Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
Quantity:
Subtotal
Taxes
Shipping
Total
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart

Constitutions, Laws, Statutes and Hope

Bonding laws required by the NM &

US constitutions and New Mexico Statutes.

Penal bonds vs insurance.

WHY THE FOLLOWING PETITION IS NEEDED!

For all

Attached is Exhibit 5 to be placed in our petition to the President and principal leaders of Congress should the petition fail to acquire their help to put down the criminal insurgent oligarchy enslaving the private Americans without recourse otherwise who reside within the States and District of California, Colorado, and New Mexico. Incidentally, my studies have revealed that several states discontinued requiring their state public officers to give a personal recognizance bond binding them to their oaths of office in 1962. I haven't found out why Year 1962 was selected, but it may have been the Supreme Court case: Stump v. Sparkman in 1979 since that case has been cited numerous times concerning judicial immunity. That was the case where a judge authorized denaturing a teenage promiscuous female to prevent the parents from having to care of the birth of unwanted babies. Her lawyer boyfriend brought the lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court.

Paul

  LETTER TO PRESIDENT, SPEAKER OF HOUSE, SENATE LEADER

Honorable Barack H. Obama

Office of the President

United States of America

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Honorable John A. Boehner

Office of the House Speaker

House of Representatives

Congress of the United States

1011LHOB

VVashington, D.C. 20515

Honorable Harry Reid

Office of U.S. Senate Majority Leader

United States Senate

Congress of the United States

522 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Kenneth Gomez

De Jure Governor of New Mexico

4 CR5095

Bloomfield,New Mexico 87413

[email protected]

January 15, 2013

RE: First Amendment Peaceable Assembly to Petition Government for Redress of

Grievances

Gentlemen:

Attached are two copies for each addressee of our First Amendment Petition

for the redress of scandalous grievances inflicted by criminal insurgents posing as

state and federal officers under false pretenses which enslave the populations of

California, Colorado, and New Mexico as crimes against their humanity without

recourse in any court of law at any level of government. Taxes, under such

circumstances, of every type are immoral, reprehensible, and unconscionable.

Our hope is that each of you will do your sworn duty to cure the defect

reported without delay and in clear view of the public-at-large.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Gomez

Attached: Two Copies of Petition to each addressee

1st Amendment to Petition Government for Redress of Insurgent Grievances

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________________

                                                                                                   │

OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, OFFICES OF THE |

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, and SENATE                           │

MAJORITY LEADER,                                                            │

                                                                                                   │

Offices Petitioned,                                                                     │

ATTACHED PETITIONS WITH SIGNATURES, |

                                                                                                  │

Attached First Amendment Petitioners.                                   │

________________________________________________│

FIRST AMENDMENT PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY TO PETITION GOVERNMENT

FOR A REDRESS OF INSURGENT GRIEVANCES ENSLAVING THEM AS CRIMES AGAINST THEIR HUMANITY WITHIN THE STATES AND FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISTRICTS AND CIRCUITS OF NEW MEXICO, CALIFORNIA, AND COLORADO

I. PREAMBLE

1. Petitioners are being denied a political voice to determine who will govern them, and how

they will be governed under the applicable constitutions and statutes; they are also being

deprived of an economic stake in both state and federal public appropriated funds for their

health, safety, and welfare by imposters posing as state and federal public officers in California,

Colorado, and New Mexico. Petitioners are currently enslaved under those conditions without

recourse to political, judicial, economic, cultural, or law enforcement remedies. Said imposters

are insurgents against our constitutions; they deny the power of both constitutions, while defying

the authorities of statutes giving those powers effect so that we, the enslaved, are at the

oppressive core of concentric circles representing various levels of government in a joint turnscrew

type tortuous force for whatever exploits serve the insurgent interests. The only relief

available for those enslaved, other than this Petition is an appeal to a foreign embassy's 'good

offices' hoping they will report the criminal insurgent enslavement to the Human Rights

Page 1 of 10 Pages

Committee of the United Nations for consideration by the International Criminal Court as crimes

of enslavement against their humanity, a war crime.


II. FACTORS LIMITING PETITIONERS' PRIOR EFFORTS TO CURE THE CRIMINAL DEFECTS


2. Some petitioners have entered various state and federal district and circuit courts of law

exposing the state criminal insurgencies; they did so while being denied a political voice in state

courts as pro se litigants a waste of personal funds so that they can now claim that: "the cloth in

the symbol of justice covering what once were the eyes are now just covering open sores."

3. Supreme Court of the United States consideration was not sought by petitioners in that


pro se litigants with civil causes cannot appear before justices of that court on grounds: (a) it

cannot produce any credible evidence that pro se litigants in civil cases have ever been permitted

to proceed before the justices when peaceably assembling to petition their governments for

redress of their grievances; (b) the petitioners declare that the court has absolutely no

constitutional judicial power of review to decide constitutional issues' because their power is

limited only to: (A) statutory issues concerning human rights declared in the Declaration of

Independence, and (8) civil rights issues created by statutes of the United States Congress, and

(C) treaty disputes; (c) the Court is too busy amending the Constitution of the United States of

America by its decisions; (d) no current justice has given a personal recognizance bond as their

individual contract consideration to the public binding them, under provisions of Article VI,

Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America, to the promises contained in the oath in

order to acquire the public trust, as the publics' contract consideration, so the justices could enter


_______________________________________

I See Exhibit" I" for flaw in Chief Justice Marshal's Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) reasoning justifying

Supreme Court judicial review of constitutional issues and the subsequent result of that flaw giving Congress

unlimited power under that reasoning in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, 4 Wheat. 316

(1819), a decision responsible for numerous federal legislation exercising powers not granted

Congress in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Page 2 of 10 Pages

public office and perform the duties of their office; and (e) the members of the court have

established, by their prior decisions, that they do not know the difference between a sovereign

entity - the American People - and a statutory entity, any constitutional or government created

entity. No sovereign power was ever granted that court under the Constitution - see Article III,

Section 2; federal statutes, court decisions, and court rules that amend the constitution to the

contrary, notwithstanding. Until all state and federal courts of law understand who is sovereign

in this Nation and who is a statutory authority, the sovereign people of the Nation, the American

Citizen, cannot invoke Rule 60(b)(4) provisions before an elected or appointed judge with a

personal recognizance bond binding them to the promises in the oath of office who is lawfully

assigned duties in a statutory courts for ultimate consideration in the one truly constitutional

court with statutory authority. Petitioners shall not be able to acquire compensation for their

injuries and damages inflicted upon them by various criminal insurgent authorities; injuries and

damages which include foreclosures on their residences and immoral income taxes imposed them

under conditions of a system of peonage.

    4. In view of the foregoing three paragraphs, enslaved petitioners have no state or federal

constitutional or statutory court available to them for exercising their First Amendment right to

peaceably assemble and petition their governments for redress of their grievances.

                  Ill. FACTS, POINTS OF LAW, AND AUTHORITIES

5. Petitioner Kenneth Gomez was denied his political voice to determine the executive

affairs of New Mexico under the constitution and laws of the state as its governor in 2009 when

he was the only qualified candidate under that constitution and attendant statutes to be Governor

of New Mexico. He was denied that office by one criminal insurgent, the person posing as

secretary of state after canvassing the vote at conclusion of the election for the governor's office,

Page 3 of 10 Pages

an insurgent who assigned the office to another criminal insurgent, both of whom were

embezzling state public appropriations at all times pertinent in excess of $20,000.00, a second

degree felony under provisions of Section 30-16-8(A) and (F) NMSA 1978. The voters, who

unknowingly and deliberately kept that way, vote to retain or return these insurgents in office.

   6. The assignment of the governor's office to a criminal insurgent occurred in front of a

person unconstitutionally and unlawfully posing as the Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme

Court who had been given a written statement of the insurgency specifics by Governor-elect

Kenneth Gomez during the canvassing ceremony in front of several citizen witnesses, an

insurgent who read the statement and then overtly demonstrated an unconscionable disregard

for the treasonous course of conduct reported in the written statement, and who was an active

participant in the criminal insurgency also embezzling public appropriations as a second degree

felon at all times pertinent.

    7. Provisions of both constitutional powers and the attendant statutory authorities for New

Mexico, California, and Colorado which denies all petitioners a political voice to determine who

shall govern them concerning their affairs, and which deprives them of an economic stake in the

expenditure of state and federal publicly appropriated funds solely for the citizens' benefit are

contained in Exhibit "2" attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as an integral part of this

petition; also, see In Re Charge to the Grand Jury, 62 F. 828 (NO Ill. 1894) for definition of an

insurgent, and Section 3, Fourteenth Amendment concerning their inability to hold public office.

The United States Attorney for the various federal districts, the United States Attorney General,

the President of the United States of America, the House Committees on the Judiciary,

Government Oversight, and Appropriations, and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary have all

been informed of the criminal insurgency and the resulting imposed system of peonage upon

                                                     Page 4 of 10 Pages

petitioners that has been provided herein. See Exhibit "3": letters addressed to the said entities

attached hereto, and also incorporated herein as an integral part of this petition.

     8. In view of the foregoing seven paragraphs, the said criminal insurgency has the

inescapable, direct, and specific effect of imposing, upon all petitioners, a system of peonage, a

subspecies of involuntary servitude, denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment, and

defying the authorities of 14 Stat. 546, currently codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and 18 U.S.C.

§§1581 et seq,; a servitude which holds most citizens deceptively and uninformed of the active

insurgency without recourse to competent courts of law, either state or federal. The process

enslaves petitioners unconditionally by denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment against

involuntary servitude, and the power of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment for the due

process of law and the equal protections of the laws. Accordingly, 14 Stat. 546 needs to be

revised and simplified to establish, beyond a shadow of doubt, that denying a citizen of a

political voice by deception or any other means to determine efficaciously those who shall be

entrusted with public office to govern their affairs, and that depriving them of an economic stake

in their publicly appropriated funds for their health, safety, and welfare is a crime of

enslavement against their humanity.

      9. Petitioners possess verifiable and formal written federal evidence of record within the

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Colorado, and California, the Court

of Appeals for the Ninth and Tenth Circuit, the Office of the President of the United States of

America, and the various applicable Offices of the Department of Justice that persons posing as

state public officers within the named states are engaged in an insurrection against the state and

national constitutions. Said evidence shows they do so, as national enemies by intentionally

denying the power of both constitutions, and spitefully defying the authorities of statutes giving

Page 5 of 10 Pages

effect to those powers, and by demonstrating those major elements of any insurrection.

Moreover, the said New Mexico, Colorado, and California evidence is contained in Exhibit "2"

and "4": a list of civil cases and letters showing that those holding federal commissions as

judicial officers actively supported the insurgency by written decisions and judgments with utter

and overt disregard for either constitutions or the attendant statutes with indifference, perjuring

the oaths in the process, and doing so with self-serving unconstitutional, unauthorized, and

unjustified immunity, consummate criminal acts in their effect.

         10. Petitioners' evidence contained in Exhibit "3" also shows that state and some federal

imposters receive as salaries under false pretenses and converted, for personal use, public

appropriations as previously indicated, and that they, each and everyone of them, never

constitutionally and statutorily entered the applicable public office now held. Those federal

officers constitutionally and statutorily holding federal commissions were made aware in the list

of written pleadings in Exhibit "3 and "4" of the insurgency under provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4;

nevertheless, they, jointly and severally, gave, by their acts or omissions, aid and comfort to the

insurgencies by denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment involuntary servitude

provisions, and the power of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment human right provisions.

            II. Unfortunately and in conjunction with the preceding ten paragraphs, some of the state

imposter insurgents were nominated by the various presidents to become federal judicial officers

and falsified their Financial Disclosure Statements under provisions of the Ethics in Government

Act which they submitted within thirty days upon being nominated in that they falsely reported,

as insurgent imposter state public officers, their current year's income to be lawful when, in

point of fact, it was actually embezzled state publicly appropriated funds converted for their own

personal use, a fourth degree felony under the Ethics in Government Act.

                                                   Page 6 of 10 Pages

12. In view of the preceding paragraph, there are several such persons currently holding

federal commissions as district and circuit judges under fraudulent pretenses in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 912. Accordingly, they now convert for personal use the federal publicly appropriated

funds received as salaries; the federal courts, where they feloniously serve, are contaminated

thereby, and they all lack competent jurisdiction to act. All other federal judicial officers

lawfully assigned positions therein were notified under provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4 of their

colleagues felonious course of conduct and they, each one of them, took no demonstrable action

in their individual authority to cure the criminal defect. They effectively perjured their oaths.

            13. In view of the preceding twelve paragraphs, several petitioners had cases in federal courts

of law revealing the state public officer criminal insurgency defect; the cases were summarily

dismissed by ignoring the content of the pleadings without giving facts and conclusions of law.

The decisions were taken to the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals where the three judge

panels affirmed the lower court decision without comment and prevented their affirmation from

being used as precedence in future proceedings. An en bane application under extraordinary

circumstances was, refused on notice by the Court Clerk that no judge voted - a political act not

authorized - to review the matter indicating that no circuit judge even saw the en bane

application's justification or ignored its content that one of the original panel judges held a

federal commission under false pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912, and was embezzling

federal funds.

           14. In view of the thirteen preceding paragraphs, the inaction of all the judicial officers in the

available federal courts of law had the irrevocable and irreconcilable effect, both jointly and

severally, of giving aid and comfort to the criminal insurgencies against the constitution leaving

               Page 7 of 10 Pages

the otherwise free American citizens within their venues subjects of the system of peonage

created by the three State insurgencies without recourse whatsoever.

         IV. ARGUMENT SUMMARY

15. Every attempt employed by one or more petitioners to cure the said constitutional and

statutory defect of the most horrendous and reprehensible form of government resulted in a

wasted effort at personal expense; insurgent efforts were given aid and comfort by judicial

decisions where there was verified evidence: (A) for the existence and breach of a constitutional

and statutory duty, (B) for the existence of a proximate cause, and (C) for the absolute and

complete absence, both jointly and severally, of dispositive defenses available to any individual

insurgent, (D) for which competent government liabilities naturally attach, and (E) for which

damages justifiably flow. }}13 and 16. One last attempt within government must be employed

by petitioners to end the crimes against their humanity before a most objectionable effort before

a foreign embassy is the only course left available. }1.

                V. ARGUMENT

16. Judges in the three states deny the power of both applicable constitutions and defy the

attendant state statutory authorities giving effect to the respective powers. {{5, 8, 11, 12 and 13.

Their effort constitutes an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States of America

automatically denying public office to any person holding a public office. {7. All of the public

officers perjured their individual oath of office by denying the power of various parts of the

constitution and by defying the authorities of the applicable attendant statutes. {12. The

insurgent forces impose a system of peonage against the otherwise free American citizens in the

three states as the resulting crime of enslavement against their humanity which is currently

established, maintained, and enforced by law enforcement authorities at all levels, both state and

            Page 8 of 10 Pages

federal. { 8. Said system of peonage enslaving the affected populations constitutes crimes

against their humanity and became an international crime at its inception. ~{ 15. Accordingly,

only those public officers under oath who are bound by a personal recognizance bond binding

them to the promises in the oath taken that are both appropriately recorded and filed with the

Secretary of State for public scrutiny, as their contract consideration, may enter public office and

perform the specific duties of their office to exercise the public trust, as the publics' contract

consideration; no other possibility exists to enter public office and perform the duties of the

office. { 3. In no case can sovereign power be exercised by insurgents, state or federal. Ibid.

           VI. CONCLUSION

17. Verified evidence pervades the Nation for the existence and breach of a constitutional

and statutory duty by insurgents posing as public officers, there exist a proximate cause thereby,

and there exists an absolute and complete absence of a dispositive defenses for any individual

insurgent posing as a public officer, either jointly or severally, for which competent government

liabilities naturally attach, and for which damages justly flow in competent courts of law. {{ 13,

15, and 16. See Exhibit "6" for the effects of the peonage enslavement by insurgent forces.

           VII. PRAYER

Wherefore Petitioners prays the President of the United States of America: (1) will accept this

Petition with it intended integrity, (2) set the matter down for immediate consideration, (3) seek

confirmation of the evidence provided from whatever sources available, (4) take action to cure

forever the criminal constitutional and statutory defects cited herein which subjugates all the

American people to conditions of involuntary servitude as a crime against their humanity, and

(5) do so on an emergency basis above all others without calculated administrative delays.

Should there be no response to this Petition or without some demonstrable public showing,

  Page 9 of 10 Pages

Petitioners shall have no other alternative but to seek the "good offices" of a foreign embassy for

satisfaction on the international scene.

  Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________

Kenneth Gomez De Jure Governor of New

4 CR 5095

Bloomfield, New Mexico 87413

[email protected]

                  VIII. OTHER SIGNATURES

See Exhibit "5" for additional names, signatures, and addresses of other petitioners attached

hereto as an integral part of this document.

           IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I CERTIFY that four (4) true, correct, and complete copy of the First Amendment

Peaceable Assembly to Petition Government for a Redress of Insurgent Grievances Enslaving

them as Crimes Against Their Humanity within the States and Federal Government Districts and

Circuits of New Mexico, California, and Colorado to the Office of the President of the

United States of America was sent on this 15th day of January, 2013 by first class

U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to:

Honorable Barack H. Obama

Office of the President

United States of America

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

_____________________________________

Kenneth Gomez

De Jure Governor of New Mexico

4 CR 5095

Bloomfield, New Mexico 87413

[email protected]

Page 10 of 10 Pages

Constitutional Powers Detrimentally Misapplied Exhibit 1

CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS

DETRIMENTALLY MISAPPLIED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FACTS, POWERS, AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

FIRST ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

SECOND ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

THIRD ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

FOURTH ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

BACKGROUND CONCEPT

This paper challenges the Federal Government’s power or authority to issue extraordinary executive orders, enact legislation, or adjudicate cases directly affecting the citizenry when:

1. The national citizenry is not given a choice by a referendum vote either between

viable alternatives to the statutes – since Congress was never given credible constitutional power to address citizens by law directly affecting their lives, liberties, and the pursuits of happiness, or in the ratification of constitutional changes created by Congress or the state governments;

2. The entire national citizenry does not participate in and is rarely ever represented in

any Federal court cases - including U.S. Supreme Court cases - as a party with standing; and,

3. Constitutional Amendments become or previously became part of the Constitution of

the United States of America on State Legislature approval without a favorable referendum vote of the applicable state electorate in the requisite number of states.

FACTS, POWERS, AND AUTHORITIES

4.There exist three separate, unequal, and independent political entities composing the

United States of America: the nation, the states, and the citizenry; the nation and the states are subordinate to the citizenry, and the states are subordinate to the nation; however, during times when Congress declares a state of war exists, the nation becomes supreme for the defense of all the said entities.


5. Those laws enacted by Congress, given effect by the Federal courts, or enforced by the President directly affecting the citizenry at-large are invalid when no valid constitutional power has ever been granted by the Constitution of the United States of America to any department of the United States Government to do so. This is especially true when:

a. Those amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America which

were added without a favorable referendum vote of the electorate from within the requisite number of state, at times pertinent, can not apply to the citizenry at-large; since, no state was ever given power or authority to communicate for its citizenry without the Executive and Legislature Departments of the applicable state first authorizing a writ of election for a required referendum vote by the respective electorate therein on the constitutional change being considered. Two exceptions exist, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, which were the end result of a war between the states.


b. Laws enacted by the Congress of the United States granted by an amendment

created without the requisite number of state referendum votes, during times pertinent, which nevertheless employ the power derived therefrom, are null, void and without legal effect at their inception.

6. Laws enacted under the Necessary and Proper Clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Constitution of the United States of America – must include what the President judges as necessary from time to time upon recommending them for Congress’s consideration – Article II, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America - before Congress can determine whether it has a power grant to act upon such recommendations as proper. Heretofore, Congress, in the past, determines first what it considered necessary, and then determines whether what it considered necessary was proper or not exercising ta Supreme Court decision amending the constitution in M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). That ‘combination of powers’ in the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Clause 18 was never available to Congress under any circumstance; only the power to determine if what the President sought was proper could Congress consider. Combining those two powers: both the executive and legislative power in congressional hands renders the Executive Department subordinate to Congress, an unconstitutional act.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

7. While some of the amendments to the constitution are strongly desirable, some are not.

a. For example, the Eleventh and Sixteenth Amendments come to mind as

undesirable in that neither amendment gave the citizenry any choice in their consideration; only the states exercising their Tenth Amendment power, as single independent political entities, gave their approval without a referendum vote, at any time pertinent; yet, the Eleventh was altered by the Thirteenth which voided its provisions for litigation purposes for failing to grant the citizenry a political voice to choose who possessed and controlled their course of conduct, primary elements of a condition of slavery.

b. Then, the Sixteenth irrevocably altered the power of the Thirteenth by permitting

a tax on a private citizen’s labor, the denial of an unalienable natural right; a labor not constitutionally or statutorily owned, possessed, or controlled by the nation or the state; and a labor which could not be exchanged directly for tax purposes by the private citizen for some benefit without first subjecting the laborer to a no-choice situation among viable alternatives, and then to a condition of involuntary servitude.


8. In the federal judiciary decision rendering process, the chance is great that on constitutional issues, in either civil or criminal cases, the judicial decision will amend the constitution without any lawful power grant by the constitution to do so.

.

9. The President, by executive orders -- absent a state of war or a time limited national emergency to prevent expedient congressional action -- can employ a power not possessed to deny or defeat the sovereign citizenry power for egocentric purposes.


10. Such anomalies directly affect the citizenry at-large, and they occur either without a grant of constitutional power or by a misinterpretation of constitutional power grant.

FIRST ARGUMENT

11. The Eleventh Amendment was altered by the Thirteenth Amendment in that anything contained in the Constitution of the United States of America that approves of a condition of involuntary servitude on the citizenry, without that affected citizenry having been convicted of a crime in a court of law, shall not exist within the United States or in any place subject to its jurisdiction. The Eleventh Amendment amended the Tenth Amendment which could not be amended on grounds the constitution which authorizes amendments would not have been ratified by the citizenry and thereby would not exist until the first ten amendments were included as an integral part of the constitution. That being said, the Eleventh Amendment took away the power and choice of the citizen to sue a state where they were not a resident citizen when that power existed under Article III, Section 2, Constitution of the United States of America, and when a referendum vote did not occur within the requisite number of states for ratification of the Eleventh Amendment and none was needed for the Tenth Amendment.


12. Now it has been and may be argued that the legislature in a requisite number of states could speak for their citizenry in favor of an amendment sufficient to justify ratification; however, neither option is granted by any state constitution, for example:

a. Every state constitution contains an article describing the exact territorial boundary of

the state. All laws enacted by the legislature of a state apply only internally of that particular state. The only time that the legislature of a given state may communicate on behalf of the citizenry of that state is while the legislature is in session when a riot, rebellion, or insurrection is active within the state beyond the control of existing state authority. See state constitutions.

b. The Governor, however, has authority to communicate on behalf of the citizenry in

case it is invaded and the invasion cannot be suppressed; the Governor, in case of an active rebellion, riot, or insurrection beyond the Governor’s control, may communicate outside the state should the legislature not be in session. There are no powers or authorities, at any other time, for a government entity of a state to communicate with any other political entity on behalf of the citizenry of the state without a favorable referendum vote. See Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

c. Note the state government does not possess and does not own the citizenry of the state, and neither does the federal government; the state and federal government’s only exercise control of the citizenry within their sphere of power granted by that citizenry in the respective constitutions or by their favorable referendum vote on a constitutional amendment. Ibid.

d. There is no prohibition against the President or the Congress communicating as

separate entities to the states; but; a subdivision of either is not permitted to communicate with any of the state governments at their own choosing; however, the states may receive communications directly from Congress on proposed amendments.

13. Thus, the Thirteenth Amendment altered the power of the Eleventh Amendment which amendment was authenticated only by the requisite number of state governments as separate political entities under their power reserved for them in the Tenth Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment without a referendum vote of the citizenry denies its application to the citizenry. The State approval is for the state government and is not on behalf of the citizenry therein except with a favorable referendum vote.

SECOND ARGUMENT

14. The Sixteenth Amendment irrevocably, but unconstitutionally, altered the power of the Thirteenth Amendment in that the Sixteenth permitted a tax on the labor possessed, owned, and controlled by an individual citizen, especially when that citizen, being a member of the national citizenry-at-large, is only controlled under power they expressly gave either the federal government or the state government in their respective state constitution by a referendum vote.


a. There exists a fundamental difference between the two amendments in that one was

created as a direct result of open hostilities between two regions of the United States of America and the other amendment was not. Neither the Thirteenth Amendment not the Sixteenth Amendment were ratified by the citizenry of a requisite number of states; however the succession of hostilities between one region of the Nation and the other resulted in the Thirteenth Amendment as a conclusion of hostilities which could qualify as a referendum vote of all citizens.


b. Thus the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment is called into question for lack of

the requisite number of states’ referendum vote; its power to tax the labor of an individual member of the Nation’s citizenry must be void thereby; and since taxing the labor owned, possessed, and controlled by an individual citizen without his choice or consent constitutes a condition of involuntary servitude prohibited by the credible Thirteenth Amendment.


c.Incidentally, the Thirteenth Amendment also altered Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,

Constitution of the United States of America as it applied to taxing the labor of a private citizen member of the Nation’s citizenry in that doing so taxed the individual citizen under a condition of involuntary servitude without the citizen having a choice or consent for whom he labored in part. The ability to tax individual labor took away that choice for which the citizens labored without their consideration or consent and then threatened punishment for noncompliance.

15. Therefore, if a condition of involuntary servitude is prohibited and that prohibition occurred as the result of the succession of hostilities between all regions of the existing Nation, the Thirteenth Amendment has more validity than the Sixteenth Amendment and prevails when a question exists between the two.


16. Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment could not alter the power of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment prevails when a question arises between the two amendments.

THIRD ARGUMENT

17. The federal judiciary decision rendering process in cases involving constitutional issues will likely amend or alter the meaning of the constitution without any constitutional power to do so. The best example of this anomaly can be seen in a review of a case named and numbered M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) and its justifying predecessor Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

a. Chief Justice Marshall decided that the U.S. Supreme Court justices had authority of

‘judicial review’ on constitutional questions because the justices were under oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

b. The argument seemed legally logical on the surface; however, it had no constitutional

basis. Marshall’s decision in M’Culloch came from a previous decision he made in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803); thereby, the justices would have to understand the constitution by interpreting it in order to defend it. That argument was flawed in that the oath the justices took was in compliance with a federal statute which was subordinate to the constitution and could not amend constitution for the sake of a decision used to justify interpreting authority. The statute involved, incidentally, gave effect to Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America in they had to be bound by their oath to support the constitution, not alter it for egocentric purposes; adherence only to the powers granted the court in the constitution was the fundamental requirement. Judicial review of the constitution was not included in the power granted by the Constitution to Judicial Department; their lot is interpreting the laws enacted by Congress to settle disputes brought before it, and the treaties ratified by the Senate, however, only to settle disputes created thereby.

c. As such, the statute relied upon was subordinate to the constitution, it did not and

could not grant a constitutional power to any department of government, and it could not amend the constitution to permit the justices power or authority to interpret the constitution contrary to the judicial power granted to the court under provisions of Article III, Section 1 and 2, Constitution of the United States of America.


d. At this point in the argument, it is necessary to establish the difference between a

political decision and a judicial decision. A political decision provides a choice between two or more viable alternatives. A judicial decision does not ever provide a choice; the decision establishes whether one is in compliance with the law or treaty under consideration; and to do otherwise is to invade the political domain of Legislative or the Executive Department. It is noteworthy to reveal that judge decisions, both state and federal, often meander into the political domain with no constitutional power to do so.


e. Nevertheless and armed with the flawed decision of Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall

took the opportunity to interpret the ‘Necessary and Proper’ clause contained in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, Constitution of the United States of America to justify his decision in M’Culloch.


f. The decision in M’Culloch at the end of page 419 revealed that the ‘Necessary and

Proper’ clause was placed in the powers of Congress, not in the limitations of those powers; the effect of the court decision combined the power of the Executive with the power of the Legislature into a single congressional power with no limitation except within the combined meaning of the combined phase. It is there where the decision became flawed and favorable to Congress to do everything it decided to do without bounds or the exercise of an Executive power... No challenge by Congress to that favorable decision on its behalf by the court has ever occurred.


g. Article II, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America grants to the

President the power from time to time for addressing Congress to determine what laws the office thinks is necessary and expedient for the Nation. Once the President determines what is thought to be necessary and expedient for the operation of government and for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry, and then provides that determination to Congress; it then becomes incumbent upon Congress to survey its powers and limitations to determine whether to provide what the President thinks is necessary and expedient is also within a proper grant of power possessed by Congress. If so, the Congress must provide the President with the law thought necessary and expedient; if not proper, no law is provided. Maintaining the two powers separate significantly protects the interest of the citizenry-at-large, Supreme Court decisions to the contrary or amending the constitution, notwithstanding.


18. One has to consider what damage is done, if any there is, by the Marshall decision to combine the ‘Necessary and Proper’ clause into a single congressional power without any prior input by the President authorized by Article II of the Constitution. Could it be that the presidential veto might save the day?

a. Here is how the damage is induced. Today, Congress determines what laws it thinks

necessary and expedient, then determines whether, in its foresight, whether the laws are also proper within the envelop of its powers and limitations. Unfortunately, the combined power essentially eliminates the need for an executive except to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, whether good or bad. In the latter case, the Executive Department, and hence the President, would then be subordinate to the Congress which is contrary to the Separation of Powers Doctrine created from within the constitution, and power grants in Sections 1 of Articles I and II.


b. Incidentally, the President is Chief Executive of the Nation; Congress possesses the

legislative powers of the United States Government, not the Nation. See the difference between the power grants by Article 1, Section 1 and Article II, Section 1, Constitution of the United States of America; one is a national power, the other a government power. Congress cannot exercise foreign power policy; the President can. The President is granted the executive power of the United States of America; Congress is only granted the legislative power of the United States, not the United States of America, See the Preamble for the difference. Therefore, the branches of the United States government are not equal; in point of fact, the Judicial Department is even more limited in that it is only granted powers under, not in, the Constitution of the United States of America, as stated in Article III, Sections 1 and 2 thereof.


c. The M’Culloch unconstitutional decision remains in effect today and has done so

since 1819. Just think of the numerous laws enacted by Congress and initiated by it without the President exercising the Article II power declaring them to be necessary and expedient. By signing them into law, he may declare them to be necessary by default; however, that is not an original constitutional power grant of intent. The combination of the executive and congressional power into a single power of Congress - powers which were meant to be separate and independent, unique to different branches of the government, and kept separate as a limitation on the exercise of government powers – degraded the integrity of the constitution immeasurably. The combination has overcome the purpose of the congressional limitations, the combination has unbridled the limitations on the exercise of congressional powers; and the combination has become detrimental to the interest of the citizenry-at-large.


d. The Stare Decisis Doctrine, the adherence to precedent where possible, allows for

errors in judicial decisions to propagate readily through the government especially where one branch has an increase in its power with the support of the second branch at the expense of the third branch. One result is the subjugation of the national citizenry-at-large, possession and control of their course of conduct which becomes a status of involuntary servitude without viable choices.


e. Consider the fact that a group of attorneys provide arguments to the justices of the

Supreme Court in matters the court considers. The decisions rendered in that court are binding on all federal courts; they may not be binding on the states. Yet, state courts ignore their own constitutions and honor the decisions of the Supreme Court; the citizenry-at-large, and their powers reserved for to them by the Tenth Amendment, be dammed. Decisions based upon the argument of a group of statutory attorneys usurp the power of the citizenry-at-large, a sovereign power, to satisfy disputes between two or more parties which likely does not even consider the citizens’ Tenth Amendment power. Such decisions apply only to the parties involved, not the citizenry at-large.


19. The federal judiciary decision rendering process in cases involving constitutional issues can and does amend or alter the meaning of the constitution without any constitutional power to do so. Judicial review by the United States Supreme Court of constitutional issues is


contrary to the power grant provided it by Article III, Sections 1 and 2, Constitution of the United States of America. When constitutional issues come before the court, it must transfer that issue either to the Executive Department or the Legislative Department, and take no further action.

FOURTH ARGUMENT

20. The President issues Executive Orders on the national scene to explain how he will

faithfully implement the lawful federal statutes and treaties ratified by congressional action. Any other practice of such orders would exceed the bounds of his powers, absent a state of war or a national emergency embraced by a time limitation preventing timely congressional action.


a. Currently, there exists an Executive Order issued by President Clinton which

empowers all subsequent presidents to declare a ‘bank holiday’. A ‘bank holiday’ means that all banks are closed, the money on deposit can be confiscated, and gold deposits, other than jewelry, in bank personal security boxes can also be confiscated.


b. No authority existed for President Clinton to issue such an order. It was determined

that since President Franklin Roosevelt used such authority unlawfully to confiscate personal gold and money holdings in various banks during the 1930 depression, it could be continued, if necessary, in another economic downturn without a law authorizing the act.


c. The number of Executive Orders existing and still valid is numerous. Whether any

one of them is lawful or not would require an individual evaluation to validate their legitimacy. The likelihood of that happening is extremely doubtful.


21. Accordingly, the President, by executive orders and absent a state of war or time limited national emergency to prevent necessary and expedient congressional action, can employ a power not possessed to deny or defeat the Tenth Amendment power of the citizenry-at-large for egocentric purposes.

CONCLUSION


22. The Federal Government’s power or authority to issue extra-legitimate executive orders, enact independently initiated congressional legislation, or adjudicate cases directly affecting the national citizenry-at-large is formally challenged as being totally unconstitutional.

______________________________ ____________________________

DATED Winfred P. Adams

MAJOR, USAF, Retired

2347 Forest Avenue

Durango, Colorado 81301-4878

EXHIBIT TWO

NEW MEXICO, CALIFORNIA, AND COLORADO

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY CITATIONS

New Mexico Citations

Article IV, Section 26, Const. N.M. [Grant of franchise or privilege.]

The legislature shall not grant to any corporation or person, any rights, franchises, privileges, immunities or exemptions, which shall not, upon the same terms and under like conditions, inure equally to all persons or corporations; no exclusive right, franchise, privilege or immunity shall be granted by the legislature or any municipality in this state. [Emphasis added].


Article VI, Clause 3, Const. U.S.A. [Debts, Supremacy, Oath], Const. United States of America


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Emphasis added]


Article XXI, Section 10, Const. N.M. [Compact irrevocable.]


This ordinance is irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this state, and no change or abrogation of this ordinance, in whole or in part, shall be made by any constitutional amendment without the consent of congress.

Annotations

Cross references. — To amend compact with United States, see N.M. Const., art. XIX, § 4.

State consent to change requires constitutional amendment. — Congress in 1920 consented to change in regard to use of proceeds of land granted state, but state itself must adopt constitutional amendment whereby this consent can be carried into effect. Bryant v. Board of Loan Comm'rs, 28 N.M. 319, 211 P. 597 (1922). See N.M. Const., art. XIX, § 4.

.

Article XXII, Section 19, Const. N.M. [First state officers.]


Within thirty days after the issuance by the president of the United States of his proclamation announcing the result of said election so ascertained, all officers elected at such election, except members of the legislature, shall take the oath of office and give bond as required by this constitution or by the laws of the territory of New Mexico in case of like officers in the territory, county or district, and shall thereupon enter upon the duties of their respective offices; but the

legislature may by law require such officers to give other or additional bonds as a condition of their continuance in office.

Section 19 does not exempt officers elected subsequently to first election from giving bond. Board of Comm'rs v. District Court, 29 N.M. 244, 223 P. 516 (1924).


Elements of public office. — Five elements are indispensable in any position of public employment, in order to make it a public office of a civil nature: (1) It must be created by the constitution or by the legislature or created by a municipality or other body through authority conferred by the legislature; (2) it must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public; (3) the powers conferred, and the duties to be discharged, must be defined, directly or impliedly, by the legislature or through legislative authority; (4) the duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power, other than the law, unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office, created or authorized by the legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a superior officer or body; (5) it must have some permanency and continuity, and not be only temporary or occasional. In addition, in this state, an officer must take and file an official oath, hold a commission or other written authority, and give an official bond, if the latter be required by proper authority. 1955-56 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 56-6396. [Emphasis added.]


Section 10-2-5. [Recording of bonds required.] (1893) -- Note pre-statehood date.

The bonds given by all persons elected or appointed to office in this state shall be recorded.

History: Laws 1893, ch. 56, § 1; C.L. 1897, § 3187; Code 1915, § 515; C.S. 1929, § 17-111; 1941 Comp., § 10-205; 1953 Comp., § 5-2-5.


Section 10-2-6. [Record of official bonds of state and district officers.] (1893) --Note date


The bonds of all state and district officers shall be recorded in a record book to be provided for that purpose, and known as the record of official bonds, in the office of the secretary of state.


History: Laws 1893, ch. 56, § 2; C.L. 1897, § 3188; Code 1915, § 516; C.S. 1929, § 17-112; 1941 Comp., § 10-206; 1953 Comp., § 5-2-6.


Section 10-2-7. [Filing of bonds by officials of state and state agencies.] (1905) -- Note date


The bonds of all state officials, and of the members of all state boards and institutions, after having been recorded as required by law, shall be filed and kept in the office of the secretary of state; and all state bonds now filed elsewhere shall be transferred to the office of the secretary.

History: Laws 1905, ch. 59, § 1; Code 1915, § 517; C.S. 1929, § 17-113; 1941 Comp., § 10-207; 1953 Comp., § 5-2-7.

Section 10-2-9. [Recording prerequisite to discharging duties of office.] (1893) – Note Date


Each and every person who may hereafter be elected or appointed to office in this state, required by law to give bond, shall file the same for record before entering upon the discharge of the duties of the office.

History: Laws 1893, ch. 56, § 5; C.L. 1897, § 3190; Code 1915, § 519; C.S. 1929, § 17-115; 1941 Comp., § 10-209; 1953 Comp., § 5-2-9.

California Government Sections, (Civil Code Citations (2011 Edition))

Section 1360


Unless otherwise provided, before any officer enters on the duties of office, he shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3, Article XX of the Constitution of California.


Section 1369


Every person having taken and subscribed to the oath or affirmation required by this chapter, who while holding office, advocates or becomes a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or violence or other unlawful means, is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.


Sections 1450 to 1462


States who shall file and record the official bond, where the bond is to be filed, who approves the bond, and that it be made payable to the State of California when a breach has been established.


Section 1770.


An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the following events before the expiration of the term:


  • His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her required oath and bond within the time prescribed.
  • Colorado Citations

Article 26, Section 22, California Constitution. Recognizances, bonds, payable to people continue.


All recognizances, bail bonds, official bonds and other obligations or undertakings, which have been, or at any time before admission of the state shall be made or entered into, and expressed to be payable to the people of the territory of Colorado shall continue in full force notwithstanding the change in the form of government, and any breach thereof, whenever occurring, may after admission of the state be prosecuted, in the name of the people of the state.


Example in Letter Form Without Attachment of How a System of Peonage Employed by a Criminal Oligarchy: (1) Denies One a Political Choice to Determine Who is in Possession and Control One’s Personal Conduct, and (2) Simultaneously Deprives One of an Economic Stake in the Way Public Appropriations are Spent.


Winfred P. Adams

MAJOR, USAF, Retired

23247 Forest Avenue

Durango, Colorado 81301-4878

December 15, 2012 Certified Mail No.: 7012 1640 0002 3147 8282

Honorable John W. Hickenlooper

Governor of Colorado

1326 State Capitol

Denver, Colorado 80203-1792

RE: Civil Jury Summons of a Retired Military Commissioned Officer Under Threat for Failure to Show under Authority of a Judicial Department Controlled Criminal Oligarchy

Dear Governor Hickenlooper:

Attached is a Legal Document: Jury Summons which contained a

threat of punishment I received by U.S. Mail on December 13, 2012. I

find it hard to believe the Colorado Legislature enacted a law

threatening potential jurors without a political choice and expect the juror whose presence was acquired under threat of a heavy fine and incarceration to be impartial. It gets even worse when Colorado law requires a retired military officer to be on civilian jury who is under oath contained in 5 U.S.C. § 3331 to defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; a military officer subject to 10 U.S.C. §899, Article 99 of the Code of Military Justice, which mandates that a person subject to the code cannot show cowardice before an enemy.

That being the said, I shall show up for jury duty under threat on January 7, 2013 at 8:15 AM and thereafter, and being conscious of said § 899, I shall be prepared to declare:

1. that the State of Colorado is controlled by a criminal oligarchy

whose membership is created by the Colorado Judicial Department which then imposes on the non-member citizenry, without recourse to any competent court of law, a system of peonage in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and 14 Stat. 546, currently codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1994 and18 U.S.C. 1581 et seq. (see attached Jury Summons containing the threat as evidence of peonage and 42 U.S.C. Section 1994 on peonage; and Novotny v. Cortez), 12cv73 Montezuma District Court a case on peonage never addressed or decided).


2. that members of the criminal oligarchy, as agents of the

Colorado Supreme Court, exercising constitutional powers pervade the Colorado Legislative and Executive Departments, (see Article III, Colorado Constitution),


3. that some persons owing their current government positions to

their former membership also contaminate all courts of law available to American citizens within the State and District of Colorado, and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,


4. that the right of the State electorate to vote informed of the

criminal oligarchy is thereby abridged during the election of all public officer candidates as addressed in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment,


5. that no person posing as a state public officer has filed and

recorded among the Records in the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State, available for public scrutiny at their leisure, any evidence of a personal recognizance bond which, as mandated by Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America, binds them to the promises in their oath of office, as their contract consideration to the public at-large, in exchange for the public’s trust, as its contract consideration, enabling the bond giver to then, and only then, enter the public office and perform the specific duties attendant to that office, (see Section 2 and 22, Schedule, Constitution of Colorado),


6. that the criminal oligarchy is declared by me to be an enemy of

the Constitution of the United States of America, and


7. that elements 1 through and including 6 constitutes an

insurrection against both constitutions because the insurgents posing as state public officers are denying the powers of both constitutions and they are defying the authorities of the attendant statutes giving effect to those powers, (see In re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F. 828 (ND Ill. 1894)).

This letter with the attached Juror Summons shall be included in Exhibit 2, First Amendment Petition of California, Colorado, and New Mexico citizens to provide evidence of the effect of insurgents exercising unconstitutional powers to President Barack Obama and to the applicable two Congressional Leaders of the House and Senate on January 15, 2013 after they take the 5 U.S.C. § 3331 oath of office.


Respectfully submitted,


Attached: Copy of Juror Summons

EXHIBIT THREE

SUBJECT PAGE

EXHIBIT "3" LETTERS

1. Kenneth Gomez's Letter to Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor,

Dated 1113/2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1- 2

2. Alice Burns' California Letter to State and Federal Officers,

Dated 4/4/2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - 9

3. Edward George Novotny's Letter to Colorado Governor,

Dated 8/20/2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - 10 - 11

4. Mark Huber's New Mexico Letter to Federal Officers,

Dated 111712012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 - 15

5. Lynette Gomez's Letter to New Mexico Secretary of State

Concerning a NM District Judge's Recognizance Bond - - - 16 - 18

Kenneth Gomez

4CR 5095

Bloomfield, New Mexico 87413


November 3, 2010


Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Justice for the Tenth Circuit

One 1st Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C, 20543


RE: Kenneth Gomez v. District Judge James A. Parker Judicial 'Misconduct

Complaint No. 10-10-90038

Dear Justice Sotomayor:

         Events active within the Tenth Circuit may require your attention. I exercised 28 US.c.

§§ 351 et seq, on September 16, 2010 in referenced Complaint. The substance of the Complaint

required use of the case file for detailed proof of the allegation submitted tor consideration for

the initial Tenth Circuit investigation, Unfortunately, those entrusted with duties under the said §

351 et seq. for the initial investigation lost control of the Case File, (Gomez v. Eleventh Judicial

District Court, 1: 10-cv-594 JAP/LFG), nearly a month later by allowing the entire file to be

remanded to the State District Court from which it originated nearly four months earlier.

         The referenced Complaint revealed that six persons hold federal commissions as federal

judges under false pretenses and they possibly embezzle federal public appropriations in the

form of salaries, Four of them are assigned to the lower court and two are assigned to the Tenth

Circuit with additional duties with the lower court. Paragraph 4 of the referenced Complaint

contained a brief summary of the evidence and proof available in Gomez against those holding

federal commissions under false pretenses. By abandoning control of the entire case file for

remand, the Tenth Circuit may now conclude the case for lack of formal evidence and proof

         23 Stat. 11 and 12, Chapter 26, is an Act of the Forty-Eighth Congress dated April 18,

1884 which makes it a felony for a person to falsely and fraudulently assume or pretend to be

officers or employees acting under authority. of the United States or any Department or any

office thereof, and prescribing a penalty therefor. The local Farmington, New Mexico Federal

Bureau of Investigation has been notified with sufficient evidence and proof in the matter;

however, by telephone, they informed me not to provide them any further information for a lack

of interest.

         The substance of the matter is that I am a candidate for the Office of the New Mexico

Governor opposed by two other candidates who falsified their Declaration of Candidacy, a fourth

degree felony in New Mexico, for having unlawfully discharged the duties of a state public

officer and embezzling state public appropriations while denying the power of the New Mexico

Constitution, Art. XXII, Sec. 19, in violation of the authority of state statutes, (NMSA 1978

Section 10-2-5,6, 7 and 9), which give those powers effect. My candidacy for the office will

=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                          Page 1

Page 2, Gomez v. Judge Parker Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 10-10-90038, 1118/10


win by the default of my opponents; however, I have no court of law, either state or federal, in

which to enter for confirming my victory; all state public officers are engaged in an insurgency

against powers of both constitutions and the authority of state statues giving effect to the

constitutional powers. Unfortunately, the federal court system has turned a blind eye to this

serious circumstance. The insurgency is the core of the defect for holding state and federal

commissions under false pretenses. I do not believe the personnel assigned duties within the

Tenth Circuit can lawfully act in furtherance of criminal insurgent activities to harm me or

anyone else.


My purpose in this letter is to inform you of these circumstances; since on January 1,

2011, I fully intend to enter and lawfully hold the Office as Governor of New Mexico; I intend to

notify President Obama of that action before January 1, 2011, and I intend to take whatever

action necessary upon entering the office to exercise the constitutional powers of that office to

terminate the insurgency engaged in by state public officers against both constitutions under

authority of my oath and bond to be filed and recorded among the Records within the Office of

the New Mexico Secretary of State.


Sincerely,

cc: Ms Victoria M, Parks, Deputy Circuit Executive

1823 Stout Street

Denver, CO 80257

(303)335-2630


Federal Bureau of Investigation, Farmington Office

650 W. Main, Building A

Farmington, NM 87401


vacant office of NM SOS, Mary Herrera

325 Don Gaspar, Suite 300

Santa Fe, NM 87503


Attch: Verified Complaint Against District Court

Judge James Parker under provisions of

116 Stat. 1848, Judicial Improvement Act

of 2002, filed in with the Court Clerk of

the Tenth Circuit on September 15, 2010

=======================================================================================================

 EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                                 Page 2


Alice Burns

Post Office Box 23678

Pleasant Hill, California 94523-0678


April 4, 2012


Office of the California Governor

Governor Jerry Brown

C/O State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, California 95814


Office of California Attorney General

General Kamala D. Harris

Department of Justice

1300 I Street, Suite 1740

POBox 944255

Sacramento, California 95814


Office of the California Secretary of State

Secretary Debra Bowen

1500 11til Street

Sacramento, California 95614


Office of the United States Attorney

Attorney Melinda L Haag

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102


Office of the United States Attorney General

General Eric Holder

950 Pennsylvania Avenue N W

Washington, D. C. 20530


President of the United States of America

President Barrack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W

Washington 0 C, 20500


RE: Unimpeded Judicial Criminal Activity within the State of California


Greetings:


The undersigned signed a loan note, which contained a provision illegally subjecting her

to a condition of involuntary servitude. Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1994, she was not bound by that

note whether signed voluntarily, involuntarily, directly, or indirectly; and thereby the note

became null, void, and without legal effect irrevocably upon the lender exercising the provision

authenticating the specific condition for involuntary servitude.


While before a federal district court seeking protection of the 'Thirteenth Amendment and

federal statutes giving effect to that specific power, a California state court of law was entered

for property possession purposes, and given standing without knowing either of the federal case

or of the invalid loan note. Informing the California state court of that specific matter was futile;

since, the person making the court decision was not an elected judge, though imposed on me,

nevertheless, without recourse. Appealing an illegal decision to possess property in the exact

same court allowed a three-judge panel to review another judge's decision, allowed them to

fabricate a course of action not employed by me and then allowed them to use the fabrication to

affirm the right to possess property decision in the same court. Notifying those three judges of

their criminal activity allowed them to change the title of my pleading opposing their criminal

=====================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                            Page 3

conduct so that my pleading in opposition to their criminal activity took on a dormant or

quiescent status void of any meaning. They then used that illegal practice of legal coercion in

violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1581 et seq. to return me to the system of involuntary servitude,

prohibited by 14 Stat. 546, a statute currently codified as 42 U.S.C. Section 1994 and t 8 U.S.C.

Sections 1581 et seq.

         Accordingly, this letter informs an addressees that persons assigned duties as judges or

justices in California state courts of law, supposedly operating under binding federal and state

laws, can deliberately deny the power of both constitutions and intentionally defy the authorities

of the laws, which give effect to those powers. They do so criminally and knowingly without

care, recourse or remorse; they do so with impunity, by perjuring their oath of office, and

without any accountability whatsoever; and they do so under a fraudulent cloak of immunity to

permit their criminality. They, each one of them, exercise the authority of a public office not

ever lawfully entered to pass harmful judgments upon their own criminal acts, and do so under

court rules created without ever seeking the comments, counsel, or the concerns of either the

state legislator or the private citizens. They are a power and law unto themselves without

recourse or accountability, and only a power outside the Judicial Department can act to purify the

election system in California, to promote integrity for the subsequent exercise of the public trust,

and to prevent the current course of criminal conduct.

         They can pass judgment on their own course of criminal conduct without ever properly

entering the office of public trust, and without ever being held accountable with a personal

recognizance bond binding them to the promises in the oath of office. No person assigned duties

as a judge or justice, in any California state court of law, can lawfully exercise the public trust

while under oath to support both constitutions unless covered by a personal fidelity recognizance

bond binding them to the promises made in the oath of office taken; and, failure to give such a

bond denies them accountability to the public at-large and constitutes perjuring their individual

oath. No person holding the public office as judge within the California judicial system can be

held accountable to the public under existing law or the court rules when that accountability is

sought by a pro se litigant for a breach of their oath and for failure to support both constitutions.

Accordingly, each one of them throughout the State, thereby, jointly, and severally, engages in

an insurrection against both constitutions.

          An insurrection against a constitution, as used in Section 3, Fourteenth Amendment, is defined in

a case entitled and numbered: In re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F. 828 (ND Ill. 1894) and consists

of any act which:

1. Deliberately denies supporting at least one power of a constitution they swear or

affirm to support,

2. Intentionally defies executing the authority of laws enacted to give effect to that

constitutional power, or

3. Sufficiently exercises the authority of an office never lawfully entered giving the

criminal act permanent effect.

          All public officers, both state and federal, must be bound to their oath as mandated by

Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America. The provisions of31 U.S.C.

======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                                  Page 4

Sections 9301 to 9309 give effect to that constitutional power. The self-executing and automatic

provisions of Section 3, Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America

deny public office immediately to any person who, after taking an oath to support the

constitution, engages in an insurrection against that constitution. Each of the addressees has a

sworn duty to the applicable public at-large to avoid being associated with insurgents against

. constitutional power and the associated authorities while exercising the public trust with

accountability acquired in exchange for their oath. A fidelity bond binding one to the promises in

the oath differs from a liability bond for actions beyond the scope of office duties in that the

liability bond is paid to the State for a breach of the promise, while the fidelity bond, pays the

injured party.

           Attached are two documents acted upon by persons posing as California state judges in a

court of law which accurately demonstrates that individual acts of several judges deliberately

denied the power of the Thirteenth Amendment, intentionally defied the authorities of laws

enacted by Congress giving that specific power effect, demonstrates that the subsequent course

of criminal conduct altered the intent of that power and its attendant authorities by exercising

sufficient force for permanent effect. Appealing such decisions within the errant California

judicial system constitutes an oxymoron, a waste of sparse finances, and a civic duty for each

free citizen to oppose.

           In view of the foregoing, a free and independent pro se litigant is denied access to justice

in all California state courts of law; thereby. the litigant is denied the power of both

constitutions, and deprived of the benefit of laws enacted by the United States Congress - 14

Stat. 546 codified as 42 U.S~C. Section 1994 and 18 U.S.C. sections 1581 et seq. - giving effect

to that specific constitutional power and binding on the State of California. Although some

lawful action is expected, the undersigned believes that at least one of the prime addressees

might reveal the action taken to rectify the situation and circumstance imposed upon her without

recourse. Meanwhile, she will remain without the civil remedy authorized and due her by 18

U.S.C. Section 1593A and Section 1595 for being returned under the honorable court authority,

though illicit, to a system of involuntary servitude and the loss of her cherished home thereby.

Respectfully submitted,

Alice Burns

cc: Appellate Division Court Clerk - Martinez

Superior Court of the State of California for Contra Costa County

Martinez, California 94553

Attached: I. 'Appellant's Opposition to Ruling'

2. The 'Order Denying Petition For Rehearing' issued by the court to prevent

addressing judicial criminal activity.

======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                                 Page 5

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

APPELLA TE DIVJSION

Superior Court No. Nll-1787 Trial Court No. CSll~0230

THE SPENCER DAVID COMPANY, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

Plaintiff and Respondent,

vs

ALICE M. BURNS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant's Opposition to Ruling is construed as a Petition for Rehearing and is

Denied.

  John W. Kennedy, Presiding Judge

Barry Baskin, Judge

Charles S. Treat, Judge

=====================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                              Page 6

-

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

APPELLATE DIVISION


Superior Court No. N11-1787 Trial Court No. CS11-0239

THE SPENCER DAVID COMPANY, INC. ON APPEAL

Plaintiff and Respondent, from the'

LIMITED JURISDICTION

of the

SUPERIOR COURT

CONCORD

County of Contra Costa

State of California

ALICE M. BURNS

Defendant and Appellant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                             APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO RULING

Alice Burns, Defendant and Appellant, hereinafter "Burns", opposes the

underhanded and criminal ruling of John W. Kennedy, Barry Baskin, and

Charles S. Treat, judges of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of the

State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa on the following

grounds:

               1. The finding of the Court that the 'foreclosure provisions of the note to her

property' was never argued by Bums, see 11 1c. Section III, Statement of

the Case, Appellant's Opening Brief. The Court had no power or

authority to substitute their issue of 'foreclosure provision' for Bums' issue

of unlawful note, see 42 U.S.C. § 1994, under the power of the California

Constitution, the authority of Its laws, or any court rules. Further, the

Court never gave legal justification, without vagueness, for its ruling

thereby denying Burns the right to appeal grounded on their detailed

reasoning as required for Burns briefs. In view of the foregoing alone, the

Court ruling was null, void, and without legal effect at its inception, and

signing the ruling had no legal effect whatsoever.


2. The only court with lawful jurisdiction in the matter at the time the case

was filed in state superior court was the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California where Burns had filed her federal

complaint on the peonism issue and the unlawful loan note under 42

U.S.C. § 1994. Burns had sought constitutional protection in that court

under the power of the Thirteenth Amendment and the authority of federal

statutes giving that constitutional power effect. See 1J 4, Section IV,

Appellant's Opening Brief. This Court lacked the power or authority to

=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                             Page 7

decide the legality of either constitutional or jurisdictional questions

involving a federal court of law, the Constitution of the United States of

America or the federal statutes giving that power effect. In point of fact,

neither the Court nor the Respondent could be made a party to the

federal case at the time because the federal case was in final

determination on pending outstanding motions when the state case was

filed. Had the federal case not been determining outstanding pending

motions, the state case would have provided essential support for Burns'

cause in federal court and could have materially aided her cause

grounded on Respondent's lack of standing to bring suit on what follows

in the paragraph below.


3. Burns did not question or argue the Contra Costa County Recorder's

power or authority to file the loan note in Year 2005 since the provisions

of 42 U.S.C. § 1994 were not known to her at that time. At no time did

Burns ever argue that the said Recorder was unlawfully serving as the

recorder until January 1, 2011 when he failed to take the oath of office

during and for the January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 term of office.

The said judges had to fabricate such an argument to justify their ruling.

in point of fact, Burns agreed the note was properly filed in Year 2005; but

that the note was invalid in accord with 42 U.S.C. § 1994 in that Burns

could not agree either voluntarily, involuntarily, directly or indirectly to any

arrangement or loan note holding her to a condition of involuntary

servitude, see 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and" 1, Section IV, Statement of Facts,

Appellant's Opening Brief. However, Burns did argue the said Recorder

lost his power and authority to perform the duties of that office on January

1, 2011 for failure to take the oath of office for the current term when the

foreclosure acceptance was sought and when the authority for sale was

given. See page 10 for the invalid oath of office, and 11 1c, Section III,

Statement of the Case, Appellant's Opening Brief justifying the invalid

oath. The separation between to two dates, 2005 and 2011, were too far

apart to be an ordinary mistake; the error was criminally necessary to

avoid addressing 42 U.S.C. § 1994, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq. See

1(5,Section IV, Statement of the Facts, Appellant's Opening Brief.


4. In view of the foregoing, the ruling rendered by this Court and Signed by

the said three judges became a criminal act and enterprise supporting

legal coercion of the Respondent, by and through their attorney, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq. for deliberately returning Burns to

the system of peon ism imposed upon her by court rules, the ruling, and

the loan note. The act became a crime by denying the power of the

Thirteenth Amendment and by intentionally defying the binding authority

14 Stat. 546 which is currently codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and 18

U.S.C. §§ 1581 at seq. A separate crime may have occurred when the

ruling was mailed using the U.S. Postal Service on March 5,2012.


=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                            Page 9

5. The consequence of denying the power of the Thirteenth Amendment and

defying the authority of federal statutes giving effect to that power

constitutes an insurrection AGAINST THE Constitution of the United

States of America. Insurgent activities against the constitution and laws

giving it effect is covered in an address to a federal jury and invokes the

self-executing provisions of Section 3, Fourteenth Amendment. Those

who oppose such insurrections can obligate without question the federal

treasury for any amount needed to suppress the insurgency. In accord

therewith, each of the said judges upon signing the ruling being opposed

have denied the power of the constitution they each swore to support and

have defied the authority of its laws giving effect to constitutional power.

It remains to be seen how they will react to the content of this paragraph.

See In ra Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F. 828 (OCNO III. 1894) and

Fourteenth Amendment.


WHEREFORE, the foregoing statements about the Court ruling reveal that the

three judges who participated in rendering the ruling currently being opposed did

so by deliberately substituting new issues to avoid those provided by Burns or by

ignoring those presented by her. Therefore Bums has a civic duty to inform the

public, the federal and state authorities, and the Governor of the State of

California by separate correspondence under provisions of 18 U.S.C. §4, and §

2383 for the criminal act of refusing to obey and execute pertinent and binding

laws of the United States to harm her without recourse.


Respectfully submitted.


Alice Burns


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed to the attorney of

record for the Plaintiff and Respondent by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,

this 10th day of March, 2012.


Alice Burns

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                             Page 7

decide the legality of either constitutional or jurisdictional questions

involving a federal court of law, the Constitution of the United States of

America or the federal statutes giving that power effect. In point of fact,

neither the Court nor the Respondent could be made a party to the

federal case at the time because the federal case was in final

determination on pending outstanding motions when the state case was

filed. Had the federal case not been determining outstanding pending

motions, the state case would have provided essential support for Burns'

cause in federal court and could have materially aided her cause

grounded on Respondent's lack of standing to bring suit on what follows

in the paragraph below.


3. Burns did not question or argue the Contra Costa County Recorder's

power or authority to file the loan note in Year 2005 since the provisions

of 42 U.S.C. § 1994 were not known to her at that time. At no time did

Burns ever argue that the said Recorder was unlawfully serving as the

recorder until January 1, 2011 when he failed to take the oath of office

during and for the January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 term of office.

The said judges had to fabricate such an argument to justify their ruling.

in point of fact, Burns agreed the note was properly filed in Year 2005; but

that the note was invalid in accord with 42 U.S.C. § 1994 in that Burns

could not agree either voluntarily, involuntarily, directly or indirectly to any

arrangement or loan note holding her to a condition of involuntary

servitude, see 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and" 1, Section IV, Statement of Facts,

Appellant's Opening Brief. However, Burns did argue the said Recorder

lost his power and authority to perform the duties of that office on January

1, 2011 for failure to take the oath of office for the current term when the

foreclosure acceptance was sought and when the authority for sale was

given. See page 10 for the invalid oath of office, and 11 1c, Section III,

Statement of the Case, Appellant's Opening Brief justifying the invalid

oath. The separation between to two dates, 2005 and 2011, were too far

apart to be an ordinary mistake; the error was criminally necessary to

avoid addressing 42 U.S.C. § 1994, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq. See

1(5,Section IV, Statement of the Facts, Appellant's Opening Brief.


4. In view of the foregoing, the ruling rendered by this Court and Signed by

the said three judges became a criminal act and enterprise supporting

legal coercion of the Respondent, by and through their attorney, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq. for deliberately returning Burns to

the system of peon ism imposed upon her by court rules, the ruling, and

the loan note. The act became a crime by denying the power of the

Thirteenth Amendment and by intentionally defying the binding authority

14 Stat. 546 which is currently codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and 18

U.S.C. §§ 1581 at seq. A separate crime may have occurred when the

ruling was mailed using the U.S. Postal Service on March 5,2012.


=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                               Page 9

Edward George Novotny

917 Brookside

Cortez, Colorado 81321

August 20, 2012

Hon. John W. Hickenlooper

136 State Capitol

Denver, Colorado 80203-1792

RE: Report of a Colorado Governmental Defect for which a Cure is Mandatory

Dear Governor Hickenlooper:

Attached are two documents which. should reveal what you need to know about the

referenced defect and the necessary core. I do not ask that you get involved in the matter contained

in the attached, just that you consider the information for its substance. The attached two documents

illustrate the nature of the governmental defect and why that defect controls. Every person who takes

a constitutional oath to the public at-large must be bound by that oath as mandated by Article VI,

Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America. The Exhibit "T' attached hereto was a

mandate of the Congressional Act enabling the Territory of New Mexico to acquire statehood.

Section 22 of the Schedule in the Colorado Constitution establishes the bonding requirement but

somehow was able to evade the characteristic contained in Exhibit "7."

I am charging that the Colorado Legislature initiated a constitutional amendment which was

submitted to the electorate for a referendum vote in November 6, 1962, an amendment which became

effective in January 1965, and which is currently Article VI, Section 21, Colorado Constitution. That

amendment, upon becoming effective, was at that time unconstitutional; other irrevocable

amendments of said, constitution to the contrary, continue to prevail with standing.

Let me elucidate. When the Colorado Supreme Court implemented provisions of that

amendment, it denied 99 percent of the private citizens of the state the liberty to choose the practice

of law as their vocation because they were not member of the American Bar Association, a private

and foreign commercial organization not under the control of the said 99 percent, of any part of state

government, or of the State of Colorado. The court's interpretation of the amendment denied the

ordinary citizens their unalienable right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that best suited

their private circumstance. The argument that such court controls protect other citizens is truly

fallacious; since, every citizen has the unalienable right to represent themselves in any court and

receive a fair ruling. What judicial power granted the Supreme Court by the People of Colorado

permitted it to control my fife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to the extent that I am denied the free

and uninhibited access to public legal renderings such as state statutes, court. decisions, court rules,

and even docket sheets in my own case?

The Supreme Court interpretation of Article VI, Section 21 permits it to contract with a

foreign private commercial entity empowered with controls over: (1) public legislative and judicial

=======================================================================================================

  EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                             Page 10

renderings paid for with publicly appropriated funds, (2) the public at-large without their consent, and

(3) the legislatively established courts. Under provisions of 14 Stat. 546, currently codified as 42

U.S.C. § 1994 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq., a contract binding those persons without their consent

to an imposed service obligation is void, and constitutes a system of peonage, a subspecies of

involuntary servitude. Any assemblage of persons, be they: (I) private citizens, (2) those given

special legal privileges, (3) those serving in government positions lawfully or otherwise, or (4) those

not under the control of the State of Colorado, who participate actively in the foregoing to deny the

power of both constitutions and defy the authorities of either thereby engage in an insurrection against

those constitutions. See In re Charge to Grand Jury, 62 F 828 (NO Dl. 1894). Those holding office

positions with recorded fidelity bonds binding them to their oaths are automatically out of office by

the self-executing provisions of §3, 14th Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America.

The net effect of the amendment, as interpreted, allows the court to contract with a private

foreign commercial entity, and to provide it with all valid court decisions, court rules, and state

statutes - all of which are public legal renderings paid for with public appropriations - as the court's

contract consideration so the said commercial entity, as its consideration, can organize, publish and

keep their work: product periodically updated validating the contract. Thereby, private citizens are

denied the free and uninhibited access to current state statutes, valid state court decisions, and court

rules needed to adequately represent themselves litigating their legal difficulties. Article Y, Section

25, Colorado Constitution prevents the legislature from enacting laws to prevent that constitutional

anomaly.

The Supreme Court contract with the private commercial entity can be viewed from yet

another aspect in that it prevents the public at-large from having uninhibited free access to valid public

legal renderings which they are bound to obey at all times pertinent. The said contract actually

subordinates a minority state constitutional department of government - the Judicial Department -

to the control of a private foreign commercial entity, an entity not under the control of either the

citizenry or the other two constitutional departments: the Executive and Legislative Departments; a

threesome which constitutes a majority of the State of Colorado.

You, the Honorable John W. Hickenlooper, as the Governor of Colorado, have the mandated

constitutional duty: (1) to suppress an active insurrection against the Colorado Constitution under

provisions of Article IV, Section 5, Colorado Constitution, and (2) to end the system of peonism

created by the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of Article VI, Section 21 of said constitution

which is currently imposed upon me and other private Colorado citizens.

Governor Hickenlooper, I urge that you take this matter under serious consideration since

others are seeking congressional committee legislative action to end the imposed system of peonage

in five states where Spanish systems of peonage once prevailed: Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona,

California, and Florida.

Sincerely, ,

Edward M. Montoya

Attached: Court Record of Motion for Reconsideration with Exhibit "7"

========================================================================================================

 EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                                Page 11

Mark Huber

2736 Via Venado

Santa Fe. New Mexico 87505

January 17. 2012

Offiice of the United States Attorney

District of New Mexico

POST Office Box 607

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

For action by the below addressee after five working Days from the above date:

Office of the United States Attorney General

Department of .Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington. D.C. 20530

For action by the below addressee after five working days from January 24, 2012:

Office of the President


United States of America

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20500

RE: Conditions of Peonism Imposed on the Free Undersigned by the New

Mexico Judicial System and other pertinent New Mexico State Public Officers in

Violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, 14 Statute-a!-Large 546. Codified as 42

U.S.C. § 1994. and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq.; and the Fourteenth Amendment. 11

Statute ..at-Large 13 codified as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 et seq. which Rendered

Reckless and Irreparable Harm on Her and which is Reported herein under

Authority of 18 U.s.C. § 4

Courtesy copy provided the following:

Office of the Court Clerk

First Judicial District

Post Office Box 2268

Santa Fe. New Mexico 87S04-2268

Greetings to all:

1. The United States and New Mexico Judicial Systems, by Court Rules and practices.

ignore the standing of one party. a pro se party, deceptively for the express benefit of

=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                           Page 12

opposing parties some of whom contemptuously join in a criminal conspiracy with

agents of the vacant New Mexico Supreme Court, The evidence is as follows:

 a. The New Mexico judiciary refuses to verify the standing of a complaining party to

appear when there exists no formal valid relationship between the complaining party

and the defending party, especially when the defending party represents himself. This

is the case in BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Huber. et al., Case No. CV-2010-

03432 and is an example of a condition of involuntary servitude known as peonism

imposed upon the undersigned. pro se litigant, in violation of Section 38-1-1 NMSA

1978, and practiced statewide in New Mexico. 42 U.S.C. § 1994, enacted under

power of Section 2, Thirteenth Amendment, declares all agreements, contracts, and

practices whether concluded voluntarily. involuntarily, directly, or indirectly that

imposes a condition of involuntary servitude upon a free citizen to be null and void at

their inception. Criminal statutes make it a crime to hold or return a free citizen to a

system of involuntary servitude under any unlawful condition including legal

coercion. See 14 Stat 546, codified as 42 U. S.C. § 1994 and 18 U.S.C. §§ IS81 et

seq. which irrevocably and forcefully render such practices null and void at their

inception.

b. The undersigned concluded a loan agreement with Countrywide Home Loan which

no longer exists; however. another organization assumed its authority without the

participation, consultation, or consent of the undersigned which permitted the original

loan note bolder, at their leisure. to transfer, conveyor sell the loan note to others,

regardless of their integrity without his knowledge, participation, choice, or consent.

Thereafter. he was held there by the New Mexico judicial system subjected to a

condition of involuntary servitude known as peonism and prohibited by 14 Stat. 546,

codified as 42 U. S.C. § 1994 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq. irrevocably and

forcefully rendering the revised loan agreement practice null and void at its inception.

c. Possession and subsequent control of the undersigned's family residence is subject to

the imposed authority of a person assigned to hear and determine the case in the First

Judicial District of New Mexico without ever verifying the standing of the

complainant, and without that person ever giving a personal recognizance, or

stipulating surety bond permitting binding them to the office they sought to enter as a

state judicial officer. See BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Huber. et al., Case No.

CV-2010-03432; and See the power of Article XXII, Section 19, Constitution of New

Mexico, and the authorities of Sections 10-2-5, 6, 7. and 9 NMSA 1978 which give

that power effect.


d. Both the New Mexico state and federal courts of law were made aware of the

condition of peonism imposed upon persons such as the undersigned for years and

both chose under court rules to ignore their pleas; they either hold or return them to

the condition of involuntary servitude. perhaps because of their pro se status, in

violation of 14 Stat. 546, codified as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq. where no judicial

immunity exists for any person posing as a lawful judge thereunder for the criminal

acts committed against him. and where 18 U.S.C. § lS93A provides him with a civil


=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                    Page 13

remedy for the constant denial of the Thirteenth Amendment power and the statutory

authorities giving that power effect. See Imbler v. Pachtman.424 U.S. 409 at 429

(1976) regarding court personnel. parties and including attorneys who participate in

criminal activity; to wit:


This Court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil

immunity for certain governmental officials also place them beyond the reach of

the criminal law. Even judges cloaked with absolute civil immunity for centuries,

could be punished criminally for the willful deprivation of constitutional rights on

the strength of 18 U.S.C. § 242, the criminal analog of § 1983. O'Shea v.

Lirtleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503,94 S.Ct. 69,679,38 L.Ed,2d 674 (1974; cf. GraveI v.

United States. 408 U.S. 606, 627, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2628, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972).

The prosecutor would fare no better for his willful acts.


e. The undersigned could not seek from a court not competent under Orosco v. Cox. 75

N.M. 431 at 435, 405 P.2d 668 for an order to certify the matter to a vacant New

Mexico Supreme Court for holding him to the system of peonism when neither court

is competent under the ruling of Orosco; thereby> maintaining and continuing to hold

the undersigned to the said condition of slavery. The persons assigned to hear and

determine his cited case hold him, a free citizen, criminally to the condition of

involuntary servitude, under a. species known as peonism in violation of 14 Stat. 546;

thereby denying the power of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and the

federal statutes givin2 those powers effect; they acted as insurgents - as defined in In

re Charge to Grand Jury. 62 F.828 (NO Il1. 1894); to wit:


Insurrection and Sedition

The open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of the

laws of the United States, of so formidable a nature as to defy for the time being

the authority of the government, constitutes an insurrection, though not

accompanied by bloodshed, and not of sufficient magnitude to render success

probable.


and controlled by the self-executing provisions of Section 3, Fourteenth Amendment;

to wit:


No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of

President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the

United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a

member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any

State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the

Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion

against the same. or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress

may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


against the power of the Constitution of the United States of America and the

statutory authorities giving those powers effect. See Thirteenth Amendment, 14 Stat.

=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                       Page 14


546, codified as 42 U. S.C. § 1994 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581 et seq., the Fourteenth

Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. 1981 et seq., and Orosco at 435 to wit:


We note that the word "competent" which modifies "court" in both § 22~1l~2,

supra, and § 22·11~16, supra, has been defined by Webster's Third New

International Dictionary as follows:


'''* * * legally qualified or capable: as (a) authorized to act or possessed of

jurisdiction [a competent court] [a competent judge] b: • * * * c: meeting legal

requirements as to validity [competent evidence] * * * ."


These sections then require that for a court to be competent, jurisdiction must be

present, and that jurisdiction clearly may be lost. When certain constitutional

guaranties are denied, overlooked, or omitted, the conviction or sentence is not by

a "competent" court. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 82 L, Ed. 1461, 58 S.

Ct 1019, 146 A.L.R. 357.


2. Please be informed by the above legal facts and simultaneously be advised that the

undersigned may exercise his First Amendment right to assemble with others peaceably

and to broadcast the contents of this letter to the free press, media, and interested private

citizens within the United States and particularly in New Mexico, absent any sign of the

actions sought by this correspondence, which continue beyond a reasonable period of

time to allow the imposition upon. him and his family members, as free citizens, the

unlawful and criminally harmful condition of involuntary servitude, and which deny the

power of the both constitutions and the authorities giving those powers effect.


Sincerely,


Mark Huber


=======================================================================================================

 EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                             Page 15


----Forwarded Message-- from: Lynette Gomez

To: "[email protected]"

Sent; Wednesday, November 28.201211 ;09 AM

Subject: question


Would you please send me a copy of Judge Daylene Marsha's

personal recognizance bond and oath of office, pursuit to NMSA

110-2-5, 6, & 9. Thank you for your quick service.

My address is Lynette Gomez

4 CR 5095 I Bloomfield, NM 87413

or email it to [email protected]

Thanks again,

Lynette

www.argi9solutions.com/gomez

Ken &. Lynette Gomez

========================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                               Page 16


STATE OF NEW MEXICO


DIANNA J. DlJRAN


Secretary of State


November 29, 2012

Lynette Gomez

4 CR. 5095

BloomfIeld, NM 87413


Dear Ms. Gomez:

As requested enclosed please find a copy of the Oath of Office for Judge Dalene Marsh. Pursuant t.o

section 1O·2-1S(A} of the Surety Bond Act, kindly be informed that the General Services Department

shall provide surety bond coverage for employees of the state, including elected or appointed officials

and persons acting on behalf Of in service of a state agency in any official capacity, whether with or

without compensation. State judges and state judiciary employees come within the definition of

"employee" ;n section lO-2-14(C} of the Surety Bond Act. Therefore, if your require additional

information regarding Judge Dalene Marsh's surety bond you may contact the General Services

Department, Risk Management Division, P.O. Drawer 26110, Santa Fe. New Mexico 87502·0110 or by

phone at (505)827.0442.


Dianna J. Duran

Secretary of State

=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 3                                                                                                                             Page 17


OATH OF OFFICE


STATE OF NEW MEXICO

ss


COUNTY OF SAN JUAN

I, DALENE MARSH, do solemnly swear that I swear that I will support

the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of

New Mexico and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the

office of District Judge, Division 6, Eleventh Judicial District, to the best of my

ability, so help me God.


Dalene Marsh


SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 26th

day of September, 2012 by Dalene Marsh.

John A. Dean, Jr.

Chief District Judge

Eleventh Judicial District


=========================================================================================================

EXHIBIT FOUR

EXHIBIT 4

TABLE OF CASES

And

AN FUTILE APPLICATION

TO APPEAR BEFORE

A FEDERAL GRAND JURY

IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

I. CASES

1. Tast v. Gaming Control Board, CV-04-220-4, Eleventh Judicial District

Court, San Juan County, State of New Mexico: A case against a decision of the

Gaming Control Board which terminated his employment for matters beyond pro se

Tast's control.


2. Tast v. Gaming Control Board, 03-cv- 0312 JP/LFG (DNM 2003): The state court case

removed to federal court on a federal question which was dismissed without comment.


3. Tast v. Vigil-Giron, CV-04-01963, First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County, New

Mexico: Tast's case against the NM Secretary of State for failing to declare vacant the position

held by Judge John Dean in the Eleventh Judicial District for his failure to acquire and record a

personal recognizance bond binding him to the promises in the oath of office mandated by

Article XXII, Section 19, Constitution of New Mexico and Sections 10-2-5, 6, 7, and 9 NMSA

1978. Case was dismiss because the constitution and laws were old and were not enforceable

anymore.


4. Tast v. Dean, 05-cv-0295 BB/WDS (DNM 2005): A federal case with pro se Tast

challenging the competence of New Mexico Courts and of Judge John Dean to holds a

constitutional judge position in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, San Juan County, State of

New Mexico for denying the power of Article XXII, Section 19, New Mexico Constitution and

for defying the authorities of Sections 10-2-5, 6, 7, and 9 NMSA 1978. Case was dismissed for

lack of evidence; however, six deputy marshals were in court to intimidate pro se Tast because of

the content of his complaint and because nearly a dozen state citizens attended the court hearing

to serve as witnesses to the probable treasonous course of conduct.


5. State of New Mexico ex reI Kenneth Gomez v. Eleventh Judicial District Court, CV

2010-00941, Eleventh Judicial District Court San Juan and McKinley Counties, New Mexico: a

case establishing that no person holding positions as state public officers constitutionally and

statutorily held state public offices. The case was removed to federal district court because the

court could not enforce the civil right statutes.

=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                               Page 1

6. State of New Mexico ex rel Kenneth Gomez v. Eleventh Judicial District Court, 1:10-cv-

00594 JAPILFG, (DNM 2010): Judge James A. Parker refused to address the substance of the

Complaint, suppressed discovery practice, and a complaint against his conduct was filed in the

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit under provisions of 116 Stat. 1848 (28 US.c. § 351).

The complaint against judge Parker was dismissed by supporting the insurgency as retaliation,

Judge Parker returned the case to the vacant Eleventh Judicial District Court where the insurgent

chief justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court assigned another imposter insurgent district

judge from different state district court to hear and determine the returned case. The imposter

conducted a hearing, asked the defendant's counsel to explain the case to her at the hearing.

Counsel informed the imposter that Gomez had no case and she dismissed the case without

comment with prejudice.


7. Gomez v, Arragon, et al, 1:09-cv-02010 RWR, US. Dist Ct, District of Columbia:

Gomez brought this action to the District of Columbia because he had no voice in the Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals even though he informed the US. District Court for the District of New

Mexico that four persons holding federal commissions as judges in that court did so under false

pretenses in that they falsified their Financial Disclosure Statement submitted in accord with the

Ethics in Government Act in order to acquire their federal commissions and that the Governor

was converting state public appropriation for personal use for failure to comply with the State

Constitution and the laws giving that constitutional provision effect. The case was dismissed.


8. Novotny v. City of Cortez, 12cv73, District Court, Montezuma County, Colorado: A case

establishing that the State of Colorado and the City of Cortez established, maintained and

enforced a system of peonage imposed upon pro se Novotny to such an extent that they used

court decisions to amend the Fourth Amendment, used a police authority, without cause, to stop

his vehicle on a public roadway, used the excuse that when stopped, he stopped in a no parking

zone and confiscated his personal property and authorized a private organization to haul it to a

storage yard where Novotny could not retrieve his property without paying thirty dollars a day

and producing some state authority. After several months, the private property was returned to

him at City of Cortez's expense, the system of peonage imposed upon Novotny remains active at

this time, said system was never addressed by the court, and the case was dismissed without

comment. No appeal was taken because the system of peonage pervades the state, laws enacted

by the state legislature have the effect of possessing and controlling individual citizens of the

state and though said laws are public renderings, a citizen must sign an agreement with a foreign

commercial entity under provisions a contract concluded with the state supreme court in order to

have access to court decisions, state laws, and court rules; a condition of the system of peonage

which denies Novotny a political voice in determining who will possess and control his conduct,

and deprives Novotny an economic state in public renderings financed with state public

appropriations.


======================================================================================================

     EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                             Page 2


9. Burns v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLP et al., 11-16106, (9thCir.

2011) appealed from USDC Northern District of California, Oakland Division: An en bane

Motion citing that one of the persons assigned in the original three judge panel which denied the

appeal without comment was holding a federal commission under false pretenses in that the

commission was acquired under false pretenses. The Court Clerk signed a denial of the motion

on grounds none of the judges would vote to consider the motion. Pro se Bums lost her private

residence to foreclosure under fraudulent court proceedings in both state and federal courts at

personal expense without recourse to a constitutional and statutory court of law. No person

holding a state public office in California lawfully holds the applicable office and no state or

federal court will address that issue.

6. State of New Mexico ex rel Kenneth Gomez v. Eleventh Judicial District Court, 1:10-cv-

00594 JAPILFG, (DNM 2010): Judge James A. Parker refused to address the substance of the

Complaint, suppressed discovery practice, and a complaint against his conduct was filed in the

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit under provisions of 116 Stat. 1848 (28 US.c. § 351).

The complaint against judge Parker was dismissed by supporting the insurgency as retaliation,

Judge Parker returned the case to the vacant Eleventh Judicial District Court where the insurgent

chief justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court assigned another imposter insurgent district

judge from different state district court to hear and determine the returned case. The imposter

conducted a hearing, asked the defendant's counsel to explain the case to her at the hearing.

Counsel informed the imposter that Gomez had no case and she dismissed the case without

comment with prejudice.


7. Gomez v, Arragon, et al, 1:09-cv-02010 RWR, US. Dist Ct, District of Columbia:

Gomez brought this action to the District of Columbia because he had no voice in the Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals even though he informed the US. District Court for the District of New

Mexico that four persons holding federal commissions as judges in that court did so under false

pretenses in that they falsified their Financial Disclosure Statement submitted in accord with the

Ethics in Government Act in order to acquire their federal commissions and that the Governor

was converting state public appropriation for personal use for failure to comply with the State

Constitution and the laws giving that constitutional provision effect. The case was dismissed.


8. Novotny v. City of Cortez, 12cv73, District Court, Montezuma County, Colorado: A case

establishing that the State of Colorado and the City of Cortez established, maintained and

enforced a system of peonage imposed upon pro se Novotny to such an extent that they used

court decisions to amend the Fourth Amendment, used a police authority, without cause, to stop

his vehicle on a public roadway, used the excuse that when stopped, he stopped in a no parking

zone and confiscated his personal property and authorized a private organization to haul it to a

storage yard where Novotny could not retrieve his property without paying thirty dollars a day

and producing some state authority. After several months, the private property was returned to

him at City of Cortez's expense, the system of peonage imposed upon Novotny remains active at

this time, said system was never addressed by the court, and the case was dismissed without

comment. No appeal was taken because the system of peonage pervades the state, laws enacted

by the state legislature have the effect of possessing and controlling individual citizens of the

state and though said laws are public renderings, a citizen must sign an agreement with a foreign

commercial entity under provisions a contract concluded with the state supreme court in order to

have access to court decisions, state laws, and court rules; a condition of the system of peonage

which denies Novotny a political voice in determining who will possess and control his conduct,

and deprives Novotny an economic state in public renderings financed with state public

appropriations.


======================================================================================================

   EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                        Page 3


10. Letter and actual Declaration to appear before a sitting grand jury as a federal witness.


Winfred P. Adams

MAJOR, USDAF, Retired

2010 N. Tucker Avenue, Apt. # 4

Farmington, New Mexico 87401-8944


December 5, 2008


Clerk, U.S. District Court

Alfred A. Arraz, u.s. Courthouse

901 19 Street

Denver, Colorado 80294


Dear Mr. Langham:


Enclosed please find the original and two copies of my 'Declaration to Appear at a Sitting Grand

Jury' of the Court as a federal government witness of criminal activity. The justification and

evidence for the miscellaneous filing in this particular Court is contained in the said declaration

which is self-explanatory. Also enclosed is my check in the amount of$39.00 for the filing fee.


The significance of this filing is that Governor Richardson of New Mexico is implicated and has

filed a P.L. 95-521 Financial Report with the Office of Government Ethics declaring the recent

income earned was lawful in which case the report would contain false information in that he

received and accepted state public funds on grounds he was lawfully holding state public office.

His holding public office after falsifying his New Mexico Declaration of Candidacy for return to

the Office of New Mexico Governor became a felony upon signing. Accordingly, a copy of this

filing has been forwarded to the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado, the Office of

the United States Attorney General, and the Chairman of both the House and Senate Committees.


On the Judiciary.


An extra copy of my declaration and a self addressed envelope is enclosed for return of a

conformed copy for my files.


Winfred P. Adams

MAJOR, USAF, Retired

Encl. Original and 2 copies of filing

========================================================================================================

  EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                         Page 4


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

In Re: WINFRED P. ADAMS,

MAJOR, USAF, RETIRED.

Misc. Case No. 08-MC-0067

A DECLARATION TO APPEAR BEFORE A SITTING GRAND JURY AS A

FEDERAL WITNESS TO AN ACTIVE INSURRECTION COMPOSED OF

ELECTED OR APPOINTED PERSONS UNLAWFULLY HOLDING PUBLIC

OFFICE IN NEW MEXICO BY DENYING THE POWER OF ARTICLE VI,

CLAUSE 3 AND SECTION 3, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, CONSTITUTION

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BY DEFYING THE

AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONTAINED IN

ARTICLE XXII, SECTION 19, CONSTITUTION FOR THE STATE OF NEW Y

MEXICO; AND REFUSING TO EXECUTE NEW MEXICO STATUTES OF

SECTIONS 10-2-1 TO 10, WHICH GIVE EFFECT TO THOSE ABOVE POWERS


COMES NOW Declarant Winfred Adams, a retired officer of the United States Armed

Forces commissioned by President John F. Kennedy in 1962 under provisions of 10 U.S.C. §

531; he is obligated under the oath contained in 5 U.S.C. § 3331 to defend the Constitution for

the United States' of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. He is compensated

monthly with publicly appropriated federal funds, he is further committed to the above oath

obligations under authority of 10 U.S.C. §§ 802(a)(4), 899, and particularly § 904 of the Uniform

Code of Military Justice, and compelled to perform a duty under 18 U.S.C. § 2381 and 2382.

Proceeding within the venue and jurisdiction of the Court as a federal and constitutional issue

under the foregoing constitutional powers and statutory authorities, Declarant Adams states:


1. He has personal experience and direct knowledge that persons holding public office

in every department of New Mexico Government are engaged in an active

insurrection against both constitutions for knowingly denying the powers of those

constitutions, for deliberately defying the authority of the attendant laws, for refusing

=======================================================================================================

  EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                             Page 5


to execute those laws, and for participating with others who have demonstrated their

intentions in written documents and subsequent actions to continue their insurgent

.activities. Governor Bill Richardson's conduct provides primary evidence.


(a) Persons holding public office in the Executive or Legislative Departments of New

Mexico Government know but will not accept Declarant Adams' claim that an

insurrection composed of fellow public officers within New Mexico exists and is

active. The only alternative is for a: federal grand jury somewhere to declare that

an insurrection exists for consideration by the President of the United States of

America under authority of 10 U.S.C. § 333, see below, for remedial action.


(b) An insurrection is defined in a case named and numbered: In Re Charge to Grand

Jury, 62 F. 828 (ND Ill. 1894), see Attachment "I", where jurors had to determine

whether an insurrection existed. A grand jury impaneled by this Court has

authority to notify the Governor of Colorado who in tum can take the appropriate

action to notify the President. When an insurgency is composed of public

officers, the matter is also addressed in Section 3, Fourteenth Amendment; see

Attachment "2". A grand jury decision has sufficient power to declare the

conditions contained in Section 3 exists which would implement the self-executing

provisions of said Section 3, unless force is necessary, in which case

the Governor and the President should act in that order.


(c) Otherwise, the presumption is that the President will accept a decision of a federal

grand jury addressed to him by a representative group of American citizen jurors,

in absence of a governor or legislative notification from New Mexico for that

special purpose.

=======================================================================================================

  EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                         Page 6


(d) No persons assigned as judge in any court normally available to Declarant Adams

has lawful authority to impanel a grand jury for such action and simultaneously

give aid and comfort to the insurgents; and no executive officer, be they sheriff,

,district attorney, attorney general or governor in New Mexico can engage in an

insurrection and then lawfully perform a duty declaring that to be the case.


(e) Furthermore, Public Law 106-180 approved 3/17/2000 and codified as IOU. S.C.

§ 333 states:


The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means,

shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any

insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it-

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the

State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or

protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities

of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to

give that protection; or,

(2) Opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the

course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied

the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. [Emphasis added.]

***** The words "armed forces" are substituted for the words "land or naval forces of

the United States". The word "shall" is substituted for the words "it shall be lawful for

*** and it shall be his duty". ***** .


(1) A grand jury of this Court has the authority to verity that both clause (1) and (2) exists within New Mexico grounded upon the facts, points of law, and authorities

presented in a document attached hereto as Attachment "3". Declarant Adams

cannot seek a court certification to the President that an insurrection exists within

the State and District of New Mexico because a court will not issue a certificate

to the President of the United States that a state of insurrection exists sufficient

for 10 U.S.C. § 333 action as the question whether such an insurrection exists is

left solely to the determination or discretion of the President. Consolidated Coal

=======================================================================================================

 EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                     Page 7


& Coke Co. v. Beale, (S.D. Ohio 1922) 282 F. 934, 20 Ohio Law Rep. 197;

however, a grand jury made up of American citizens impaneled specifically for

that purpose, as did the jurors in 'In Re Charge to Grand Jury', can establish that

an insurrection exists within the State and District of New Mexico.


(2) One effect of the insurgency is the people of New Mexico may possess and

control their real and personal property; however, they are not permitted to own

such property as real estate and motor vehicles under the system of laws enacted

by the corrupt insurgent Legislature which created an election system

guaranteeing its preservation and continuance, and imposing that election system

upon the people of New Mexico; for example:


(i) Approximately 16 to 21 percent of the electorate of New Mexico made a .

conscious' choice and registered to vote so as not to associate or assemble with

members of the Republican or Democratic parties. As a consequence, that bloc

of voters who "declined to state" a party affiliation cannot register as independent

voters and are denied and deprived access to the voting booths during primary

elections. They cannot exercise a right, privilege, and immunity to consider an

independent candidate for the legislature in their district. Accordingly, only

Republican and Democratic candidates, by design of the voting system, may

appear on the General Election Ballot to represent them in the New Mexico

Legislature.


(ii) Republican and Democratic voters thereby effectively determine, who among

the candidates on the either ballot, may represent 16 to 20 percent of the

electorate in the New Mexico Legislature. The election system works for them.


(iii) Those candidates elected to the legislature by Republican and Democratic voters then participate to enact laws that assure the conditions cited in (ii) above

========================================================================================================

 EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                     Page 8


remain effective.


(iv) Only agents of the New Mexico Supreme Court within the legislature get

assigned primary leadership positions because their consolidated vote can

determines plurality, as a bloc of votes, when joined with one side or the other of

the generally evenly-split party vote of non- supreme court agents.


(v) After those acquiring the two primary leadership positions in the Legislature,

those leaders then make all committee chairperson assignments generally to

Supreme Court agents who then determine what bills get out of committee. The

primary House and Senate leaders determine which out-of-committee bills get to

the floor for a vote. Those bills that get to the floor again face the three

established categories of votes: the bloc votes of the Supreme Court agents, and

the near evenly split vote between non-agent members. The aggregate vote of the

Supreme Court agents can then determine whether the bill will pass or fail in

violation of Section 1, Article ill of the New Mexico Constitution. See

Attachment "4".


(vi) Therefore, agents of the New Mexico Supreme Court owing their allegiance

to some Supreme Court justice, by virtue of the oath they take to become agents,

effectively, but unconstitutionally, control the New Mexico Legislature.


(d) Presidents George H. W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and George W. Bush were each

informed by U.S. Mail of the active insurrection in New Mexico; they took no verifiable

action to suppress the insurrection; and or to deal with those assigned court personnel who

gave aid and comfort to the insurgents.


(e) No person within the District of New Mexico or the District of Columbia with

the capacity to determine the facts under Rule 3, Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedures needed for the president to suppress the insurgency after being made

=======================================================================================================

  EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                            Page 9


insurgency have done so after being made aware of the crimes, and none have

shown or demonstrated a willingness to do so. In point of fact, some of the State

insurgents comforted have then demonstrated feloniously the intent to continue

their insurgent activities by their individual Declaration of Candidacy for reelection

to or retention in office thereby giving effect to their insurgent activities. Governor

Bill Richardson, while unlawfully holding public office, is one of those who did so.


4. The entire matter is reported herein to all the persons assigned duties as judges of this Court

under authority of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2381 et seq. and specifically § 2382.


5. Declarant shall make himself available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1747 and said Rule 3 before a

magistrate judge of the Court upon presentation of a certified copy of a valid surety bond for the

Chief Judge of the Court exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1745 and 3 I U.S.C. § 9304, and such

bond is of record with the Office of the Court Clerk. Then and only then, Declarant shall take

the oath in full-compliance with Rule 3, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure supported with the

attached evidence .for subsequent direct in-person testimony of the New Mexico insurgency

before a sitting grand jury of this Court for its further review and action.


6. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and further sayeth

naught.


WHEREFORE, the President of the United States of America has authority to accept the

decision of a lawful grand jury impaneled in the District of Colorado sent directly to him or to

accept the command of the jurors to the Governor of Colorado to provide a notice of the

insurgency to the Office of the President. The President of the United States of America has

discretionary authority to accept the deliberations of a lawful grand jury impaneled in the District

of Colorado since no other lawful process is available to Declarant Adams for action to suppress

========================================================================================================

EXHIBIT 4                                                                                                                         Page 10


the active insurrection within the State of New Mexico, the District of New Mexico or the

District of Columbia


Winfred P. Adams

MAIO, USAF, Retired

2010 North Tucker Avenue

Farmington, New Mexico 87401-8944

(505)320-6809


December 4, 2008

Date of Execution

=======================================================================================================

EXHIBIT FIVE

PROPOSED LETTER TO A FOREIGN EMBASSY

Name

Address

City, State, Zip Code


Date


Foreign Embassy

Address

Washington, D.C. 20XXX


Honorable Ambassador:

Attached is a complete and accurate copy of our First Amendment Petition peaceably assembling to petition the United States for a redress of a grievance of enslavement as a crime against our humanity recognized as such by the International Criminal Court upon application by a member of the Organization of American States of which your nation is a member. We seek your “good Offices” to facilitate the presentation of our petition to that body in hopes it will take the matter under consideration for forwarding our petition to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations so it can be presented to the International Court grounded upon the following:

  1. There are no competent courts of law for judicial relief available to the American people petitioners residing within the States and Districts of California, Colorado, and New Mexico that are not also under the control of a criminal oligarchy which created the system of peonage currently imposed upon us as a crime against humanity.
  2. We petitioners turned to our President and principal leaders in the United States Congress as a First Amendment right seeking redress of our grievances and are sad to state that our petition fell on deaf ears.
  3. The attached copy of our petition contains complete legal justification for seeking redress.
  4. Perhaps you are aware of a nation which suffered under economic sanctions for years which had the effect of enslaving its citizens without recourse but to engage in hostilities against their enemy composed of a military might far beyond their capacity. Perhaps that nation will do what your country does not feel to be prudent.

Please favor us with a humanitarian gesture fundamental to your nation’s noble past.


Humbly submitted,

PETITION

 PETITION

COME NOW, citizens with their signatures to the Office of the President, and Congressional Leaders for action addressing the denial of their political voice to determine who will constitutionally and statutorily govern their affairs, and deprivation of their economic stake in the expenditure of both state and federal public fund appropriations for their exclusive benefit by persons posing as both state and federal public officers in California, Colorado, and New Mexico who are engaged in a dedicated criminal insurrection against the powers of both applicable constitutions and the authorities of statutes giving those powers effect.

1.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                            Sign                                             Address                     City, State

2.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                             Sign                                             Address                     City, State

3.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                             Sign                                             Address                     City, State

4.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                             Sign                                             Address                     City, State

5.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                             Sign                                             Address                     City, State

6.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                             Sign                                             Address                     City, State

7.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                              Sign                                            Address                     City, State

8.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                             Sign                                            Address                      City, State

9.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                              Sign                                           Address                      City, State

10.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                             Sign                                            Address                      City, State

11.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                             Sign                                            Address                     City, State

12.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name,                             Sign                                            Address                     City, State

13.______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Name, Sign Address City, State


EXHIBIT 6

The Effect of Peonage Enslavement by Insurgent Forces

I. General Background

The best example of a body of people acting to escape the binding forces of a

type of enslavement is the American Declaration of Independence. The King of

England gave his bond promising prospective colonist protection while in the new

colony in exchange for their loyalty. Accordingly, considerations for the contract

between them had been established - a King's bond for the colonists' loyalty, and

either party would breach the contract by voiding the consideration given. The

contract became effective when the colonist landed in the new land in 1607; the

King provided protection to the colony and the colonist remained loyal to the King.

EXHIBIT 6 1

Sometime later, the English Parliament decided the colonist should pay taxes

for their protection whether they wanted the character of the protection given or

not. The imposition of a tax for continued protection was not part of the original

agreement, and therefore the contract was breached. However, the colonist

remained loyal to the King while they tried to reconcile their differences by

correspondence which the King rebuffed. Colonial life, nevertheless, became more

and more unbearable until their grievances resulted in an unacceptable behavior to

various forms of enslavement that soon developed. The Declaration of Independence

from the Rule of English law, the British Crown, and the imposed enslavement

practices took effect and war between them followed. The colonist eventually won

their independence primarily due to the financial expense incurred by the British.

A Treaty of Peace was signed between the adversaries ending the former

enslavement of the colonial property owners; however, many colonists were not free

and independent because another form of political and economic slavery existed for

both colonist and non-colonist alike for some time.

Eventually a war between two regions of the nation settled the issues of

enslavement and constitutional guarantees were provided to prevent its return.

II. The Fundamental Attributes of Enslavement

Enslavement exists whenever one group of persons, commercial enterprises,

or institutions advantageously exercises control over a disadvantaged subordinated

group by:

(1) Political, economic, or cultural forces,

(2) Coercive supporting forces, or

(3) Any combination thereof.

The advantaged groups become an oligarchy with limited membership and

their own set of rules which in turn determines:

(1) Rules for those who desire subordinate membership in the oligarchy,

EXHIBIT 6 2

(2) What course of conduct is required to retain membership, and

(3) How they can demonstrate their allegiance while enjoying membership.

Control of the disadvantaged group is established by:

(1) Denying it a political voice in who controls of their daily and future

affairs, how that control is exercised, and how the controls are established,

maintained, and enforced;

(2) Depriving it of an economic stake in public funds appropriated for their

health, safety, and welfare, and

(3) Insuring that the group is without a viable recourse for relief.

III. Methods Employed to Promote Enslavement of a Population

The current method employed by persons elected or appointed to public office

in the United States of America involves a nugatory contract, a contract without

considerations and with no legal method of enforcement.

The current oath takers make promises contained in the oath and the oath

taker is not bound to the promises contained in the oath of office. Although both

constitutions, the national and state constitutions, mandate that public officers be

bound by the oath, and laws giving that power effect require certain acts be

performed before one enters public office, nothing binds the oath taker to those

promises and no power is available to legally hold them to those promises.

Let's consider the proper constitutional procedure for one to enter public office

and be bound to the promises contained in the statutory oath of office with legal

force. Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States of America mandates

that all public officers be bound by an oath of office, in other words consummate a

contract binding one to the oath of office. The oath taker makes certain promises

contained in the statutory oath to the public at-large in exchange for the public

trust; as its consideration; the oath taker gives a recognizance bond binding him/her

to those promises as their consideration. Accordingly, the giving of a recognizance

bond as consideration acquires the publics' trust as its consideration which then,

and only then, enables the oath taker the essential contract authority to enter the

public office and exercise the publics' trust. Exercising the public trust cannot be

accomplished any other way. The contract is then given legal effect, evidence of

which is then filed and recorded within a prescribed period of time in a pertinent

public office available for public viewing at their leisure. Failure to do so within the

time prescribed vacates the office and denies the offender entry to the public office.

IV. The Gross Effect of Not Being Bound by the Oath

Persons holding public office under oath with a nugatory contract are free to

ignore the promises contained in the oath of office. The do no constitutionally or

lawfully hold public office, and no decision made by such imposter officeholders has

any validity whatsoever in a competent court of law, a court with a person properly

bound by the constitutional and statutory oath properly filed and recorded in the

appropriate public office. An imposter receiving publicly appropriated funds as

salary and converting such funds for personal use embezzles such funds and

becomes a felon upon converting for personal use the legally accrued amount.

V. The Net Effect of Denying the Constitutions and Attendant

Statutes

An imposter unconstitutionally and unlawfully holding public officer denies a

power of the constitution, defies the authorities of attendant statutes, and engages

in an insurrection against applicable constitutions. Section 3, Fourteenth

Amendment denies public office to any person engaging in an insurrection against a

constitution. Should the imposter hold a judicial office, all decisions and judgments

would be null, void, and without legal effect at their inception. Should the

imposter's be members of a legislature, all laws, public appropriations, and

resolutions have a similar fate. Should the imposter be a member of the Executive

Department, no law could be enforced with legal effect. Tyranny would reign

supreme.

EXHIBIT 6 3

LETTER TO OBAMA 1-15-2013

 1

Kenneth Gomez

De Jure Governor of New Mexico

4 CR 5095

Bloomfield, New Mexico 87413

[email protected]

January 15, 2013

Delivery Confirmation No.: 0312 2120 0002 121440402

Honorable Barack H. Obama

Office of the President

United States of America

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

RE: A Peaceable Assembly of Sovereign American Citizens residing within

California, Colorado, and New Mexico under Provisions of the First

Amendment to Petition the President of the United States Government

For Redress of their Grievances

Dear President Obama:

This letter is addressed to you, Mr. President, because we cannot seek

redress of our grievances from a Congress which by its rules amends the

constitution either to alter the voting integrity of the American Citizens'

representatives in the United States Senate or denies the vote to a significant

segment of their representatives in the United States House of Representatives. I

am absolutely certain you have felt the sting of that defect. I believe the governors

of every state should be made aware of that specific defect so they could inform their

constituents for a remedial recall vote since our vote does not end in the polling

booth, it ends when the person elected ceases to represent their collective views.

Attached are two copies of our First Amendment Petition for the redress of

scandalous grievances responsible for the enslavement of the private citizen

populations of California, Colorado, and New Mexico; an enslavement inflicted upon

them by unconstitutional and criminal insurgents posing as state and federal

officers holding public office under false pretenses.

Said insurgents embezzle and convert for personal use publicly appropriated

funds received by them as salaries without benefit of law. Said insurgencies

inextricability create and inextinguishably impose a system of peonage upon those

populations which in time became crimes against their humanity without recourse

either constitutionally or statutorily, thus far, at any level of either the state

governments or the federal government.

1

Therefore, the existence and breach of constitutional duties is owed them,

there exists a proximate cause for the breach, there exists the absence of dispositive

defenses for the insurgents, and the offenses attach inviolate and significant

liabilities for which damages legally and justifiably flow. See Letters to pertinent

authorities in Exhibit "3", and list of civil cases in Exhibit "4" of the Petition.

Accordingly, taxes of every type established, maintained, enforced, and

collected from them under any such criminal insurgent enslavement practices and

circumstances are absolutely immoral, inhumane,' reprehensible, unconscionable,

and criminal at their very least effectiveness.

The President, however, is mandated under provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 333 -

given the attached evidence in exhibits - and may breach his sworn constitutional

duties, absence resolute and forthright action. Congress satisfied its constitutional

duty contained in Section 8, Clause 15, Article I, Constitution of the United States

of America when it enacted said statute. Furthermore, under the self-executing

provisions of Sections 3 and 4, Fourteenth Amendment additional means are

provided for the President to perform the duties to suppress any insurgency

composed of any group of persons who openly, defiantly, and deliberately operate

against the said constitution. I leave it to you to determine if the congressional

delegations representing the American citizens residing in the said state lawfully

hold office.

Petitioners hope is that you will do your sworn duty under provisions of 5

U.s.C. § 3331 and the last paragraph of Section 1, Article II, Constitution of the

United States of America to preserve, protect, and defend the said constitution

against its enemies, suppress the insurgencies against the constitution, and put an

end to the resulting criminal Thirteenth Amendment enslavement practices

evidence for which is contained in the attached Petition; and our hope is that your

resolute action shall occur as an emergency, with deliberate speed, and in clear view

of the public-at-large.

Respectively submitted,

Kenneth Gomez, a Petitioner

De Jure Governor of New Mexico

Attached: Two Copies of the Petition with Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6

0