, formerly GMAC, which is the recipient of a $17 billion federal bailout and majority-owned by the U.S. Treasury, as well as other lenders. He said the actions of J.P. Morgan and Ally are a "possible fraud on the court undermining the integrity of the legal process and consumers' ability to fight foreclosures. "This freeze should stop a foreclosure steamroller based on defective documents and enable effective remedies," Blumenthal said. Ally Financial had already voluntarily suspended evictions and resales of homes in 23 states that require a court order for foreclosures. J.P. Morgan's actions were a bit broader--the bank suspended all foreclosures in the same 23 states. Connecticut was on the original list of 23 but California was not. Both Blumenthal and Brown are running in high-profile races for higher office in their respective states in the Nov. 2 election -- Blumenthal for U.S. Senate, and Brown for gov