Schenefgnfxzgny, New York, 1gfgn3fgn
In the uNITED
States District Court
In and for the State of California
Fxgnhm dxgx m
LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No.: CV-06-2725-TJH
1ST , 5Th, 6Th, 7th, 8Th, 9Th,
& 10th Amendment Demand
Affidavit Of TRUTH
Good faith request for reconsideration
to correct Gate-Keeping issue(s)
Presented to the Presiding Judge
It is incumbent upon myself to bring to the attention of this court, that the assign judge to this case (Terry J. Hatter
Jr.) has a criminal complaint that has been filed against him with the court on or about
January 01, 2006 (that this same Judge
pretended not to receive (EXHIBIT C )). And despite having knowledge
of this fact the same judge (Terry J. Hatter Jr.) has continued to make rulings in decisions in this matter (EXHIBIT A), violating both ethic and code of conduct. I remind this court the
deprivation of rights under color of law, is a crime punishable under the U.S. criminal code title eighteen section 4, 242.
I request a change of venue, because I’ve been accused of violating the law,
accused of illegal acts, I’ve been accused of acting criminally. That could only mean one thing, the transference of
this case to criminal court division.
Terry J. Hatter Jr. Susie (Susan) Coane, Sherri R. Carter, Ralph Zarefsky, Terrie
(Terry) Baker, Judie (Judy) Mathews, Estrella Tamayo, Denise Johnson are each and all individuals have been formally accused
of interfering with this respondents rights, in the past and now continues in an on-going conspiracy.
We hold these truths to be self evident “That all men are created equal”, the so called founding fathers
didn’t make those words up, for at acts 10:34, 35 “Jehovah is not partial... in every nation the man…is
acceptable to him”. It is uniquely nice to know that our founding fathers recognized the sovereignty of every man, and
as a sovereign citizen of the uNITED States, the constitution makes it against the law, a criminal
act to harm a sovereign citizen.
This is a matter of commerce, failure to act, breach of contract, failure to perform, failure to fulfill obligation,
failure to provide, failure to negotiate, failure of good faith, violation of constitutionally secure rights, of (the first,
the seventh, the eighth, the ninth, and tenth amendment), as well as title eighteen of the criminal code of the united states
constitutional amendments (U.S.C.A.), and other Federal and state laws that are cognizable by every other state in the union.
Please keep in mind that the uniform commercial code is recognized by every government throughout the world who engage
in any means of commerce among and between other nations. It is under these rules that the U.N. is able to sanction commerce
between nations subscribed to it.
However it is the first amendment right of every citizen
“to petition the government for a redress of grievances”, that is the most secure
of all rights and can never be denied
“Congress shall make no law”. No judge, no horse, no tree, no building, no book, no man, no law exists
that can take away this right.
For years I’ve tried to get the plaintiff’s to acknowledge their role in depriving me of the ability to
enjoy life among other constitutional rights, only to be ignored. And because of one small piece of paper for which they were
forewarned now they seem to be paying attention. Who would’ve thought that one small piece of paper could cause so much
By the way the plaintiffs have filed with the government their petition for redress of GRIEVENCE (a civil lawsuit)
asking the government to correct the wrongs they allege having been done them. If the court allows the suit to proceed they
can not under law of due process and
equal protection invalidate in any form, fashion,
or way the respondents petitioning of the government through uniform commercial code his redress of grievance.
The seated judge in this matter Terry Hatcher has sent several hand written documents which are not eligible (EXHIBIT A), and a copy that is of poor quality. I’ve requested several times
that this particular judged not send handwritten documents as they cannot be easily read, however she persist.
I’ve had several documents return to me stamped receive but not filed, the latest set of documents showing received
but not filed because a motion for default has been received by the court. Now the clerk’s of the court and this judge
are fully aware that once a document is received by the court and stamped by the court whether it is filed or not is considered
received and a response. When a party is requested by the courts (to change or amend certain documents, that continues the
response time, begins anew limitation deadline), and no default judgment maybe entered for lack of
To prove bias I have Exhibit B which
includes a copy of the first page of each returned document Those document were processed after the other documents were sent
to the court, they were filed and stamped received. However the court requested that all documents be signed with my hand
signature, when rules only require that the original be signed with an original signature. This matter has already been decided
upon by the U.S. district court of the state of Arizona within the city of Phoenix. Petitions filed by myself to that court,
and my understanding of the rules of court were the same as the presiding judge of that court-That only the original requires
Returning documents to myself because the copies don’t contain an original signature is an impediment to my right
to access to courts. Instead of arguing with the court’s I sent them (the attachment Exhibit A, B, & C).
You cannot ask for correction of documents, and not allow for response to such a request, that’s a violation
of due process.
Attached as exhibit D is a copy of the proof of service, showing that a day after receiving the documents back from
the court they were returned to the court. Timely this is not an issue here, Gate-Keeping
Having documents repeatedly sent back to myself, constantly
signed rejected (EXHIBIT B) without legal right or authority is abuse of
discretion, eventually it will be sent to the
ninth circuit court of appeals, and then they will send it right back to this court. At that point they will rule ‘that
once the criminal complaint was filed against judged Hatter that she should’ve recused herself, and sent it through
the process of having another judge assigned. But no someone had to try to pay somebody back, and seek revenge, and make themselves
My counterclaim has been repeatedly returned without filing (EXHIBIT B), to some people that would be upsetting, even disappointing. But I know when Gate-Keeping is taking place so I document
such things so then I can complete the process of another day. The first amendment of the united states constitution allows
for every citizen ‘the right to petition the government for redress of GRIEVENCE.
My documents conform to rules of court and was submitted timely, so I submit this request to have this matter reheard
by the presiding judge of this court. Due process requires that this case be given a fair hearing. The documents that were
filed and accepted by the court that has the stamped date of August 15, 2006 and was received after the counterclaim was submitted,
which was not filed even though it contained the original signature on the original document that document must be processed.
We have a problem, that problem is abuse of discretion, Gate-Keeping, deprivation of due process rights under color and authority
of law, mispersion of felony, all violations of secured constitutional rights, but the one and foremost deprivation is the
right to petition my government for redress of GRIEVENCE has been blocked, and or denied my self, the first amendment says
Congress “shall make no law prohibiting”, so if this is my legal right why are you people interfering with it?
Certificate of mailing
The aforementioned is true and correct and a copy of
the aforementioned has been mailed via U.S.
postal service to:
uNITED States Federal
312 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE
30242 Esperanza Suite 150
P.O. Box 80034
Rancho Sta. Margarita, Ca 92668
The aforementioned is true and correct and submitted by the CLAIMANT
Signed: ________________________ Dated: 09/14/06