Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Enter third column content here

UCC comerical lien process

Top issues

Home | documents filed and illegally rejected | communication with court | Motions | Other motions | More Motions | Top issues | What about these? | Filing court motions information | New information Must read 10/20/06

create a company Sole propirortorship, then register with the three creditor reporting company. Sell the rights of your liens to your company and start collecting (after you finish the commerical lien process (T.C.L.P.). 

 

This is how you obsurbed the interference by the county registrar office in recording.

 

 

Brent Jones

 

 

 

              

                        In the uNited States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brett Randoff Toriano Keeffe Henry Kana-Shaphel Hithrappes Jones-Theophilus, aka Brent Jones aka Brent O. Jones aka Brett Jones Theophilius, Brett Jones-Theophilius, aka Keeffe T. Branch, Keefe T. Branch, aka Keith Branch, aka K.T. Branch, aka B.J. UCC 1-207

            Respondent,

      vs.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

                       Plaintiff,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.: CV-06-2725-TJH

Motion: 

Certificate of mailings

 

                  Certificate of mailings 

 

                         The following documents have been served by USPS Mail; (Motion titles) Clearly Matters in dispute, to clerk of court warning,

 

Langue of the common people Requested, Jury trial demand, Default Judgment

Request, Criminal Complaint [(Gatekeeping) to criminal division of the court], Cross-Complaint “Answer”, Change of venue, Explanation of right to use UCC, to:

 

uNITED States Federal District Court

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Jane O’Donnell

P.O. Box 80034----- 30242 Espernza # 150

Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca., 92688-0034

 

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY

8515 E. Orchard Road

Greenwood Village, CO 80111

 

The forgoing may also be viewed via the internet at http://legalies.tripod.com and is true and correct and submitted by the CLAIMANT

                               Signed: ________________________ Dated:  07/31/06

                                       Brent Jones

 

Brent Jones

 

 

 

              

                        In the uNited States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brent Jones

            Respondent,

      vs.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and Doe’s 1-50, ect...al..,

                       Defendant

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.: CV-06-2725-TJH

Motion:  

1ST , 5Th, 6Th, 7th, 8Th, 9Th,

& 10th Amendment Demand

 

Verified

Affidavit Of TRUTH

Change of venue request

 

 

                 As to whether or not I have acted in good faith (Being convicted felon that I am), let’s say with some leading authorities would say:

 

1.                        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.

2.                        Terry J. Hatter Jr. Susie (Susan) Coane, Sherri R. Carter, Ralph Zarefsky, Terrie (Terry) Baker, Judie (Judy) Mathews, Estrella Tamayo, Denise Johnson are all individuals who 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 lastly other Federal and state laws that is 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 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 petitioner 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 understanding?

 

                  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.

 

 

                      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 District Court

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Saint Francis Medical Center

3630 E. Imperial Hwy.

Lynwood, California    90262

 

PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC

Joseph C. Peters                    

3510 E. MLK Blvd.

Lynwood CA 90262

 

DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST

26000 Altamont Rd.

Los Altos Hills, CA 94022-4317

 

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY

8515 E. Orchard Road

Greenwood Village, CO 80111

 

Susie (Susan) Coane

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Ralph Zarefsky

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Terrie (Terry) Baker

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Judie (Judy) Mathews

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Estrella Tamayo

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Denise Johnson

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

 

                 The aforementioned is true and correct and submitted by the CLAIMANT

Signed: ________________________ Dated:  07\08\06

         Brent Jones

 

Brent Jones

 

 

              

                        In the uNited States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brett Randoff Toriano Keeffe Henry Kana-Shaphel Hithrappes Jones-Theophilus, aka Brent Jones aka Brent O. Jones aka Brett Jones Theophilius, Brett Jones-Theophilius, aka Keeffe T. Branch, Keefe T. Branch, aka Keith Branch, aka K.T. Branch, aka B.J. UCC 1-207

            Respondent,

      vs.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

                       Plaintiff,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.: CV-06-2725-TJH

Motion: 

1ST , 5Th, 6Th, 7th, 8Th, 9Th,

& 10th Amendment Demand

Verified

Affidavit Of TRUTH

Petition for REDRESS (correction of

wrongs).Jury trial demanded

 

 

                 As to whether or not I have acted in good faith (Being convicted felon that I am), let’s see what some leading authorities would say:

 

                        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.

 

                  Because the plaintiffs in this matter admitted that there was a relationship between the two parties (Brent Jones, and GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and Doe’s 1-50, ect...al..,) there are clearly matters that are in dispute. This dispute will not be settled by a judge! This dispute would only be partically settled by the jury trial, and only partially.

 

                  The plaintiffs in this matter have and had a responsibility to myself as a client, and according to their complaint they have received several documents from the respondent and have failed to respond.

 

                  The respondent acted in good faith, it was his hope to resolve the issues that are still outstanding, but apparently people thought it best just to ignore him and maybe he might go away. I do require the court to explain to the plaintive that the UCC financial statement can only be terminated by the secured party, (the respondent), and the commercial lien process is one that exists when there is a contractual relationship that has

not been honored by one party. There was a contractual agreement between the parties, the respondent has upheld his end of the agreement, the plaintiffs have not.

 

                 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 lastly other Federal and state laws that is 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 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.

 

                  By saying that respondent it is a criminal, a felon, has committed fraud, has broken laws, and yet to offer no proof to sustain any of

these charges, the respondent considers such comments as slanderous, and will proceed to take the appropriate steps to make sure they understand that such will not be tolerated. To claim that this is being done for financial gain, and that the amount being demanded in the commercial lien is to high is an

opinion, and is completely besides the point. (Late penalties, interest, inflation, legal fees, paying, distress, violation of constitutional rights, and the fact that they’re worth over $400,000,000.00 is guaranteed proof that the amount is not excessive) The issue here is that damage was done, that there was a contractual obligation that was not honored, somebody’s life was taken, somebody’s health was jeopardized and nobody has accepted responsibility.

 

                  It is now time to assign responsibility to the appropriate parties involved “in an on going conspiracy to deprive this U.S. citizen of his constitutionally secured rights”.

 

                  That, saying ‘failure to state a claim by which a remedy may be rendered’, is not acceptable.

 

                  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.

 

                  In the state of California there’s no statute of limitations for an on-going conspiracy, which is alleged here; a felony.

 

                         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 District Court

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY

8515 E. Orchard Road

Greenwood Village, CO 80111

 

Brent Jones

 

 

              

                        In the uNited States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brett Randoff Toriano Keeffe Henry Kana-Shaphel Hithrappes Jones-Theophilus, aka Brent Jones aka Brent O. Jones aka Brett Jones Theophilius, Brett Jones-Theophilius, aka Keeffe T. Branch, Keefe T. Branch, aka Keith Branch, aka K.T. Branch, aka B.J. UCC 1-207

            Respondent,

      vs.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

                       Plaintiff,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.: CV-06-2725-TJH

Motion:  

1ST , 5Th, 6Th, 7th, 8Th, 9Th,

& 10th Amendment Demand

 

Verified

Affidavit Of TRUTH

Default Judgment request

 

 

                 As to whether or not I have acted in good faith (Being convicted felon that I am), let’s see what some leading authorities would say:

 

                        The plaintiffs were given the opportunity to rebut, refute, and answer the complaint, affidavit, commercial lien, commercial affidavit, coloring agreement, commercial lien pursuant to coloring agreement, Default declaration, notice of intent, and failed to do so. They

are in default, the same as I would be if I failed to respond to their complaints against myself. I gave them over 93 days of time to respond, and as mentioned before when it became my knowledge of their actively participating in an on-going conspiracy willingly, knowingly, premeditatively, intentionally, and deliberately; it was my duty to bring it to the attention of the courts. But I’ve had my court access blocked every time I attempted to file one of my complaints against the alleged. The active GATE-keeping has been done by Susie (Susan) Coane, Sherri R. Carter, Ralph Zarefsky, Terrie (Terry) Baker, Judie (Judy) Mathews, Esteria Tamayo, Denise Johnson; each member’s of this particular court, and because there exist in continual conflict of interest, along with this particular motion a criminal complaint has been filed alleging their culpability in the violations and deprivation of constitutional rights, it is demanded that this matter be sent to a different venue.

 

                 As to whether or not I have acted in good faith (Being convicted felon that I am), some leading authorities would say that:

EXPLANATION SHEET TO BE ATTACHED TO EVERY COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENT OF FILING BEARING THE U.S. S.E.C. TRACER FLAG CONTAINING THE PHRASE "A SECURITY — 15 USC"

 

                   This EXPLANATION SHEET is to be attached to all Commercial Affidavits, including Affidavits of Obligation (Commercial Liens), which are non-judicial consensual processes which arise out of a breach of special performance (e.g., for public officials’ breach of oath of office, a violation of the Constitution for the United States of America and respective state Constitutions.)

 

The notice as follows below is included for the purposes of FULL DISCLOSURE (UCC), and as a warning noted by the flag for commercial grace at the top of the instrument.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT

AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE, DECLARATION, AND DEMAND

FAIR NOTICE AND WARNING OF COMMERCIAL GRACE

THIS IS A U.S. S.E.C. TRACER FLAG, NOT A POINT OF LAW

A SECURITY (15 USC)
05-7053517407———
COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT
THIS IS A U.S. S.E.C. TRACER FLAG
NOT A POINT OF LAW* 

                This statement is attached to every commercial affidavit, and a tracer flag is not a point of law!

 

"Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to being subjected by force of law to a significant deprivation. . . . That the hearing required by due process is

 

subject to waiver, and is not fixed in form does not affect its root requirement that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest. . . ." (Original italics; 401 US 378- 379) Randone v. Appellate Department, 1971, 5 C3d 536, 550.

 

"In the latter case [Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306] we said that the right to be heard ‘has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest.’ 339 U.S. at 314" Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 339, 340

 

"The ability to place a lien upon a man’s property, such as to temporarily deprive him of its beneficial use, without any judicial determination of probable cause dates back not only to medieval England but also to Roman times." United States Supreme Court, 1968, Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 349 Supported by the California Supreme Court, 1971, Randone v. Appellate Department, 5 C3d

536, 96 Cal Rptr 709 and 488 P2d

 

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 lastly other Federal and state laws that is 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 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.

 

                  So this was not a violation of law, in fact it is recognized by law.

 

                              Points of interest

                  1. The plaintiffs in the above entitled matter allege several issues, that the respondent is a criminal, which almost hurt my

feelings. But to state such repeatedly without any supported facts makes one liable under slander. I’m accused of committing fraud, yet the issue of fraud is not indicated, so I say I did not attempt to defraud anyone, fraud! (That should answer that point).

           

                  2. The plaintiffs in the above entitled matter alleges but however provides no supporting facts that the respondent is retaliating

against them for having had a petition dismissed in this court. It is true that a the petition was dismissed by this court, but what they failed to mention is that it was 'dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution’. That kind of puts a hole in that baseless theory.

 

                  3. The plaintiffs in the above entitled matter alleges that the respondent failed to act in “good faith”. Yet admittedly they state clearly that they’ve received several documents from the respondent, regarding what? Regarding the matter at issue, the role they have and are playing in an ongoing conspiracy to deprive the respondent of his constitutionally secured rights. The right to redress, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to equal protection of laws, the right to due process, the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to happiness. I’m sorry but it is against the law to deprive any U.S. citizen of their constitutionally secured rights, (please see united states constitutional amendment title eighteen subsection 4, 241, 242. if you’re unsure about this).

 

                        The filing of a UCC financial statement with the Secretary of state for any state in the union is a form of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. It cannot at this time nor at any other time in the future be considered illegal by any court or state official. The first amendment is the most secure of all constitutional rights as it clearly states “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting…the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Don’t you just love

those words “Congress shall make no Law”; I may not know much about history, I may not know much about biology, but what I do know is, that if Congress cannot make a law against, then the process is not against the law!

 

                        For years I’ve tried to get the plaintiffs 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 understanding?

 

                        This matter may be partially settled by a jury trial, whereby grievance counsel is appointed for the respondent. Since there are  clearly matters in dispute and at issue here, the respondent is not so stubborn as to not want to continue in good faith, however all parties must keep in mind that the respondent has attempted in good faith to resolve this issue and has been ignored. He will be ignored no more, it was indicated the he’s a felon, so let’s ignore his rights, okay and see how far that gets anyone. These are the facts that are at issue:

 

                         The following is said to be done knowingly, willingly, deliberately, intentionally, and in an ongoing conspiracy to violate the rights of Brent Jones (to be known through out this section of complaint as The Complainant). The legal precedent for this matter is the first amendment of the uNITED States Constitution, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people to... petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

 

                 I am extremely grateful that the uNITED states constitution at no time does it limit the form in witch a suit maybe prosecuted. I’m also grateful that President george Bush has stated ‘that the constitution affords these rights to all natural born Citizens of the uNITED States.’

                

                 Since the uNITED States constitution is the supreme law of the land (Common Law, Bill of Rights § 9. 1. No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government...”), and because under said constitution The Complainant exists as a sovereign citizen (THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:.. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..), I hereby demand correction of the wrongs perpetrated under color of law (doctors operate under authority of law); a violation of uNITED States criminal code title eighteen section 242 (§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law- Release date: 2005-08-03: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, .., or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be

sentenced to death.” (as well as other federal and local statutes and Laws).

 

                         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 District Court

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY

8515 E. Orchard Road

Greenwood Village, CO 80111

 

                 The aforementioned is true and correct and submitted by the CLAIMANT

                               Signed: ________________________ Dated:  07/30/06

                                       Brent Jones

 

 

 

                 The aforementioned is true and correct and submitted by the CLAIMANT

                               Signed: ________________________ Dated:  07/30/06

                                       Brent Jones

 

 

Brent Jones

 

 

 

              

                        In the uNited States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brent Jones

            Respondent,

      vs.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and Doe’s 1-50, ect...al..,

                       Defendant

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.: CV-06-2725-TJH

Motion:  

Verified Cross- Compliant  

Counterclaim

Affidavit Of TRUTH

 

 Answer

Jury trial demanded

 

 

                 As to whether or not I have acted in good faith (Being convicted felon that I am), lessee with some leading authorities would say:

EXPLANATION SHEET TO BE ATTACHED TO EVERY COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENT OF FILING BEARING THE U.S. S.E.C. TRACER FLAG CONTAINING THE PHRASE "A SECURITY — 15 USC"

 

                   This EXPLANATION SHEET is to be attached to all Commercial Affidavits, including Affidavits of Obligation (Commercial Liens), which are non-judicial consensual processes which arise out of a breach of special performance (e.g., for public officials’ breach of oath of office, a violation of the Constitution for the United States of America and respective state Constitutions.)

The notice as follows below is included for the purposes of FULL DISCLOSURE (UCC), and as a warning noted by the flag for commercial grace at the top of the instrument.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT

AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE, DECLARATION, AND DEMAND

FAIR NOTICE AND WARNING OF COMMERCIAL GRACE

THIS IS A U.S. S.E.C. TRACER FLAG, NOT A POINT OF LAW

A SECURITY (15 USC)
05-7053517407———
COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT
THIS IS A U.S. S.E.C. TRACER FLAG
NOT A POINT OF LAW*  

                This statement is attached to every commercial affidavit, and a tracer flag is not a point of law!

 

"Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to being subjected by force of law to a

 

significant deprivation. . . . That the hearing required by due process is subject to waiver, and is not fixed in form does not affect its root requirement that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest. . . ." (Original italics; 401 US 378- 379) Randone v. Appellate Department, 1971, 5 C3d 536, 550.

 

"In the latter case [Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306] we said that the right to be heard ‘has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest.’ 339 U.S. at 314" Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 339, 340

 

"The ability to place a lien upon a man’s property, such as to temporarily deprive him of its beneficial use, without any judicial determination of probable cause dates back not only to medieval England but also to Roman times." United States Supreme Court, 1968, Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 349 Supported by the California Supreme Court, 1971, Randone v. Appellate Department, 5 C3d

536, 96 Cal Rptr 709 and 488 P2d

 

                  So this was not a violation of law, in fact it is recognized by law.

 

                              Points of interest

                  1. The plaintiffs in the above entitled matter allege several issues, that the respondent is a criminal, which almost hurt my

feelings. But to state such repeatedly without any supported facts makes one liable under slander. I’m accused of committing fraud, yet the issue of fraud is not indicated, so I say I did not attempt to defraud anyone, fraud! (That should answer that point).

           

                  2. The plaintiffs in the above entitled matter alleges but however provides no supporting facts that the respondent is retaliating

against them for having had a petition dismissed in this court. It is true that a petition was dismissed by this court, but what they failed to mention is that it was 'dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution’. That kind of puts a hole in that baseless theory.

 

                  3. The plaintiffs in the above entitled matter alleges that the respondent failed to act in “good faith”. Yet admittedly they state clearly that they’ve received several documents from the respondent, regarding what? Regarding the matter at issue, the role they have and are playing in an ongoing conspiracy to deprive the respondent of his constitutionally secured rights. The right to redress, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to equal protection of laws, the right to due process, the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to happiness. I’m sorry but it is against the law to deprive any U.S. citizen of their constitutionally secured rights, (please see united states constitutional amendment title eighteen subsection 4, 241, 242. if you’re unsure about this).

 

 

                        The filing of a UCC financial statement with the Secretary of state for any state in the union is a form of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. It cannot at this time nor at any other time in the future be considered illegal by any court or state official. The first amendment is the most secure of all constitutional rights as it clearly states “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting…the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Don’t you just love

those words “Congress shall make no Law”; I may not know much about history, I may not know much about biology, but what I do know is, that if Congress cannot make a law against, then the process is not against the law!

 

                        For years I’ve tried to get the plaintiffs 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 understanding?

 

                        This matter may be partially settled by a jury trial, whereby grievance counsel is appointed for the respondent. Since there are  clearly matters in dispute and at issue here, the respondent is not so stubborn as to not want to continue in good faith, however all parties must keep in mind that the respondent has attempted in good faith to resolve this issue and has been ignored. He will be ignored no more, it was indicated the he’s a felon, so let’s ignore his rights, okay and see how far that gets

 

anyone. These are the facts that are at issue:

 

                         The following is said to be done knowingly, willingly, deliberately, intentionally, and in an ongoing conspiracy to violate the rights of Brent Jones (to be known through out this section of complaint as The Complainant). The legal precedent for this matter is the first amendment of the uNITED States Constitution, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people to... petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

 

                 I am extremely grateful that the uNITED states constitution at no time does it limit the form in witch a suit maybe prosecuted. I’m also grateful that President george Bush has stated ‘that the constitution affords these rights to all natural born Citizens of the uNITED States.’

                

                 Since the uNITED States constitution is the supreme law of

the land (Common Law, Bill of Rights § 9. 1. No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government...”), and because under said constitution The Complainant exists

as a sovereign citizen (THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:.. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..), I hereby demand correction of the wrongs perpetrated under color of law (doctors operate under authority of law); a violation of uNITED States

criminal code title eighteen section 242 (§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law- Release date: 2005-08-03: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, .., or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be

sentenced to death.” (as well as other federal and local statutes and Laws).

 

                  This is a verified complaint, as attested to by The Complainant signature. It is demanded and required by due process law that the court employ any and all prescribe procedures for the prosecution of the individuals who perpetrated the offenses contained within this complaint. And because more than one person is known to have participate, conspiracy is further alleged (US CODE: TITLE 18 § 371, US CODE: TITLE 18 § 956, US CODE: TITLE 18 § 956, Common Law , Also Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Other constitutional amendments as well as other federal, local statutes and Laws)

 

                  It does become necessary to advise this body of the uNITED States constitution’s language, anytime we have the words shall or shall not in reference to any amendment, these word[s] solidifies that amendment so

that it cannot be changed. The court is aware that any guaranteed right cannot be denied or withheld from any person, to do such is the abridgement

of such rights, and when done under color of law it is a felony (right to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and deprivations of rights cognizable by Common Law and uNITED States constitution (U.S.C.A. 1, 5, 6, 8, 10), and is a felony under the uNITED States criminal law (U.S.C.A. Title 18 § 4, 242, 241 as well as other Federal, local statutes and Laws).

 

                             COUNT ONE 

 

                 On or about October 04, 1989 at approximately 10:40 AM The Complainant entered into a contract with doctor Joseph Peters, Doctor Joseph Peters was employed to perform corrective eye surgery (to correct a slight wondering eye element). It was to be done by Doctor Joseph Peters at the Saint Francis Medical Center, and Doctor Joseph Peters explained that the procedure would take approximately one hour. Doctor Joseph Peters also explained that anesthesia would be involved, The Complainant expressed concerns about being unconscious while someone was working on his person; to which Doctor Joseph Peters said “we will run a test to see which anesthesia would be appropriate for you ‘(The Complainant), so that you won’t be under

too long’”.

 

                 Doctor Joseph Peters and The Complainant signed a contract that day agreeing to the aforementioned, however it was only later discovered that Doctor Joseph Peters had no intentions on honoring the said contract. Doctor Joseph Peters and the Saint Francis Medical Center would later

recklessly jeopardize the health, safety, and future well-being of The Complainant; by premeditatively Depriving The Complainant of The Complainant’s right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness.

 

                 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees,

staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 1 - 50 did knowingly, deliberately, willingly, and intentionally misled The Complainant, by giving him a false sense of security, as Doctor Joseph Peters’ Hippocratic oath “to do no harm” and the contract entered into with The Complainant was not honored. His actions were deliberate, and premeditated, and did lead to the senseless murder of The Complainant. Violating The Complainant’s 1St, 4Th, 5Th, 8Th, and due process amendment rights, along with other state, local and federal laws as is cognizable by every state and court of the union.

 

                             COUNT TWO

 

                 On or about December 04, 1989 The Complainant Arrive at the Saint Francis Medical Center (The Daughters of Charity National Health (Ascension Health)), and once again entered into a contract, admitting The Complainant to the care of that facility. He made several requests of Doe’s 1

– 5 about the tests that were to be run regarding anesthesia, to which The Complainant was told “You’ll have to wait to speak with doctor Peters when he

arrives”. The Complainant upon meeting with doctor Joseph Peters inquired about the test that was to be run concerning the anesthesia, at which time Doctor Joseph Peters explained “I forgot to order the test, and we don’t have time to do it this morning, however we use this anesthesia all the time, and haven’t had any problems with our other patients…” (The Complainant is a control person, and did not feel to comfortable being unconscious and not in control of what was being done to The Complainant, having no knowledge of

what was going on, at the moment that it was occurring).

 

                 Unlike The Complainant, GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 1 - 50 were fully aware that as with all drugs some patients run the risk of an allergic reaction, yet Doctor Joseph Peters proceeded without caution. Doctor Joseph Peters actions were reckless, vindictive, malicious, and ill responsible. When The Complainant continued to express concerns about anesthesia, as having never been exposed to a general anesthetic in the past; Doctor Joseph Peters gave a false sense of security to The Complainant, all for financial gain (the money from insurance carrier). Doctor Joseph Peters, The Daughters of Charity National Health (Ascension Health), the Saint Francis Medical Center did violate The Complainant right to liberty, to life, to happiness, as well as other secured guaranteed rights of the uNITED States Constitution, violating The Complainant’s 1St, 4Th, 5Th, 8Th, and due process amendment rights, along with other state local and federal laws as is cognizable by every state and court of the union.

                             Count Three

 

                 On or about December 04, 1989 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST,

Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 1 - 5 did knowingly, willingly, deliberately, intentionally, and then an ongoing conspiracy conspired to violate the rights of The Complainant, GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 1 - 5 did knowingly and premeditatively deprive The Complainant of The Complainant’s life. By committing murder, a violation of the uNITED States Constitution, the right to life, the right to happiness, and the right to liberty. During an operation The Complainant became conscious, instead of halting the procedure The Complainant powerless and paralyzed awoke in fear. Only to hear doctor Joseph Peters saying to Doe 6, “something’s wrong”. At which point Doe 6 said “what do you mean something’s wrong?” To which doctor Joseph Peters said “something’s wrong he’s awake!” Then Doe 6 stated “what do you mean he’s awake”, doctor Joseph Peters stated “he’s awake, look his eyes are moving” at which point Doe 6 leaned over across the forehead of The Complainant and said “oh?” he

proceeded to administer a lethal dose of anesthesia. Instead of halting the procedure GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 5 – 12, administered a lethal dose of anesthesia to The Complainant, killing The Complainant.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 1 - 5 did violate The Complainant right to liberty, to life, to happiness, as well as other secured guaranteed rights of the uNITED States Constitution, violating The Complainant’s 1St, 4Th, 5Th, 8Th, due process amendment rights, along with other state local and federal laws as is cognizable by every state and court of the union.

 

                             Count Four

 

                 One or about December 04, 1989 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing

conspiracy with Doe’s 6 -12 did knowingly, willingly, deliberately, and intentionally in an on going conspiracy conspired to violate the rights of The Complainant, subjecting him to a foreign poisonous substance, in their

attempts to bring him back to life. The Complainant having been clinically dead for more than fifteen minutes the accused injected a poisonous substance to bring The Complainant back to life. The side effects of that experimental poisonous substance were unknown at the time. Upon restoring the vital signs of The Complainant no one gave consideration to the long term effects and or damage done as a result of the high body temperature (of more then 126°), the excess of eighteen minutes of clinical death, the very hazardous and poisonous experimental drug, the internal damage, the brain damage, kidney, lung, abdominal, liver and the emotional damage as a result of the actions of the accused. By doing so GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 6-12 did violate The Complainant right to liberty, to life, to happiness, as well as other secured guaranteed rights of the uNITED States Constitution, violating The Complainant’s 1St,4Th, 5Th, 8Th, due process amendment rights, along with other state local and federal laws as is cognizable by every state and court of the union.

 

                             Count Five

 

                 On or about December 04, 1989 due to GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST,

Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing

conspiracy with Doe’s 6-19 recklessness, did knowingly, premeditatively, willingly, deliberately, and intentionally Caused damage to all the vital organs of The Complainant; by their actions or lack thereof. By inducing anesthesia, and then giving an overdose, the accused caused a chemical reaction in The Complainant’s body, which led to a spike in body temperature (of more then 126°F unprecedented at the time). Failing to notice the equipment in place to monitor The Complainant’s vital signs, i.e.: rising temperature; GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy Doe’s 6-19 knowingly participated in the actions that led to the death of The Complainant.

               

                 In allowing the temperature the rise above 126° Doctor Joseph Peters, The Daughters of Charity National Health (GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 6-19,, were fully aware that brain damage would ensue, that there would be damage to the vital organs, (such as liver, kidney, intestines, colon, heart, lungs, and eyes). Doctor Joseph Peters, the Saint Francis Medical Center and Doe’s 6-19 made no preparations, or plans for the long term care of The Complainant. Because of their active malfeasance, and their failure to adhere to the contract, GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE

 

WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 6-19, did knowingly, willingly, intentionally, deliberately and an ongoing conspiracy violate The Complainant’s uNITED States’ Constitutionally secured rights to liberty, to life, to happiness, violating The Complainant’s 1St,4Th ,5Th ,8Th , due process amendment rights, as well as other secured guaranteed rights of the uNITED States Constitution along with other state local and federal laws as is cognizable by every state and court of the union.

 

                             Count six

                   

                 On or about December 04, 1989 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 11 – 30, did knowingly, willingly, premeditatively, intentionally, deliberately, and in an ongoing conspiracy, conspire to cover up the premeditated murder of The Complainant. Originally telling The Complainant’s family ‘that The Complainant was dead, and that they needed to come claim the body’(by way of tele-communication). Placing

The Complainant’s family through undue stress, pain, anguish, along with frustration, and only after being put through such torture, waited until The Complainant’s family arrived at the Saint Francis Medical Center, to be informed ‘that The Complainant was no longer dead. That The Complainant had been brought back to life, but would probably be a vegetable, due to the incompetence that lead in brain damage’. By doing so Doctor Joseph Peters, GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 11-30 did violate The Complainant right to liberty, to life, to happiness, all secured

guaranteed rights of the uNITED States Constitution, violating The Complainant’s 1St,4Th ,5Th ,8Th , due process amendment rights, along with other state local and federal laws as is cognizable by every state and court of the

union.

 

                             Count Seven

 

                 On or about December 6 1989, GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, in an ongoing conspiracy with Doe’s 19 - 44, did knowingly, willingly, premeditatively, intentionally, deliberately, and in an ongoing conspiracy, cause the irreparable damage to The Complainant’s kidney, liver, brain, upper and lower intestines, heart, lungs, colon, eye’s, nervous system, and other essential bodily mechanisms essential for the proper function of The Complainant’s physical vessel. Since the date of their unethical decisions, incompetence, intentional effort to cause harm, lack of intent to redress their wrongs; The Complainant has continued to experience elevated liver enzymes, digestive

 

dysfunction, irregular heart beat, colon enlargement, debilitating migraines, blurred vision, spotted vision, uncontrolled eye movement, memory loss, personality disintegration, loss of the ability to reason, along with other document medical complications.

 

                 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its

employees, staff, interns, and technicians, received compensation for their services, thereby documenting their culpability, their willing participation, their deliberate attempts and an ongoing conspiracy to cover up their wrongs,

having at no time compensated The Complainant for ongoing medical treatment as was promised, and partially documented in original contract between The Complainant and the above listed Respondents / Conspirators; and by doing so did knowingly, willingly, deliberately, premeditatively, and in an active ongoing conspiracy conspired to deprive The Complainant of his constitutionally secured right to life, to the active pursuit of happiness, to be free from cruel, torture and unusual punishment. To be justly compensated for wrongs perpetuated upon The Complainant. Violating The Complainant’s 1St,4Th ,5Th ,8Th , due process amendment rights, along with other state local and federal laws as is cognizable by every state and court of the union.

 

                             Count Eight

 

 

                 On or about January 16 1990 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE

COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, did knowingly, willingly, deliberately, intentionally, premeditatively in an ongoing conspiracy conspired to commit fraud against The Complainant and The Complainant’s health insurance company; by stating that ‘there had been an unforeseen complications during the operation, that was the result not of “doctor’s error”, but the result of an unanticipated event.’

 

                 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY

OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, had repeatedly been asked by The Complainant to run a test to determine ‘the compatibility of the anesthesia’, and although assurances were given that these tests would be run no such tests was administered, GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians statements, and comments to the contrary was an act of fraud, thereby breaching the contract entered into with The Complainant. GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis

Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, knowingly,

 

willingly, deliberately, intentionally, premeditatively, and in an ongoing

conspiracy violate The Complainant’s 1St,4Th ,5Th ,8Th , due process amendment rights, along with other state local and federal laws as is cognizable by every state and court of the union.

 

                             Count Nine

 

                        Susie (Susan) Coane, but Ralph Zarefsky, Terrie (Terry) Baker, Judie (Judy) Mathews, Esteria Tamayo, Denise Johnson did knowingly, willingly, deliberately, intentionally, premeditatively in an ongoing conspiracy conspired to commit fraud against The Complainant and participated in an ongoing conspiracy used to deny the complainant access to courts. Blocking access to the court is a violation of the united states constitution which guarantees access to courts. And also violates the first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. And is also recognized as Misperson of felony, a criminal offense under united states constitutional amendments title eighteen section four. Each of the aforementioned is said to have done this in there official as well as individual capacity, thereby violating another Federal law; title eighteen of the united states constitution amendment subsection 241 and 242.

 

                        The first amendment of the uNITED STATES constitution permits, allows for suit in equity, and because California is still a common law state it is a under common law that I introduce this petition. To jeopardize the health and safety of another is a criminal act, and the above

 

is documented in medical records, describing the intentional, willful, and deliberate intent to cause harm to The Complainant.

 

                         The Complainant since the date of the injury has had a morbid fear of hospitals, and doctors. The Complainant remains in constant fear of getting into an accident, whereby The Complainant might be unconscious; as The Complainant’s doctors never informed him of the particular anesthetic that The Complainant is allergic to, he might be subject to the very same experience of the pass, and this time he more than likely will not survive.

 

                         Constant abdominal pain, coupled with the higher enzyme levels in the liver, the massive migraines that are extremely debilitating, the blurred vision, the spots in the vision, the scars left on the eye, the kidney pain that remains constant, the memory loss, dizziness, the extreme fatigue, the inability to sleep, the lack of sensation in certain areas of the body, the lack of stamina, the inability to focus, the inability to maintain employment, friendships, relationships, all as a result of what took place December 04, 1989 as a result of the actions of GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, who authorize the complete payment of the medical bill they’re by accepting partial responsibility. As the insurance carrier at no time did any type of investigation, paying off two million dollars. For over fifteen

 

years I’ve continued to suffer as a result of the actions of the accused

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians.

 

                       Fifteen years of torture, with no form of relief, constantly bringing to the attention of the accused GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, as well as the courts only to be ignored. I have constantly sought in good faith to resolve the issue of restitution and continued medical treatment, only to have such good faith efforts go completely ignored by GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians.

 

                         The fact that on October 28, 1998 The Complainant for the first time in over seven years remembered quite a few things in The Complainant’s past. That prior to this The Complainant did not remember The Complainant family, The Complainant did not remember growing up, (The Complainant knew personalities, faces, however no details), the anguish and frustration this caused cannot be expressed without using an expletive, of which The Complainant never resort.

 

                         Of how every time The Complainant goes to see a doctor and the complains about the continual blood in his stool, they suspected that he has colon cancer. At one time being diagnosed with such cancer, only to be told they could not be explained why The Complainant no longer had colon cancer. The Complainant finally realizing that it was the result of the abdominal pain, that The Complainant is bleeding along his intestines and digestive tract.

 

                         The Complainant because of the fatigue and lack of stamina was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome, taking a regimen of vitamin B12, along with major dietary changes, has proven ineffective. The lack of taste while eating food is almost nonexistent, The Complainant literally adding to his foods condiments and spices just to achieve some sense of taste. Each and every leaf vegetable taste exactly the same, in an experiment The Complainant chewed paper the notice that there was no difference in its taste and the taste of most of the foods he was ingesting. (Food is supposed to be enjoyable, tastes are supposed to be varying, yet unique. I no longer gain any such satisfaction, as my taste buds were fried during that botched operation).

 

                         I would suspect very few people know what it feels like to be a young man who is not able to even remember his mother, sisters

and brothers, or many of the friends he once had, The Complainant knows exactly what that feels like, and it’s time that those who helped The Complainant to gain this experience, be helped to appreciate the value of

 

their assistance.

 

                         Unable to afford counsel to represent to bring a lawsuit against the accused perpetrators of these crimes, and a lack of ability to focus, concentrate, and deal with the pressures of filing a lawsuit pro se’ The Complainant filed a criminal complaint in the district court of southern California, and continues to have access to the court blocked, and denied.

 

                         The remedy was to seek redress by means of a mechanism used by the Federal government against every day citizens, the (commercial) lien process.

 

                         The Complainant hereby informs the court that The Complainant formally demands redress as afforded by the first amendment of the uNITED States constitution for the wrongs committed against The Complainant. Damage awards are requested as follows:

 

1.    GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, Susie (Susan) Coane, Ralph Zarefsky, Terrie (Terry) Baker, Judie (Judy) Mathews, Esteria

    Tamayo, Denise Johnson and Doe’s 1-50, its   

 

    employees, staff, interns, and technicians, pay

    compensatory damages in the amount of five    

    Billion Six Hundred Million Dollars.

 

2.    GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C. Peters, Susie (Susan) Coane, but Ralph Zarefsky, Terrie (Terry) Baker, Judie (Judy) Mathews, Esteria Tamayo, Denise Johnson and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, pay punitive damages in the amount of Seven Hundred Million Dollars.

    

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 lastly other Federal and state laws that is 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 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.

 

                       The figures are not excessive, but are a good faith value of how The Complainant equates 365 days times 15 years, totaling 6,179 days (Including leap year) of suffering, of pain, of no relief, not to mention the expected future suffering, and future health complications. The Complainant valued The Complainant’s health then, and do so now, and the value The Complainant places on The Complainant’s right to life, to liberty (To be free from all harm and constraints, whether it is prison or pain), and the pursuit of happiness. GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST, Saint Francis Medical Center, PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC, Joseph C.

Peters, and Doe’s 1-50, its employees, staff, interns, and technicians, interfered with my rights, those very same rights pres. George Bush says all natural born citizen are entitled to.

 

                        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.

 

                  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.

 

This is a counter Claim, lets see if I’ll be ignored again?

 

 

                         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 District Court

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

 

Saint Francis Medical Center

3630 E. Imperial Hwy.

Lynwood, California    90262

 

PERCEPTION EYE CENTER MEDICAL CLINIC, INC

Joseph C. Peters                   

3510 E. MLK Blvd.

Lynwood CA 90262

 

DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PROVINCE OF THE WEST

26000 Altamont Rd.

Los Altos Hills, CA 94022-4317

 

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY

8515 E. Orchard Road

Greenwood Village, CO 80111

 

Susie (Susan) Coane

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Ralph Zarefsky

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

 

Terrie (Terry) Baker

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Judie (Judy) Mathews

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Estrella Tamayo

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

Denise Johnson

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

 

                 The aforementioned is true and correct and submitted by the CLAIMANT

Signed: ________________________ Dated:  07\08\06

         Brent Jones

 

Brent Jones

 

 

              

                        In the uNited States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brent Jones

            Respondent,

      vs.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and Doe’s 1-50, ect...al..,

            Petitioner,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.: CV-06-2725-TJH

             Motion: 

1ST , 5Th, 6Th, 7th, 8Th, 9Th,

& 10th Amendment Demand!

       Verified

Affidavit Of TRUTH

REDRESS Petition (for correction of

wrongs)

Explanation of legal right to

utilize the UCC

 

 

                 As to whether or not I have acted in good faith (Being convicted felon that I am), let’s see what some leading authorities would say:

 

                        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.

 

                      Legal redress (from medical jurisprudence) -- Encyclopędia Britannica 
Legal redress (from medical jurisprudence) When patients are injured by medical negligence the remedies they can pursue depend upon the country's legal ... http:/www.britannica.com/eb/article-35638

 

                     UCC 9-401 take special note of section (a) (3) and

THIS CLAIM OF LIEN IS FILE PURSUANT CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 2872, 2874, 2875, 2881(1), 2883, and 2889, against Lien Debtor(s) for default and breach of contract under commercial law. Section 3281 of Civil Code for damages sustained. California Government Code § 27297.5 and 27387 as an involuntary lien based on consensual actions by knowledgeable breach of contract (explained herein). THIS IS NOT A LIS PENDENS LIEN.

 

                     "Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to being subjected by force of law to a significant deprivation. . . . That the hearing required by due process is subject to waiver, and is not fixed in form does not affect its root requirement that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing

 

before he is deprived of any significant property interest. . . ." (Original

italics; 401 US 378- 379) Randone v. Appellate Department, 1971, 5 C3d 536, 550. "In the latter case [Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306] we said that the right to be heard ‘has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest.’ 339 U.S. at 314" Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 339, 340

 

                 In the absence of a response, when the LIEN DEBTOR was given an opportunity to respond, the LIEN CLAIMANT [name1] hereby inserts and records this CLAIM OF LIEN against LIEN DEBTOR, [name2], jointly and severally in the total amount of [amount spelled out ($0.00)], said moneys to be paid in coin minted by the United States Mint, 31 USC 5112 Dollars. Said CLAIM OF LIEN is in the amount of criminal fines, penalties, and damages enumerated in a CRIMINAL COMPLAINT (AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMATION), received by the United States Attorney and United States Magistrate, which total ledger amount is secured by the real and personal community property of LIEN DEBTOR as follows: PERSONAL, REAL and MOVABLE PROPERTY OF AT [address] save that of LIEN DEBTOR’s wedding rings.

 

                 This CLAIM OF LIEN is filed pursuant the California Codes and the Fundamental Commercial Law that has existed nearly 2,000 years:

"The ability to place a lien upon a man’s property, such as to temporarily deprive him of its beneficial use, without any judicial determination of probable cause dates back not only to medieval England but also to Roman

 

times." United States Supreme Court, 1968, Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.,

395 U.S. 337, 349 Supported by the California Supreme Court, 1971, Randone v. Appellate Department, 5 C3d 536, 96 Cal Rptr 709 and 488 P2d

 

                The first amendment of the uNITED States constitution says in part:

 

               Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people to... petition the government for a redress of grievance.”

 

 

               This simply means that we as citizens do not have to prove that The Commercial Lien Process (T.C.L.P.) is legal , but that judges and attorneys must prove by law, uNITED STATES Constitutional LAW, that such a process that is utilize by the uNITED STATES government is not available to citizens of the uNITED STATES.

 

 

              "The right to petition for Redress", to correct wrongs, is 100% lawful, RE read the first amendment once again and notice that it states "Congress shall make  no law..."  The Commercial Lien Process (T.C.L.P.) is a legal means of redress. 

 

                            The right to petition the government for A REDRESS OF GRIEVENCE. The Uniform Commercial Code, is a code set up by the governments of several countries and every

 state of the uNION. Because it (T. C. L. P.) requires a verified complaint, a signed affidavit, and notification of parties, these are the checks and balances set up by the system. Misuse of The Uniform Commercial Code can cause someone to become criminally liable if they seek such a redress remedy outside of good faith. Simply put if you lie on certain documents, you can be held criminally liable, you can be prosecuted. The T. C. L. P. meets the standards of the uNITED STATES Constitution:

 

                          1st , You have a right to redress, that right exist despite any attempts to ratify!

 

                                        2ND You have ‘the right to Equal Protection of laws’, This simply means that the uNITED STATES Federal government uses the commercial line process to it’s advantage. If they use it, they cannot prohibit or prevent you from using it. To go with that the first amendment is law! And it is the only law that can never be changed, for it is the only one that states: ‘Congress shall make no law'.

 

 

                                       You have the ‘right to suit in equity’; this means if someone damages you, or your property, you have the right to make them pay by way of suit. When most people usually hear the term lawsuit they think of those that take place in court. There are several types of lawsuits, You have your civil suits, which can take many forms, oftentimes not involving a court at all (i.e.: arbitration), and then you have your criminal law suits.  Criminal law suits can only take place as a result of the first amendment. That is where a branch of government steps in to correct a wrong, to redress wrongs committed against person, state, property …

 

                                       Each amendment with the word “shall”, or “Shall not” are guaranteed, secured rights, or laws; This simply means these laws, or constitutional amendments as they are commonly known cannot be changed. And according to the tenth amendment, constitutional law supersedes state law. Don’t you just love those founding fathers?

 

                                        Example: When the first amendment states ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging…the right of the people… to petition… for a redress of grievance’. This right is guaranteed and secured by the statement “shall not”. Constitutional amendments with the words “SHALL”, or “shall not” cannot be amended or changed ever! That’s why they never have changed any of the amendments containing those words. 

 

                 Document has been filed with the Secretary of State California Uniformed Commercial Code Division UCC # 05-7053517407.

 

"As you can see" The Right To Petition For A REDRESS is recognized by all three branches of government, it is a LEGAL and LAWFUL right, and CANNOT (BY LAW {CONSTITUTIONAL Law) BE DENIED. IT IS A FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEED RIGHT RETAINED BY ALL CITIZENS!!!!!!!!!

 

State of Idaho v. Horiuchi

... towards the gen- eral government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. Page 3.

... http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/rubyridge/idhoriuchi60501.pdf

 

Rufus Hanna and Donald Brennan v. Ray Leticia, et al.

... damages as set forth hereinafter; that inherent in plaintiffs' right to redress by exemplary damages are the following purposes: the defendants, and each of...http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/bumfights/bumfights100202cmp.pdf

 

Case Law, Federal and ... an alternative to the state justice system in which to obtain vindication and redress. Accordingly, even if a state police officer, a state prosecutor, or a ... http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-5/99-0005.mer.rep.html

 

This is sound under standing:

The uNITED STATES Supreme court has recognized since the establishment of this country the right of the citizen to petition the court for redress, to correct the wrongs. And as explained earlier The Commercial Lien Process is one way a petition the government to correct the wrongs. And that all the appropriate documents through the UCC, must be filed with the government. So patiently understand the following: without the first amendment “right to petition the government for redress of grievance”, no court could exist, in order for the courts to exist there must be a law, ‘cause only by law could the courts derive their authority. Without the first amendment “right to petition the government for redress a grievance”, there would be no military, no police force, no fire department, there would be no justice system.

 

 

                 As we have seen over the past few decades, the court system in this country and throughout the world are by – in large corrupt. The more money you have the more justice you can achieve. It is not always feasible as respects to correcting wrongs, to utilize the uNITED States justice system. The amendment right “to petition the government for redress a grievance” is the number one principle by which The Commercial Lien Process is established. Again the word redress-to correct the wrongs; is the premise by which lawsuits are filed, for which cases against other individuals proceed in any court of the uNION. It is true that several of the amendments to the uNITED States constitution technically had never been legally enacted into law, they were not properly ratified. So we don’t add any point suggest using amendments such as the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment of the uNITED states constitution. Do your homework people, several have recognized the right to file criminal complaints against judges. You must understand the prosecuting D.A. could not bring forth any case to represent any person, without that person exercising “the right to petition the government for redress a grievance”. It is the person whom signed a sworn affidavit (which is a part of The Commercial Lien Process), in which a person files a grievance, a complaint, asking for justice or for the wrongs to be corrected.

 

                 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 lastly other Federal and state laws that is 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 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.

 

               “The right to petition the government for redress a grievance” is recognized as so pivotal of a right that everyone engaging of business within the uNITED States must have a grievance process as a part of their company’s policy. There can be no argument against your “right to petition the government for a redress a grievance, it is sad to say that several

people have walked into court, in the past and failed to provide a basis by which they proceeded, they have failed to mention their “right to petition the government for redress a grievance”, and as stated that the beginning, you don’t have to prove that you have this right, what you must insist on is that the court to prove by way of constitutional law, that you do not have “the right to petition the government for redress a grievance”. I truly hope

 

this is been helpful to some of you.

 

                  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.

 

                          I request for the court to issue any and all remedies in addition to the aforementioned to affect justice.

 

                         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 District Court

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

 

 

Someone had to do this

Enter first column content here

Enter second column content here

Enter supporting content here