The court has had this one for a year.
What are the results so far?
In the district court for the
United States of America
Amanda M. Simons
Each and every member of the Congress, Judiciary, and Executive of each of the several States and the United States who have held office at any time when the laws pertaining to the Child Protection Agency have been in effect. Each and every family who has fostered, or adopted, a child taken by any Child Protective Agency, and, each and every one of the several States and the Federal Government, along with 10,000 Jane Does and 10,000 John Does, to be named later.
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
THE FRAUD, THE EXTORTION
THE DECEIT, THE KIDNAPPING,
AND THE CONSPIRACY OF PLANNING
AND CONDUCTING SUCH FRAUD,
EXTORTION, DECEIT AND
KIDNAPPING IN AN ONGOING
CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE THAT IS
DESIGNED TO CHEAT THE PUBLIC
AND TO DESTROY THE FAMILIES
OF AMERICA FOR THEIR PERSONAL
PROFIT AND AGRANDIZEMENT
BY DELUDING THE PUBLIC INTO
THINKING THEIR ACTIONS ARE
FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE
OF THIS NATION
Criminal Civil Case No.: 2:05CV576
Demandant complains of Defendants and alleges as follows:
1. I am a free and Sovereign living soul. As such, I claim my unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, as granted by my Creator. I also claim that my children are free and Sovereign living souls who have been given their unalienable rights by their Creator.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – Declaration of Independence
2. I claim that my unalienable right to Life is the right to enjoy the Life I received when my Creator placed my spirit into the earthly body prepared for me by my earthly mother, and thus, I became a living soul.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. – Old Testament | Genesis 2:7
3. I claim that the unalienable right to pursuit of Happiness is the right to enter into and conduct such business or profession as each living soul deems will give them the greatest joy and happiness. I also claim that no living soul, fictitious entity, government, or governmental agency has the right, power, or authority to require, or to dictate, that any living soul must obtain any form of license, charter, franchise, or other permit in order to pursue their chosen business or profession.
We hold these truths to be self-evident – that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement – that all men are endowed – not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but – by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. – that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime – and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these – not grant them, but secure them – governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let (To let is to grant a license, a charter, a franchise, or a contract to a person or group who has made a proposal) or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. -- U. S. Supreme Court 111 U. S. 746
4. I claim my unalienable right to Liberty is the unlimited freedom to enjoy complete and total dominion over my possessions (which includes my children), to determine where my family will live, whom we will associate with, and, in general, over whatever I determines will best effect the safety and happiness of me and my children, so long as I do not violate, or even infringe upon the unalienable rights of others. And, I further claim that no living soul, or any fictitious creation by a living soul, or group of living souls, has any power or authority to violate, or even infringe upon, my unalienable rights, or the unalienable rights of my children. Our unalienable rights were given to us by our Creator and they cannot be infringed upon.
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition, the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, and expression. – Lawrence vs Texas, No. 02-102 (2003) Kennedy, J, (Lead Opinion)
5. I claim the defendants have violated my right to Liberty by attacking the very boundaries of such Liberty. They have demonstrated their hatred of God, by showing that they think God is Stupid. They have deluded themselves into thinking they know more about who is a proper parent than God does. Otherwise, they would not break up the families that God has created.
6. The Defendants have committed blatant acts of extortion:
The Minnesota Defendants forced me to choose between my husband and my daughter Tanya. I was told "If you do not divorce your husband you will never get your daughter back."
The Utah Defendants, Luci Kelly and Ryan Lay, in particular, have both told me: "Unless you do everything I order you to do, I will remove your children from your home."
Under the guise of a legitimate court proceeding my children were removed because the Attorney General's office for the State of Utah claimed, over and over again, that I would not submit to the extortion demanded by the case workers. Why should I, when they are violating my unalienable rights? The court under the direction of Judge Yeates, and with the blessings of the Attorney General for the State of Utah perpetrated this extortion.
There are many other instances, to many to name, where I have been threatened with all types of calamities to be brought on by the State, the case workers, or others of the Defendants, unless I obeyed every whim and fancy they ordered. All of which is extortion.
Federal Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Illinois, has ruled that such actions are not only unconstitutional, they are extortion. She ordered the Illinois Child Protection agency to cease and desist in all such felonious activities.
7. I demand my equal protection under the law. It is my unalienable right that those who use threats to coerce me into actions that are unlawful, unconstitutional, and are an anathema to me, be punished "to the fullest extent of the law." Why are these people not charged with extortion? Why are they not charged with fraud? Why are they not removed from office? They have violated their Oath of Office – they have no immunity. They must be prosecuted.
No law shall be passed granting irrevocably any franchise, privilege or immunity. – Article I - Section 23 – Utah State Constitution
Article VI - Section 26 - Item 16 – Enumeration of private laws forbidden
The Legislature is prohibited from enacting any private or special laws in the following cases:
16. Granting to an individual, association or corporation any privilege, immunity or franchise.
8. The Defendants have committed fraud. They have persecuted me and my children under the "color of law" by using laws that are unconstitutional and have no basis in reality. This, like the extortion, is a felony, and I demand that the Defendants be punished for their actions.
9. In order to perpetrate their fraudulent actions they served me with a summons and a "verified" complaint that was so full of errors it had to be amended in court on several different occasions, and it is still not truthful, but I cannot get the truth entered into the court proceedings – all they are interested in, is the completion of their plan of conspiracy against me and my children.
10. As a direct result of their ongoing criminal actions, each of the Utah Defendants were individually served, on December 7, 2004, by registered mail, return receipt requested, with a TRUTH AFFIDAVIT pursuant to Maritime Rules and Laws. A copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Written response was demanded within 10 days of the date of service. The Truth Affidavit is made a part hereof, and is incorporated as a part of this Complaint, by this reference thereto. This action does not renew the opportunity to reply to the Truth Affidavit.
11. In addition, a Truth Affidavit was served on President Bush as the Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Government. That Truth Affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and is made a part of this Complaint, by reference thereto. Here again, there was no response of any kind to the Truth Affidavit.
12. Every Defendant chose to ignore the Truth Affidavit and so, on December 21, 2004, (fourteen days after service to allow for mailing time) a Notice of Default was served on each named Defendant, by registered mail, return receipt requested, informing them that the time for response had expired and that pursuant to Law, each and every item set forth in the Truth Affidavit was, and is, the verified truth and cannot be challenged.
Failure to contest an assertion . . . is considered evidence of acquiescence . . .if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question. – US Supreme Court - Mitchell v. United States - No. 97-7541 Argued December 9, 1998
13. The statements contained in my Truth Affidavit are such that they have the power to change the entire operation of the government. It is not reasonable to believe that the Truths set forth in the Truth Affidavit are of a nature where they would, or should, be ignored. The only logical explanation for not answering is that there is no answer, and they hoped, that by ignoring the Truth Affidavit, it would simply go away. Ignoring the Truth Affidavit and hoping it will go away was the only chance they had of continuing their ongoing criminal enterprise.
14. It is self evident that the impact of the Truth Affidavit was such that its acceptance would alter, and eliminate, the many unconstitutional functions practiced by the State every day. An answer to the Truth Affidavit would have been more than natural, it was required.
15. The follow facts, as stated in my unanswered Truth Affidavit, point out the corruption of the court actions. Remember, none of these Truths was ever challenged.
FACT 25 - The summons required my appearance in court at 2:00 p.m. on September 10, 2004. I had less than 24 hours to respond to numerous false allegations that were contained in what was called a "VERIFIED PETITION."
FACT 26 - The Verified Petition has been modified on several different occasions until it hardly resembles the original. The State deemed the changes necessary to adjust the obvious errors and outright lies contained in the original Petition.
FACT 27 - The Verified Petition stated that a "proceeding concerning the above-named children is pending in this Court and an adjudication will be made which may include orders affecting your parental rights."
FACT 28 - Even though the Verified Petition contained a host of false information there have been no charges filed against Ryan Lay, who signed the Petition under Oath. And this is in spite of the fact that his false information has torn my family asunder.
16. They have kidnapped my children under the "color or law" and by the use of fraud and extortion. I have been told that the children were sent to Minnesota on the 29th of June 2005. Not only have they removed my children from my home in a direct violation of my unalienable rights, they have now shipped the children across state lines making their actions a Federal Kidnapping Felony.
17. The following statements taken from my unanswered Truth Affidavit clearly express the true situation.
FACT 55 - Codes are not laws. Neither are bills, rules, regulations, or ordinances.
FACT 56 - The Verified Petition contains numerous references to Utah Code. These are not laws. They are rules that have been created by bureaucrats under powers that have been unconstitutionally assigned by the State Legislature. Neither me, nor my children, are subject to such travesties.
FACT 57 - Even if the code was validly enacted by the legislature, I can find no public place where the law is properly published. Publication requires that the title, the enacting clause, and the full body of the law be published. If the law is not properly published then it is of no force or effect, and cannot be enforced.
FACT 58 - No Section of the Organic Constitution of the State of Utah grants any authority to the State of Utah to sanction any of its actions toward me and my children. The very action of invading my Sovereign Realm in order to remove my children is above and beyond the powers and the authority that the Sovereign Citizens are capable of conferring upon the State.
Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. – Frederic Bastiat - The Law
FACT 59 - Each Sovereign Citizen holds total and supreme power in his, or her, realm. No Sovereign Citizen has the right, the power, or the authority to invade, or even infringe upon the Sovereignty of another person.
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do" to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. – Frederic Bastiat - The Law
FACT 60 - Even if a majority of the Sovereign Citizens banded together to grant a power that no one of them held, they cannot grant that power simply because they do not have that power to grant.
FACT 61 - Bouvier's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition - 1856, defines Sovereign as a chief ruler with supreme power; one possessing sovereignty.
FACT 62 - Black's Law Dictionary - 1st Edition - 1891, defines Sovereign as a chief ruler with Supreme Power.
FACT 63 - We the People hold the Supreme Power and all rights attendant thereto. The Declaration of Independence establishes the fact that our rights are held as individuals, not collectively.
When this country achieved its independence the prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the States. And this power still remains with them, except so far as they have delegated a portion of it to the Federal government. – U. S. Supreme Court - Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. 33
18. In an effort to justify their felonious activities, the Defendants claimed that I was mentally incompetent because I suffered from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. There is no such malady.
The Irish Examiner, in a story on Wednesday, January 21, 2004, titled, "Theory puts ‘5,000' in care," had this to say about Muchausen's Syndrome by Proxy and Professor Meadow who created the Syndrome.
"It is estimated that 5,000 British children may have been taken into care over the past 15 years as a result of Professor Meadow's theory of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. The theory that some mothers harm their children to draw attention to themselves has been largely discredited as a result of a series of high-profile court cases.
• Prof Meadow's theory has been discredited as a result of three cases in which he gave evidence of women who were wrongly accused of killing their children.
• Prof Meadow is now facing an inquiry by the General Medical Council into allegations of serious professional misconduct.
• The attorney general Lord Goldsmith is now examining a further 250 criminal cases involving Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy to see if more mothers may have been wrongly convicted."
19. The favorite malady Utah DCFS uses to take away children has been discredited and the Doctor that created the problem is losing his license. But they don't care, because it's not about the children, it's about money.
20. The State of Minnesota had a social worker, Diane Bye, evaluate me for Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. She didn't even claim to be a trained Psychiatrist. Her title was simply "Clinical Social Worker." I spent all of 30 minutes with her on the one occasion that we were together. The circumstances surrounding that meeting was when I had my daughter in the Emergency Ward of the local hospital being taken care of for an injury, and we talked, but I was never informed it was to be considered as an evaluation of any kind. Later, when Minnesota needed a report to support its unlawful activities they created one from this meeting.
21. The State of Utah hired Dr. Katherine Kair to evaluate me. Again, we were together for a total of about 30 minutes, most of which time she was in the restroom suffering from "Morning Sickness." When her report was given to the State it used the same wording, with the same misspelled words, as the Minnesota report. Dr. Kair may have a degree, but she is a quack. When you check her business web site she claims to be a marriage counselor. When you search the internet for more information about her you find her listed with a group that practices "new age" mumbo-jumbo. They are into Mysticism, and other way out practices.
22. In retrospect I may be too harsh on Dr. Kair. Her mysticism may work. In her report she claimed to have talked to my father about me. He died in 1992, before my children were even born. I repeat myself. Dr. Kair is a certified quack.
23. In an effort to obtain my own psychological evaluation I visited two different psychiatrists.
24. Dr. Goodhue, who was recommended by the director of the Mental Health Program at the University of Utah Hospital, told me that it would take months of evaluation to prepare a report that purported to give the analysis the Minnesota report claimed. After several visits I was told that there was nothing that would lead the doctor into believing that a detail report would show any problems. This report was sent to Minnesota and was a major part of the reason the Minnesota charges were dismissed. This report did not come to Utah as part of the information sent by Minnesota. Minnesota did not send this report as they knew it would destroy Utah's ability to persecute me and my children.
25. I also went to the Preferred Family Clinic in Provo, Utah for a report. I was told the same thing, it would take months to get an complete analysis. I was given a written psychological profile test that did not show any problems and did not justify further visits.
26. I now have two independent statements that both say it is not possible for the Minnesota Case Worker, or Dr. Kair to make a truthful evaluation in the short time I was with them.
27. At the trial, Dr. Kair testified that she was an expert witness, she said she had written several hundred reports for DCFS. This strengthens my contention that the State of Utah, like the State of Minnesota, has found someone who will create phony reports for them, and is using her over and over again to achieve the culmination of their unlawful conspiracy, and to further their ongoing criminal activities.
28. As soon as the children had been kidnapped they were taken to foster care providers. These people are nothing more than "color of law" fences for stolen goods. Receiving stolen goods is a felony. The fact that a child is "legally" adopted does not change the fact that the adoptive parents have received stolen property. Again, I demand equal protection under the law. My child is far more valuable than a stolen car, or a stereo, and I demand and expect the receiver of stolen children to be prosecuted and punished accordingly.
Pursuant to the definitions in Bouvier's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition - 1853 - the definition of "lawful" is something that is in accordance with the law. The term "legal" is something that is done by a court – which may or may not be lawful.
29. The above definitions explain why we have a legal system instead of a lawful system. It explains why we are persecuted by "color of law" rulings. They appear to be lawful, but have not basis in law, their claim to being legal is because they are enforced by the courts. This is why the compilation of rules, regulations, and other color of law documents are referred to as Codes. What is a code? It is secret writing that only those who have been given the key can understand. I demand that all documents be written in common everyday language, and be interpreted in that same way. For the purposes herein, I specifically refute and will not recognize any private interpretation of any word, or words. What is said must be in common everyday language for all to see and understand.
30. The Defendants have conducted their actions in a carefully planned and well executed conspiracy to defraud, extort, and kidnap children for money.
An article in the Charlotte World by Angie Vineyard, shows that DCFS receives $4,000 for every child they place in their system. They get even more money if the child can be shown to be Special Needs. Trazadone qualifies both Simons children for special needs and the increase in funding.
An investigation by The LA Daily News found that up to half of the 75,000 children in the California system and adoptive homes were needlessly placed in a system that is often more dangerous than their own homes because of financial incentives in state and federal laws. These laws, according to state documents, encourage counties and their private contractors to earn money by placing and keeping children in foster care. The county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues annually for each child placed.
In Massachusetts, Anderson Consulting and other Public Consulting Groups have been hired to "maximize federal revenue". The companies have brought the state an additional $90 million a year. That's 90 million tax dollars awarded for pulling children out of one home and placing them with another. Massachusetts, like Utah and Minnesota, and probably every other State, is financing its government activities through unlawful acts of extortion, fraud, kidnapping and conspiracy to deceive the public. They are all hiding their unlawful activities under unconstitutional "color of law" code.
31 This law suit is only one of many. The people are beginning to wake up. The several governments have persecuted, and prosecuted, so many families that they are beginning to fight back. The real problem is, there isn't enough money in the world to give proper redress to the families who have been damaged. Unless this problem is properly addressed now – it is shut down now – and all of the children who have ever been removed from a home are returned immediately – this problem has the potential of bringing down the entire corrupt federal and state government system. There are millions of people – mothers, fathers, grand mothers, grand fathers, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, and the children themselves, as well as all of the friends and neighbors of those families – who have suffered.
To date, the city of Wenatchee, in the state of Washington, and Chelan and Douglas counties have either agreed to or been ordered to pay plaintiffs at least $10 million. This year, at least $1.21 million has been paid to settle lawsuits. Though settlements have been reached, about two dozen people are still seeking damages from the government agencies, public defenders and other entities and individuals. Attorneys expect more suits as children who were interrogated and removed from their parents during the probe file their own claims. At least 14 children have already sued.
32 While it is true that the government averages about $100 thousand for each child they remove, it is also true that it adversely impacts at least 20 people. These people are now learning that the actions of the government are unlawful, unconstitutional, and criminal in nature. As the word spreads, more and more friends and neighbors, people who are not directly impacted, will side with the damaged families until the uproar cannot be stopped.
33 Whoever it was that decided that removing children from homes and collecting money for them was a great way to finance things, made a major tactical error. Most people do not get so passionate about money that they are ready to tear things apart. Most people do not get so passionate about their personal belongings that they are ready to tear things apart. But – the error is that they have gotten in between a mother and her children. It does not matter what has to be done, how it is done, or who has to suffer, mothers will, by their very nature, fight for their children, and the husband will be right at her side. And make no mistake, mother includes grandmother, and father includes grandfather.
34 It is common knowledge that governments get their authority from the people. Since no person, anywhere on earth, has the inherent right to take away someone's children – there is no possible scenario under which the people have been able to grant any government the power, or the authority, to take away someone's children. Just where do the governments think they get the right to destroy families? Certainly not from the Citizens, because the Citizens cannot grant that power. When Governments destroy families – they are doing the work of Satan.
FACT 77 - A Constitution is the binding laws set forth by the Citizens of a nation to secure their God given unalienable rights. These binding laws are set forth in the form of mandates from the Sovereigns holding supreme power to command that the people who will staff the offices being created do and perform exactly as they have been mandated to do. There are another set of binding laws in the Constitution that are prohibitions set forth to prohibit the people who will staff the offices being created from doing or performing any act or action not mandated by the Sovereigns holding supreme power.
FACT 78 - Since a Constitution defines the laws to control the actions of the people who will staff the offices being created, it may be considered to be the cage that the Sovereign People have built to protect themselves from the monster they are creating.
35 Because their actions are not only unconstitutional, but are a blatant violation of their Oath of Office, everyone who has participated in these actions is subject to immediate dismissal and to redress for the grievous wrongs they have perpetrated – they are subject to prosecution for their actions. They subscribed to an Oath of Office, which they voluntarily entered into. That Oath of Office is a binding contract between them and their employers – the People. They have violated their Oath of Office and have no immunity.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. – Article 1 - Bill of Rights - 1st Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America
36. When the case first started I raised the question of "Subject Matter Jurisdiction." My claim was that the very laws that were being used against me and my children were unconstitutional because no living soul has the power or authority to grant any government the right to enact laws that destroy families.
37. The judge, on two different occasions, flippantly replied "I assure you I have the authority to prosecute this case." That isn't even close to the claim I was making. I never challenged the judge's right to preside in that courtroom. I challenged the constitutionality of the Code that was being used. No valid effort was ever made to properly address my challenge of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
38. When I finally did get a written response to my Subject Matter Jurisdiction challenge, it came from the office of the Attorney General for the State of Utah and merely quoted the Code that I claimed was unconstitutional.
No explanation was even attempted to provide any proof that the law was passed in accordance with proper authority granted by the Constitution for the State of Utah.
No effort was made to show that the Code was enacted by the Legislature.
No effort was made to cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that granted the right to enact such law, if in fact it was ever properly enacted.
No effort was made to refute my allegation that the People didn't even have the authority to grant the State the powers it was using.
The response was totally lacking in merit, and was not even worthy of being considered to be a reply. When I challenged the validity of the response, and told the judge that anyone could write those words on a piece of paper, I told him that my challenge concerned the authority of the people who wrote the words. Did the authors follow proper Constitutional procedure to enact a law, and did they have the proper authority to do so, and to thereby make the law enforceable. I was simply told I needed to hire an attorney to help me.
When life and liberty are in question, there must in every instance be judicial proceedings, and that requirement implies an accusation, a hearing before an impartial tribunal, with proper jurisdiction, and a conviction and judgment before the punishment can be inflicted – T. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law 224 (1880)
39. When the judge went ahead with the court proceedings I filed an appeal that restated my claim that the Utah Code being cited was unconstitutional because the Legislature was never granted the power to enact laws that would destroy families.
40. The response to my appeal came from the Guardian at Litem. He is the Attorney appointed by the State to represent my children, what business was it of his to respond to my appeal over the decision by the judge? Because he represented the children he was not named in any of the filings that I made, which I now know was a mistake on my part. I should have named him in every filing, and he is so included herein.
41. Even so, his reply, like the reply from the Attorney General's office, failed to address the subject matter of the appeal. He simply stated that a final decision had not been rendered by the judge and so the appeal was out of order. I hold that when the judge proceeded with the case over my Subject Matter Jurisdiction challenge that he had made a final decision concerning the Subject Matter Jurisdiction and had done so in a very high handed and flippant manner, so I appealed.
42. The Appeals Court quickly adopted the statement from the Guardian at Litem and ruled that a final decision had not been rendered by the judge. The judge, and the other Defendants then blissfully proceeded to continue with their planned conspiracy to remove my children.
43. I firmly claim they are using Code that have no true basis in fact or authority. They are claiming powers that cannot be, and has not been, granted to the State, or to the Federal Government, by the People. The various judges have miserably failed to properly watch over my Due Process rights, as guaranteed by the Common Laws and the Constitutions of this State and this Nation.
The gist of the Due Process Clause, as understood at the founding and since, was to force the Government to follow those common law procedures traditionally deemed necessary before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. – Hamadi vs Rumsfield, No. 03-6696 (2004) Scalia, J. (Dissenting)
44. As stated in the last cite – this country was founded on the principles of Common Law. It was formed as a Republic that recognized God as the supreme power behind the nation, and required the Federal Government to insure a Republican form of government to each State.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. – Article IV, Section 4 – the Constitution for the United States of America
45. The following statements from my Truth Affidavit set forth the true relationship between God, the People, and the several Governments. This relationship was established in the Garden of Eden. It was given to Abraham when he first entered the Promised Land. It was written by the finger of God and given to Moses while atop Mount Sinai. And, Jesus Christ himself, established the relationship once more when he dwelt among men. This is God's Law and cannot be violated by any law from the minds of men. This is the law that was established for this nation when the Founding Father risked their lives to give their Posterity the Freedom and Liberty they fought a war to obtain. Now – corrupt politicians and judges are trying to destroy the very basis on which this nation was established, and they are doing so for their own personal aggrandizement and power – all to the detriment of the people.
FACT 88 - Being subject to God's Laws is not a two-way street. We have no power, or authority, over God. When God granted us our Sovereignty it was over this earth. He granted us no powers or authority in His Heavenly Kingdom. A person who is Sovereign is only Sovereign within his own Realm.
FACT 89 - Even though we may be upset because we didn't get as much money, or good looks, as our neighbor, and, even though we may feel that we have been damaged, we cannot bring suit because God has not violated any agreement with us, because there is no Contract with us concerning our creation.
FACT 90 - God created us and placed us on this earth. He gave us our agency to choose, and told us, that if we choose properly we would inherit His kingdom. But that is only after we have proven ourselves to be faithful in obeying His wishes.
FACT 91 - We are subject to God's laws because of our relationship to God. He rules over us because he is our Creator.
FACT 92 - God's Laws are supreme. If any of Man's Laws conflict with the Laws of God, then Man's Laws are null and void, and of no force or effect. The higher law always prevails. We do not have to obey any Laws that are in conflict with the Laws of God.
FACT 93 - When we have children they are subject to our rules because we are the parents. They do not have to obey us because we are bigger, or stronger, or smarter, they have to obey us because we created them. Just as when God created us, there is no contract between us and our children. The contract concerning the children is between God and us. Our children have no authority over us.
FACT 94 - God allowed us to have His Children because we agreed to raise them in His ways.
NOW these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it: That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. – Old Testament - Deuteronomy 6:1 - 9
And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents. For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized. And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands. And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord. – Doctrine and Covenants - Section 68:25 - 28
FACT 95 - The contract between us and our God concerning our raising of His children does not provide for any Third Party interference. If we do not raise the Children properly then the sin is on our head. If some Third Party interferes with our ability to comply with our side of the Agreement with God, then the sin must, and will, fall upon the head of the Third Party. God's Laws are supreme.
FACT 96 - Our children are subject to our rules because of their relationship to us. They must obey us because we, with the permission and power of God, created them. We do not have any authority over someone else's kids. We did not create them and they, therefore, have no obligation or duty to obey us.
FACT 97 - We may, or may not be subject to the Laws of Man. Our situation depends on the authority of the person, or persons, who created the Laws. If we live in one of the united States and we never visit France, we are never subject to the Laws of France, no matter how good, or bad, they may be.
FACT 98 - Even though we may live in one of the united States, if we never visit any other State we will never be subject to the Laws of that State. We are only subject to the Laws that apply to us, and that have been created by a person, or persons, who have the proper authority to create such Laws.
FACT 99 - A general in the U. S. Army has supreme authority over a colonel, a sergeant, or a buck private. Not because he created them, but because they have all entered into a contract that grants the general this authority. In this case the lawful relationship is through contract, but it is still just as binding, and the buck private cannot order the general to do things. Nor, can he sue the general unless he is damaged because of the actions of the general that are outside the authority granted by the contract. By the same token, the general has no power or authority to command a buck private in the German army. There is no lawful relationship since no contract exists.
FACT 100 - When you work for someone, you have entered into a contract – it may not be written, but it is still a binding contract because he expects you to provide your services in a manner that he has prescribed, and you expect to be paid. The contract grants your employer the power to prescribe rules and regulations that you must obey. If you violate those rules your employer has the right to terminate your contract. You cannot order your employer to do things, nor can you sue your employer unless he has violated the terms of your contract in such a way as to bring harm or damage to you. The contract creates the lawful relationship between you and your employer, and each side must abide by its terms and conditions. Which means you must perform in such manner as your employer tells you so that he is compelled to pay for your services.
FACT 101 - A king is the sovereign of his realm, and as such has supreme power in the land. The king may even have power over life and death of his subjects. When the king issues a mandate his subjects are required to obey. If they do not then they may suffer the wrath of the king. The lawful relationship between the king and his subjects is that the subjects must obey the king, and in return, the king provides protection for the kingdom. Should the king travel to a different land, outside of his realm, then he is just another Joe on the street. He has no sovereignty. He has no power or authority, and no one has any obligation to obey him because they have no lawful relationship to him.
FACT 102 - True and lawful authority is not derived from force or power. It does not come from wealth or knowledge. It comes from the lawful relationship between the parties.
FACT 103 - When laws exist because of force then you have a despotic form of government. It is tyranny, and is not lawfully enforceable, but the fear that comes from the use of force compels the subjects into slavery.
FACT 104 - In the case of our Federal and State Constitutions. Like God, we are the Creators. We hold and control the Supreme Power. Just as in our relationship with God, there is no contract. And, just like our situation with God, our creation has no power or authority over us.
FACT 105 - When we created the Constitution We the People issued absolute mandates to our public servants, the officers that would staff our creation. This amounted to a Writ of Mandamus commanding them to do exactly as they were told.
The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. – Article I, Section 26, Utah State Constitution
Mandate: An order by a Sovereign to his subjects.
There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States. By their authority the State Constitutions were made, and by their authority the Constitution of the United States was established; – U. S. Supreme Court - Hauenstein vs Lynham (100 US 483)
FACT 106 - We the People also issued a Writ of Prohibition to our public servants that was designed to prohibit them from performing actions that were not specifically set forth in the Constitution.
FACT 107 - There is no contract between the Sovereign Citizens and the Constitution, We the People cannot violate the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. We the People cannot violate the conditions of an agreement that does not exist.
FACT 108 - The contract that exists concerning the Constitutions that We the People created is by and between the Sovereign Citizens and the public servants. The Oath of Office, subscribed to by each public servant, is a written contract that they will defend and uphold the Constitution that We the People created.
FACT 109 - We the People made no provisions that bound us to any performance within the language of either the State or Federal Constitutions. The Oath of Office is therefore, a one-sided obligation to perform. The obligation to perform is all on the side of the Constitutional officers.
FACT 110 - There are not, nor can there ever be, any circumstances under which the Constitutional Offices that we created through the Constitution, can have, or can exercise, any power to bring any law suit, or action at law, against any Sovereign Citizen.
FACT 111 - Using our God granted Sovereignty we created a form of government that seemed best to us to effect our safety and happiness by creating a government that must serve our every command, and has no power to interfere with or bother our daily lives.
FACT 112 - The proof of these statements is found in 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 Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
FACT 113 - The system of laws that each Sovereign Citizen has agreed to be subject to is the Common Laws. Only by a Sovereign specifically agreeing to be subject to a law, bill, regulation, code, or ordinance will the Sovereign be subject to that law, bill, regulation, code, or ordinance.
FACT 114 - This is why the system of Common Laws is not detailed in either the Federal or State Constitutions. The Sovereign People retained all rights to Common Law and in doing so granted no rights to the Federal or State entities.
There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or 'general,' be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. – Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
FACT 115 - What I have said is absolutely true. We the People have the power, the authority, the right, the obligation, and the duty, to ABOLISH our present government if We determine it does not meet our needs, and to institute a new government in such a way as to effect our Safety and Happiness. Only when We are the absolute master over something do we have the power to absolutely destroy or abolish it.
46. We, the People, of this great nation still hold all of the rights to practice the principles of Common Law, however, wherever, and whenever we determine it necessary in order to protect ourselves from the governments that were created, supposedly for the sole purpose of securing our unalienable rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed – Declaration of Independence
47. In my ongoing efforts to get a valid response to my Subject Matter Jurisdiction challenge I caused a Summons and Complaint from the Superior Common Law Court of the Nevada Republic to be served on the Defendants by a duly appointed Constable.
48. Again, the documents were merely ignored.
49. On the 13th day of March, 2005, I present the facts concerning this matter to the Superior Common Law Court of the Nevada Republic. When the failure to respond was noted, the court found as follows:
Therefore, the court determines the following to be the truth in all matters concerned herewith.
Even though this action is primarily against the Federal Government and the State of Utah, because of the fact that a Truth Affidavit was served on the President of the United States and no answer was received, and that later a SUMMONS and COMPLAINT were served on the President of the United States, and still no answer was received, this court has determined that its ORDER will be directed to the Federal Government and to each and every one of the Several States since they consider the Constitution for the United States of America to be the valid law of the land.
That the Defendants, through bogus Statutes and Codes purporting to "Protect the Children", have committed kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping, in an ongoing criminal enterprise, by performing acts that are above and beyond any such powers that can lawfully be granted to either the Federal Government and/or to any State Government by the Sovereign Citizens.
That the Defendants are committing fraud by representing that they have the power and the authority to perform these acts, even though they have admitted, through their failure to respond to the Truth Affidavits, that neither the Constitution for any of the several States, nor the Constitution for the United States of America, can possibly grant any such authority because We the People do not hold such powers and therefore cannot grant such powers to any government.
That all Truth Affidavits were properly served by registered United States Mail, return receipt requested, or by hand delivery, or, in the case of George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, it was served by e-mail with the auto-respond acknowledging the receipt of the said e-mail. Each and every one of the FACTS contained within the Truth Affidavits are hereby established as un-refutable truths by this court.
That the Defendants have wilfully, and repeatedly, violated their several Oaths of Office, as required by the various Constitutions. and as administered to the President of the United States by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
The Defendants are either totally ignorant of the fact that they are Officers of the several State republics, or of the Federal republic. Whether they are ignoring that fact in order to gain personal profit, special privileges, honors, or aggrandizement above and beyond those available to the other Sovereign Citizens and in direct confrontation to the equality of all men declared in the Declaration of Independence, and as set forth in the Constitution for the United States of America is immaterial. They are hereby ordered to cease and desist in all actions, activities, and functions that are outside the boundaries established in their particular Constitution.
Pursuant to the True 13th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, any person who claims a title of nobility, or honors (privileges) automatically loses their Citizenship and has no right to serve in any office of the Federal or State Government. These Documents have already been adjudicated by the Common Law Jury and cannot be reviewed by any court in the land. We, the justices of the Superior Common Law Court of the Nevada republic are aware of the fact that most people are not aware of this Amendment as it has been unlawfully hidden for many years, do hereby order that each Attorney publish in their local paper a statement that says they have abandoned the use of the Title of Nobility, Esquire, and have no allegiance to any Government other that the republic that they pledge their allegiance to. The Attorneys shall have one year from the date hereof to so publish or they shall be stripped of their Citizenship in accordance with the provisions of the true 13th Amendment.
The Defendants have participated in the creation and enforcement of laws that are above and beyond the powers and authority granted by the Sovereign Citizens when the several Constitutions were created. In doing so they have created an atmosphere of fear and distrust of all Governments within the United States of America. Again, we order that all unconstitutional actions cease immediately.
Even though it is a basic fact that a person, or even a group of people, cannot grant something they do not have. The Defendants have persisted in performing actions that exceed what power and authority the People are able to grant. No Sovereign Citizen has the right, or the power, to infringe upon the Sovereignty of another Sovereign Citizen. Even if all of the Citizens of the republic were to vote to grant a right they do not have, they cannot grant that right because not one single person has it. No person has the right to enter into a home and remove the children, or anything else owned or controlled by a Sovereign Citizen. The simple rule is that if a private citizen, or a group of citizens, do not have the right to do something, then the government cannot be granted the right to do that same something.
The Defendants, through their unconstitutional actions, are participating in the persecution of the people by enforcing, and attempting to pass off and enforce as valid laws, bills, regulations, codes, executive orders, and other "color of law" documents that have no validity under the Constitution for the United States of America or the Constitution for the several States, and are in fact, in direct violation of the unalienable rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence. We hereby order that only laws that have been properly passed by the Legislature in compliance with the provisions set forth in the various Constitutions must be obeyed by the Sovereign Citizens, and even then, only if the legislature has the requisite power and authority under the provisions of the Constitutional Law establish by We, the People, in the various Constitutions.
We reiterate the fact that there is a clear separation between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Governments. All attempts by any branch to infringe upon the powers granted to another branch will be held as unconstitutional, and of no force or effect.
We fully understand and expect that the Defendants will either try to ignore this Default Judgment and Order of Restitution because it comes from a Common Law Court, or they will attack the validity of the Court because they know and understand that if the Common Law Courts exist, then the people really do control the actions and activities of the government employees. Since the Common Law Courts really do exist the honors and privileges claimed by the attorneys cannot exist because the attorneys have no standing before a Common Law Court. Since the Common Law Courts really do exist the judges cannot legislate from the bench because their decisions can, and will be, overturned by the Common Law Courts. Since the Common Law Courts really do exist the bureaucrats cannot build their empires because their powers and authority are restricted.
The Truth Affidavits show conclusively that We the People retained all rights to the Common Law, and to the Common Law Courts, in order to maintain absolute control over the actions and activities of the government employees.
We are appalled at the blatant abuse of the children of Amanda Marie; Simons by the State of Utah. The mere thought that a 4 year old would be drugged with adult medicine is beyond comprehension. Therefore, the Demandants are hereby awarded a summary judgement, with prejudice, in the sum of TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ($200,000,000.00) for each child as damages, punitive damages, heart-ache, and alienation of affection, collection costs, pre-judgment interest, court costs, actual costs of collection as provided by the court.
This Court orders the immediate return of the two children to their mother.
Demandants are granted a permanent Writ of Prohibition that precludes the Federal Government or the Government of any of the several States, or any of their representatives from taking any action against the Demandants, or any of their family or friends.
This court hereby issues a Writ of Mandamus ordering the several States, and the Federal Government, to cease and desist from any and all actions that are outside the mandates and prohibitions established by the People in the various Constitutions.
This court further rules that Sovereign Citizens in each community across America have the unalienable right to monitor the actions and activities of the various officers of the Federal Government and of the several State Governments by entering into any and all meetings, sessions, and work places established by such Government, in order to assure the People of America that all actions and activities of our Public Employees are within the bounds established by us in the Constitutions for the several States and the Constitution for the United States of America.
We further rule that there can be no immunity from prosecution for acts done outside the provisions of the Constitution. It is not possible for an employee to tell the boss that he has no authority to reprimand, or fire, him when he has violated the rules set down by the employer. Any Public Servant who has violated the terms and conditions of his Oath of Office is subject to immediate dismissal. If the Public Servant feels he has been wronged then he, like any other Citizen, may bring his complaint to this Court for presentation of the facts.
50. The ruling by the Superior Common Law Court for the Nevada Republic was totally ignored by all parties. The ruling was reached by a unanimous vote of twelve jurors in full compliance with the Common Laws of this nation. Ignoring this ruling is a direct violation of Article 7 of the Bill of Rights and constitutes Treason against the People of the United States.
51. I have proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the Defendants are conducting an ongoing criminal conspiracy to commit fraud, kidnapping, extortion, and deceit in a direct violation of their Oath of Office.
52. I claim that I am not alone in suffering from this persecution and prosecution at the hands of the Defendants. I know of many others who are suffering in the same manner. This is why I can claim their actions to be an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
53. Demandant hereby invites other like minded free and Sovereign living souls who have been persecuted, or prosecuted, by one or more of the several government agencies listed herein, to join with her and her children in this mandate and will amend this filing as necessary in order to include such free and Sovereign individuals.
54. I demand that not only my children be returned forthwith, but that the children taken from any family in this nation by any child protective service be returned forthwith – even though they may have been adopted to others.
55. I demand that the abuser of a child be punished for his, or her, actions, not the child. The child did nothing wrong and does not need the further abuse of being ripped away from the members of his loving family, his toys, his friends, his bed, and his familiar surroundings.
56. I demand that I receive from the government the award for damages that were awarded by the Superior Common Law Court of the Nevada Republic, namely, $200 million for each child, and I add to that amount a sum of triple punitive damages for the additional pain and suffering caused by the high handed arrogance of the Defendants in ignoring my claims and the order from the Superior Common Law Court of the Nevada Republic. Thus the sum become $800 million for each child.
57. I demand that the same sum of money, on the same basis, be given to each and every family where children have been removed from the home. In the case where children have been adopted to others then the sum shall be increased to $2.4 billion for each child so adopted.
58. I demand that this court order all unconstitutional actions, programs, and activities of the Federal and State Governments be immediately terminated.
59. I demand that this court issue such order as is necessary to inform the general public of the validity of the Common Laws behind this country and order all politicians, judges, media, and other to refrain from denying the existence of Common Law Courts.
60. I demand that this court issue such order as is necessary to inform the general public of the validity of the several statements made by me herein that the truth may finally be established concerning the fact that this nation is a Republic, and that each of the several States are also Republics. We are not a Democracy.
FACT 10 - We have not pledged our allegiance to the Democracy, or to the Oligarchy. We have pledged our allegiance to the Republic.
Republic: A form of government where God's law is supreme and the people are free to pursue and to enjoy their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Each Citizen retains their own Sovereignty and has control over his personal environment. The Sovereign Citizens are subject to God's Laws, primarily the Ten Commandments, the "Golden Rule," and especially, Love thy Enemy.
Democracy: A form of government where the majority rules. This type of system is fraught with the ever present potential that the majority will make slaves of the minority, or, that power hungry men and women will subvert the system for their own benefit. God is outlawed, and God's laws are totally disregarded. Eventually the majority attempts to install themselves as the god of the nation. Today, in our court rooms in every State, the attorneys "PRAY" to the judge for the orders they seek.
Oligarchy: A form of government where a select group of individuals have gained control over the actions and activities of the government and have placed themselves, and their cohorts, above the law, by claiming immunity from redress for themselves and their associates.
61. The demands set forth by me, and by all others who elect to join with me in this suit, are to be construed as Mandates, i.e., a Writ of Mandamus, from the Sovereign Citizens of this nation to their public servants.
62. This is not a request for an order supporting this matter, this is an order from the Citizens of this Nation demanding our Republic be returned, the several governments get back inside their cages (the Constitutions), and the oppression, persecution, and prosecution by the several governments against their own citizens be terminated immediately.
63. We fully understand that the judges don't want this because it curtails their ability to legislate from the bench. The politicians don't want this because it eliminates their ability to create pork barrel projects and buy votes from unsuspecting citizens. The bureaucrats don't want this because it eliminates their ability to create empires to enhance their power and increase their aggrandizement.
Executed this 5th day of July, 2005
Amanda Marie Simons