Make your own free website on Tripod.com

 

 

The state of California supreme court case law, the united states supreme court case law, the united states constitutional amendment case law, supporting the fact that “a party must be given notice” . . . well I’ll let you read it for yourself:

 

"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

 

A 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. UCC 9-401 (a) (3)

 

 

LEGAL REDRESS  commission

 

U C C  Perfected commercial liens

 

the process continues

 

U C C  Perfected commercial liens2

 

U C C  Perfected commercial liens3

 

legalredress1

 

A lot of  information

 

legalredress2

 

(To get more useful info visit the following sites: legal

                   legal

          http://ucc.idiots.tripod.com

          http://redresslaw.tripod.com

          http://legalies.tripod.com/legal

          http://legalies.tripod.com/legalredress

          http://ucc.idiots.tripod.com

          http://t.l.r.c.tripod.com

As the process continues more updates will follow

 

                                 As promised, we are endeavoring to provide more useful information to all those who visit our sites, most people won't get the concept of The Legal Redress Commission and that it is quite all right.  The Legal Redress Commission exists for the sole purpose of helping those who have been to use the word that has become so familiar with many, disenfranchised.  The founding fathers in this country wrote the constitution so as to insure that people have rights and were protected. The first amendment "right to petition the government for redress of grievances" is the only amendment that can never be changed. The reason for this was to ensure that they we’re protected, Then that no one person to include the president of the country when never be allowed to ingress upon the rights of any citizen. 

 

                                     Over the last few decades, our school system has taught its students that they have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to their religion.  But they however do not teach students of their right to petition the government for redress of grievance.  There are two reasons for this, the first reason is that they simply don’t know that right; the second reason Is that they don’t fully understand that right.  At legalies.tripod.com we’ve tried to help everyone to understand that right.  But since this right is so very seldom use, or is misinterpreted, or misunderstood, It is what you might call a loop hole. It is a way out go to your city clerk’s office and ask to see a copy of U. C. C. Financial one statements filed with their offices.  You’ll notice that many of those forms of filed by companies, against other companies, or against citizens.  So as to whether or not you have the right to do that, by law if that avenue is made available to others it must be available to You.  That’s called equal protection of law.  On this site you will find documents filed and or received of the united states district court of southern California’s central division. This is to let you know that your issue may end up in court, so here’s a little bit of information for your protection:

 

                                        If the party to whom you filed a U. C. C. financial one statement wishes to take you to court, let them. Now why would I say let them? Because it is you’re right to pursue this process, especially if one of the right secure to you by the U.S. constitutional amendments 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 has been violated that becomes your counterclaim for the purpose of that law suit. Simply put that is exactly what you want, if they file a suit against you with the court, you simply fall the Counterclaim demanding the Jury Trial. You see that is one of your secured constitutional rights, amendments 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Review those amendments. Your counterclaim list over the items in your criminal complaint against the party, and your proof of your right to use The Commercial Lien Process We’ll be the united states constitutional amendment 1, 7, 8, 9, 10.

More information is to come.

 

 

                                   When you send out your documents in The Commercial Lien Process it is advisable that you send your affidavit, your commercial lien, your coloring agreement, your notice of default and notice of intent, it is advisable that you do using certified mail.  However the united states postal service also has a process called priority mail know what delivery confirmation; this provides you with delivery confirmation, showing that the package was delivered to the address is indicated.  Please keep all receipts and all documentation in a safe place. 

 

                                   We apologize if the documents on the following pages are not easy to read, Tripod is a free service, and they only allow 20MB of disk user space. 

You might want to set up a tripod. com account and start storing your documents on the internet (my space.com is another location where you can store your information via the internet). 

 

                                   On this site you’ll find documents that have been recorded or rejected by the court and inconsistencies of the court, you have the right to hold those liable who interfere with your right to access the court, blocking access to the court is called Gate Keeping. What is Gate Keeping? The judges and the clerks of the court are putting their positions as a result of the first amendment, “the right to petition the government for redress of grievances”, your access to the court is a constitutional right (amendment #6).  Because the judges and the clerk’s of the court sit as keepers to the gate (entry to the court) they have no authority under law to block access, any attempts to do so is a violation of constitutional rights, known as deprivation (depriving a person of something owed him or due him) Of rights under color and or authority of law (constitutional amendment title eighteen section 241, 242).

 

People should not be afraid of the government, it is the government that should be afraid of the people!  (V for vendetta).

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

                 Update 11*10*2006

 

Update:

 

                                    When I file my UCC financial statement with the California Secretary of state, I was fully aware that they would try tactics of retaliation and intimidation. The great west life insurance company has filed a $100,000.00 + lawsuit against myself; accusing me of lying and, fraud, illegal acts, and because I attempted to follow lawsuit against them previously without an attorney, but decided not to go forward with the lawsuit, they produce the motion make an event here like I had actually lost the lawsuit. 

 

                  My immediate cause of action was to try defend myself, to strike down every point that they placed in their complaint, but that would neither be prudent nor beneficial.  You see if I respond to all their claims for which they provided no case law, no facts whatsoever, responding might give rise to the claims they make in their complaint.

 

                  As I mentioned before this process is completely legal,

there is no law against it, and what I will proceed to do is demand that they provide case law which prevents a person from seeking redress with the UCC apartment.  In the complaint the great west life insurance company, raise the issue of legality, and by the tone of their letter it appears that they’re not crying Bo-who, whan-whaa.  They complain about the fact that my actions may mess up their credit and prevent them from buying other properties and or merging with other companies, you know that’s exactly what it does .  I gave them well over 90 days to respond, and they refuse and now that they’re having some difficulties because apparently they would like to use the credit they won’t be doing so.

 

                        They’re requesting that some judge ordered me to remove the UCC financial statement from the UCC department they are also fully aware that a judge cannot make a person do such a thing he does not have the legal authority or a lawful discretion.. You see people the process does work, and I am fully willing to jail if needed if necessary, why because that Lien will stay on their property for the next 99 years, that’s a long time. 

 

                        I’ll be placing on the site copies of their motion complaint in the very near future, and also keep you updated as semi progress with this matter.

 

                        Please take a rough look at my tentative response and you’ll see what I mean. 

 

              What I have done as I have figured out a way to complete this process without using the County Registrar Recorder’s Office.  I will be starting a company that will access the files of “Dunn and Bradstreet”, “Equa-fax”, “Trans-union”, “Experian”, and by having it reported to these particular credit bureaus the County Register Recorder’s Office will not be necessary.  Once these debts appearing on their credit reports, the individual will have credit card limits reduced, they won’t be able to buy or sale any luxury goods, houses, cars, trucks, you name it . 

             This company The Legal Redress Commission will not handle any claims against judges, however once we determine that the process has been completed, documents have been notarized and that you had given the debtor their 90 day grace period (30 days to respond to initial Commercial affidavit, 30 days to respond to default notice, and 30 days notice of intent), will assist by applying information to three credit bureaus, and if it’s a business by applying it to the credit bureau known as Dunn and Bradstreet.  Again this company will be starting before February of the year 2007. 

 

 

             And please read over the following documents the case law is sound, and the legal rationalization and reasoning cannot be refuted.  Although the courts clerks as well as the judge in this manner are attempting to block my access to the court by stating that they never received any of the documents , or that documents were not received in timely, I provided proof that each of the documents were received within the allotted time.  They do not want a jury trial,

 

              And here is the best suggestion I can give to each of you who attempt to use this process, respond to every document that is received from the debtor, for that is the process.  If they failed to answer any of the refuted issues, return a letter to them as non responsive, noting that they failed to provide a written affidavit refuting each of the points in the original affidavit.  And tell them the time limitations are not halted for having failed to respond, but that you’ll give them ten days to refute the claims.  Also informing them that any further attempts to abuse this process will not be tolerated. 

 

 

Notice the following information, always keep your cool, the courts and attorneys realize that this process this completely legal as supported by the united states supreme court as dating back to the Roman era.  And do not allow them to state that “there is no provision in law” what they must prove is that there is a law that prohibits “the petitioning of the government for redress a grievance”.  A first amendment right that clearly states “Congress shall make no law”, there is no law against it, and they can’t make one prohibiting it.

 

 

 

                        ADDENDUM 

                        In the uNITED States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brett  

            Respondent,

      vs.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

                       Plaintiff,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.: CV-06-2725

Motion

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

& 10th Amendment Demand

 

Verified

Affidavit Of TRUTH

In addition to

default judgment

request By respondent,

(addendum), response to default request

of and by all adverse parties.

 

 

                     Each of the petitions that were filed with this court and done so timely must be construed as a response. They also contained several points that can be construed as nothing but a response.

 

                     Attached are documentation of 46 UCC filings against the good standing business GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, this will be my joining in that elite group of redressers. I will not be denied not will I be intimidated.

 

                  ADDENDUM 

                        In the uNITED States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brett

            Respondent,

      vs.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

                       Plaintiff,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.: CV-06-2725

Motion

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

& 10th Amendment Demand

 

Verified

Affidavit Of TRUTH

In addition to

default judgment

request By respondent,

(addendum), response to default request

of and by all adverse parties.

 

 

                     Each of the petitions that were filed with this court and done so timely must be construed as a response. They also contained several points that can be construed as nothing but a response.

 

                     Attached are documentation of 46 UCC filings against the good standing business GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, this will be my joining in that elite group of redressers. I will not be denied not will I be intimidated.

                             Addendum


 

 
Found 46 matching records for GREAT WEST LIFE
Demographic: Address: CO  
   
#    Group
Select
  Debtor Name
Address  Filing#
Office  Date  Type  Original#
Office  
1       GREAT WEST LIFE
8515 E ORCHARD  65397
OURAY  07/23/1999  STATEMENT  65397
OURAY  
 
2       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY
2801 S HORTON ST  2005F110763
SEC OF STATE  10/28/2005  STATEMENT  2005F110763
SEC OF STATE  
 
3       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INS CO
8515 E ORCHARD RD  19982031300
SEC OF STATE  05/13/1998  STATEMENT  19982031300
SEC OF STATE  
 
4       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 
 ANNUITY INS CO
8515 E ORCHARD RD  20002103339
SEC OF STATE  12/04/2000  STATEMENT  20002103339
SEC OF STATE  
 
5       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INS CO
8515 E ORCHARD RD  19972054906
SEC OF STATE  07/01/1997  STATEMENT  19972054906
SEC OF STATE  
6      GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INS CO
8515 E ORCHARD RD  19992060662
SEC OF STATE  11/01/1999  STATEMENT  19992060662
SEC OF STATE  
 
7       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INS CO
8515 E ORCHARD RD  19992009147
SEC OF STATE  02/17/1999  STATEMENT  19992009147
SEC OF STATE  
 
 
 
 
8       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 
 ANNUITY INS CO
8515 E ORCHARD RD  19992060663
SEC OF STATE  11/01/1999  STATEMENT  19992060663
SEC OF STATE  
 
9       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INS CO
855 E ORCHARD RD  19972056649
SEC OF STATE  07/08/1997  STATEMENT  19972056649
SEC OF STATE  
 
10       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INS CO
8518 E ORCHARD RD  19992023986
SEC OF STATE  04/29/1999  STATEMENT  19992023986
SEC OF STATE  
 
11       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INS CO
8515 E ORCHARD RD  19972086728
SEC OF STATE  10/08/1997  
 
 
 
STATEMENT  19972086728
SEC OF STATE  
 
12       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 
 
 ANNUITY INS CO
8515 E ORCHARD RD  19962081535
SEC OF STATE  10/30/1996  STATEMENT  19962081535
SEC OF STATE  
 
13       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INS CO
8505 ORCHARD RD  20002012963
SEC OF STATE  02/11/2000  STATEMENT  20002012963
SEC OF STATE  
 
14       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INS CO
8515 E ORCHARD RD  19992025768
SEC OF STATE  05/07/1999  STATEMENT  19992025768
SEC OF STATE  
 
15       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
8515 E ORCHARD RD  19902014580
SEC OF STATE  02/21/1990  STATEMENT  19902014580
SEC OF STATE  
 
16       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
COMPANY INC  20002049529
SEC OF STATE  05/31/2000  STATEMENT  20002049529
SEC OF STATE  
 
17       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
8515 E ORCHARD RD  9900029039
DENVER  02/18/1999  STATEMENT  9900029039
DENVER  
 
18       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
COMPANY INC  19982060233
SEC OF STATE  09/23/1998  STATEMENT  19982060233
SEC OF STATE  
 
19       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
8515 E ORCHARD RD  20002090161
SEC OF STATE  10/13/2000  STATEMENT  20002090161
SEC OF STATE  
 
20       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
& BENEFITS  20002018939
SEC OF STATE  03/02/2000  STATEMENT  20002018939
SEC OF STATE  
 
21       GREAT WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
8515 E ORCHARD RD  20002004488
SEC OF STATE  01/18/2000  STATEMENT  20002004488
SEC OF STATE  
 
22       GREAT WEST LIFE AND
 ANNUITY
INSURANCE CO  19992067896
SEC OF STATE  12/07/1999  STATEMENT  19992067896
SEC OF STATE  
 
23       GREAT WEST LIFE AND
 ANNUITY
8626 E ORCHARD RD  20052073668
SEC OF STATE  07/11/2005  STATEMENT  20052073668
SEC OF STATE  
 
24       GREAT WEST LIFE
 ANNUITY
AND INSURANCE COMPANY  19992019077
SEC OF STATE  04/05/1999  STATEMENT  19992019077
SEC OF STATE  
 
25       GREAT WEST LIFE
 ASSURANCE CO
5800 S DTC PKWY  19962000854
SEC OF STATE  01/03/1996  STATEMENT  19962000854
SEC OF STATE  
26       GREAT WEST LIFE
 ASSURANCE CO
5800 DTC PKWY  19932079789
SEC OF STATE  11/01/1993  STATEMENT  19932079789
SEC OF STATE  
 
27       GREAT WEST LIFE
 ASSURANCE CO
5800 S DTC PKWY  19982035626
SEC OF STATE  06/02/1998  STATEMENT  19982035626
SEC OF STATE  
 
28       GREAT WEST LIFE
 CENTER
5800 DTC PKWY  19972054175
SEC OF STATE  06/30/1997  STATEMENT  19972054175
SEC OF STATE  
 
29       GREAT WEST LIFE
 CENTER
5800 DTC PKWY  19962082387
SEC OF STATE  11/01/1996  STATEMENT  19962082387
SEC OF STATE  
 
30       GREAT WEST LIFE
 CENTER
5800 DTC PKWY  19962017748
SEC OF STATE  03/07/1996  STATEMENT  19962017748
SEC OF STATE  
31       GREAT WEST LIFE
 CENTER
5800 DTC PKWY  19962096457
SEC OF STATE  12/26/1996  STATEMENT  19962096457
SEC OF STATE  
 
32       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY
INSURANCE CO  19992045650
SEC OF STATE  08/12/1999  STATEMENT  19992045650
SEC OF STATE  
 
33       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
5800 DTC PKWY  20032036451
SEC OF STATE  04/07/2003  STATEMENT  20032036451
SEC OF STATE  
 
34       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
8515 EAST ORCHARD
 ROAD  20062095768
SEC OF STATE  10/02/2006  STATEMENT  20062095768
SEC OF STATE  
35       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
8515 EAST ORCHARD
 ROAD  20062095767
SEC OF STATE  10/02/2006  STATEMENT  20062095767
SEC OF STATE  
 
36       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
8515 E ORCHARD RD  20022133038
SEC OF STATE  12/20/2002  STATEMENT  20022133038
SEC OF STATE  
 
37       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
8515 EAST ORCHARD
 ROAD  20012094140
SEC OF STATE  10/16/2001  STATEMENT  20012094140
SEC OF STATE  
 
38       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
8515 EAST ORCHARD
 ROAD  20062095766
SEC OF STATE  10/02/2006  STATEMENT  20062095766
SEC OF STATE  
 
39       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
8515 E ORCHARD RD  20042055371
SEC OF STATE  05/19/2004  STATEMENT  20042055371
SEC OF STATE  
 
40       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
5800 DTC PARKWAY  20012118747
SEC OF STATE  12/24/2001  STATEMENT  20012118747
SEC OF STATE  
 
41       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
8515 E ORCHARD RD 3T2  20042052676
SEC OF STATE  05/12/2004  STATEMENT  20042052676
SEC OF STATE  
 
42       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
8515 E ORCHARD RD 372  20042052675
SEC OF STATE  05/12/2004  STATEMENT  20042052675
SEC OF STATE  
 
43       GREAT-WEST LIFE &
 ANNUITY INSURANCE
 COMPANY
PO BOX 1700  20012100221
SEC OF STATE  11/01/2001  STATEMENT  20012100221
SEC OF STATE  
 
44       GREAT-WEST LIFE
 ASSURANCE COMPANY
8505 E ORCHARD ROAD  19932057405
SEC OF STATE  08/02/1993  STATEMENT  19932057405
SEC OF STATE  
 
45       GREAT-WEST LIFE
 ASSURANCE COMPANY
8505 E ORCHARD ROAD  19922014569
SEC OF STATE  03/04/1992  STATEMENT  19922014569
SEC OF STATE 
 
46       GREAT-WEST LIFE
 ASSURANCE COMPANY
8505 E ORCHARD ROAD  19922004714
SEC OF STATE  01/23/1992  STATEMENT  19922004714
SEC OF STATE  

 

                        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

            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

Request for advisory counsel

 

 

 

                  Apparently there appears to be a court date set for October 23, 2006; again that is not enough time for this particular respondent to make arrangements to travel 3,400mi. a postponement is demanded as of this time. If

 

postponement request is denied, then a telephonic connection is demanded.

 

                  This is a contractual dispute, and the lien that was filed against GREAT-WEST life insurance was in the same form of the mechanic’s lien failure to perform contractual obligation. In regards to whether or not there has been a response please know the following factual information;

 

                  The court requested for documents to be amended in order correct “caption”, each one of the request was responded to in-kind. If a default judgment was requested of this court back in August how is it I have yet to receive such a request copy? And by the way several documents were accepted by the court for filing, one document entitled in part “jury trial request”. It would be interesting to note that that document not only requested it jury trial but listed several allegations against the plaintiffs thereby constituting it a responce, and documents and the counterclaim were re-submitted entitled “Amendment”.

 

                  I do not mind playing the word game; I anticipated the court doing what they’ve done thus far, only because that’s their method of operation, I however planned in advance. So the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment is moot and it is demanded emphatically that their default

request be denied as there exsist no proof of un-timeliness.

 

                  My documents conform to rules of court and was submitted timely, so I submit this request to have this matter readdressed 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 August 03, 2006 in the same envelope the counterclaim was submitted, which was not filed even though it contained the original signature on the original document.

 

                  Appointment of counsel is a nearby requested and demanded to alleviate any further misunderstandings and to help with due process.

 

                        In the uNITED States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brett

 

            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

Response

To default addendum

 

 

                

                  The plaintiff has requested that the original U. C. C. files statement be terminated, I was not made aware that they represent all of the parties that are listed in the original Complaint.

 

                  U. C. C. Filing financial statement 06-7083569236 was filed Listing the issues involving a new conspiracy, and you should notice judge Hatter junior, is listed as a debtor, that processes still continuing. And the listing of this particular case number: CV-06-2725-TJH; is for documentation purposes only.

 

                  Apparently there appears to be a court date set for October 23, 2006; again that is not enough time for this particular respondent to make arrangements to travel 3,400mi. a postponement is demanded as of this time. If postponement request is denied, then a telephonic connection is demanded.

 

                  Once again this court has no Jurisdictions over any other district, as the attached would indicate this is not the only UCC filing statement that GREAT-WEST life has filed against it with the Secretary of any state. In Denver Colorado alone there are 46 statements.

 

                  This is a contractual dispute, and the lien that was filed against GREAT-WEST life insurance was in the same form of the mechanic’s lien failure to perform contractual obligation. In regards to whether or not there has been a response please know the following factual information;

 

                  The court requested for documents to be amended in order correct “caption”, each one of the request was responded to in-kind. If a default judgment was requested of this court back in August how is it I have

 

yet to receive such a request copy? And by the way several documents were accepted by the court for filing, one document entitled in part “jury trial request”. It would be interesting to note that that document not only requested it jury trial but listed several allegations against the plaintiffs thereby constituting it a responce, and documents and the counterclaim were re-submitted entitled “Amendment”.

 

                  I do not mind playing the word game; I anticipated the court doing what they’ve done thus far, only because that’s their method of operation, I however planned in advance. So the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment is moot and it is demanded emphatically that the default request be denied as there exsist no proof of un-timeliness.

 

                  My documents conform to rules of court and was submitted timely, so I submit this request to have this matter readdressed 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 August 03, 2006 in the same envelope the counterclaim was submitted, which was not filed even though it contained the original signature on the original document.

 

 

            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?

                             Addendum                           

                        In the uNITED States District Court

                        In and for the State of California

 

Brett

            Respondent,

      vs.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

                       Plaintiff,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case No.: CV-06-2725

Motion

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

& 10th Amendment Demand

 

Verified

Affidavit Of TRUTH

In addition to default judgment

Request by, (addendum), response to

default request PlainTifF and by all adverse

parties. Telephonic

hearing request.

 

                

                  The respondent has been accused of not engaging in the battle, and having failed to respond. And yet the facts showed different,

 

several documents that have been filed with this court, please take special

note of the one demanding for “default judgment, petition for redress demand for jury trial”. Those items were milled on August 01, 2006 you might excuse me, but that appears to be an attempt to engage in the battle. 

 

                     Each of the petitions that were filed with this court and done so timely must be construed as a response. They also contained several points that can be construed as nothing but a response.

 

                      The judge presiding over this matter has a UCC financial one statement filed against him and several other members of his court, any rulings, any judgments, any decisions that has been made, were done so with prejudice and abuse of discretion.

 

                      The plaintiff have requested a date of October 23 for hearing, I’m sorry but that does not fit within my time schedule, I’m requesting any hearing be scheduled at least three months in advance, 3,400mi. you know. If that seems to be an unreasonable request get back with me.

 

                        However if the court refuses to postpone that day because of unfair notice allowing the respondent at least three months advance notice, a telephonic hearing is requested. The number to be reach is area code 518 847-8426

 

                        The plaintiff was given the opportunity to respond to the commercial lien acknowledging that they received the documents and that they willingly failed to respond. And there is no document, court filing, certified mail receipt to show that they did attempt to engage in a battle regarding the charges allege by the respondent in the commercial lien affidavit. And they claim that such a process has been deemed unlawful, please notice the California supreme court ruling listed below as well as the united states supreme court ruling listed below.

 

                     I have already provided the state of California supreme court case law, the united states supreme court case law, the united states constitutional amendment case law, supporting the fact that “a party must be given notice” . . . well I’ll let you read it for yourself:

 

"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

 

A 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. UCC 9-401 (a) (3)

 

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.”

 

                  Now let’s state the obvious, “only the secured party on the UCC financial one statement form can terminate the filing”

 

                  This is a non-judicial process, it was pre-judicial

 

            I’m exercising my constitutional right, this court and the plaintiff must be aware that to date no court rulings listed by the plaintiff ever involved a specific a first amendment petition for redressing the government. I apologize for the lack of understanding; this issue does not require court recognition, for that was never a prerequisite. Because there is no law against the petitioning of the government for redress of grievances this court cannot make law. Congress is the lawmaker, the judicial branch does not make law.

 

                  This as a matter at commerce, the respondent (Brent Jones) has requested a default judgment be entered in his behalf, the plaintiff is part of a conspiracy, and I’m certain that they don’t represent all the parties, and they cannot force the removal of the UCC financial one statement!

 

                  The petitions that were received by the court and stamped received but not filed, demonstrates a response, this court nor the plaintiff can ignore the facts.

 

                  What the court can do is requested resubmital of all the respondents petitions, which it knows it can never dismiss because of lacking in-form (per sparks Vs. the united states), which is common knowledge.

 

                  By the way this court has no other choice, as because of its prejudice, incompetence, and ethical conduct, implications involving a conspiracy, criminal conduct, and other violations of secured constitutional rights; but to send this case to a different judge in a different venue. This matter is nonnegotiable and is being requested, demanded, in accords with court rules of civil and criminal procedure.

 

                 My first amendment complaint and argument is sound and will

stand up to it any judicial scrutiny. For no one can argue the point that every Sovereign citizen of the united states has the secured constitutional right old To petition the government for redress of grievances”; I’m just waiting for someone to make a ruling that this petitioner does not have that secured right.

 

                  And finally let’s clear of this last matter, intimate petitions include the title affidavit of truth, listing the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th annotated Amendments of the united states constitution, and a jury trial has been demanded let us see what a jury of my peers think about this situation?

The respondent has been accused of not engaging in the battle, and having failed to respond. And yet the facts showed different, several documents that have been filed with this court, please take special

note of the one demanding for “default judgment, petition for redress demand for jury trial”. Those items were milled on August 01, 2006 you might excuse me, but that appears to be an attempt to engage in the battle. 

 

                     Each of the petitions that were filed with this court and done so timely must be construed as a response. They also contained several points that can be construed as nothing but a response.

 

                      It has already been brought to this court’s attention that the judge presiding over this matter has a UCC financial one statement filed against him and several other members of his court, any rulings, any judgments, any decisions that has been made will be overturned.

 

                      The plaintiff have requested a date of October 23 for hearing, I’m sorry but that does not fit within my time schedule, I’m requesting any hearing be scheduled at least three months in advance, 3,400mi. you know. If that seems to be an unreasonable request get back with me.

 

 

                        The plaintiff was given the opportunity to respond to the commercial lien acknowledged that they received the documents and that they willingly failed to respond. And there is no document, court filing, certified mail receipt to show that they did attempt to engage in a battle regarding the charges allege by the respondent in the commercial lien

 

affidavit.

 

                     I have already provided the state of California supreme court case law, the united states supreme court case law, the united states constitutional amendment case law, supporting the fact that “a party must be given notice” . . . well I’ll let you read it for yourself:

 

"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

 

A 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. UCC 9-401 (a) (3)

 

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.”

 

                  Now let’s state the obvious, “only the secured party on the UCC financial one statement form can terminate the filing”

 

                  This is a non-judicial process, it was pre-judicial

 

                  Jury trial has been demanded, filed and accepted by the court, and in support of that document I submit the following attachment entitled “proof of Gate-Keeping”, they contain their own attachments and exhibits.

 

            We have an 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 this is my legal right!

 

 

Visit our other sites

 

vodier@netzero.net

 

http://vodier.paradyne.tripod.com/

 

http://vodier0.tripod.com/

 

http://vodier0.tripod.com/                             

 

http://vodier2.tripod.com/  

 

http://vodier3.tripod.com/

 

http://vodier.tripod.com/together
 

http://vodier2.tripod.com/generalphotoalbum 
 

http://vodier.tripod.com/together
 

http://vodier0.tripod.com/thisisit

 

http://vodier3.tripod.com/

 

http://legalies.tripod.com/legal

 

Here at THE LEGAL REDRESS COMMISSION (T.L.R.C.) WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY PERSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

PLEASE BE A RESPONSIBLE ADULT AND DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!