Notice to Clerk of Court and Public Memorial

To the Clerk of Court and to all parties with an interest herein:

This Notice and Public Memorial is entered into the record to preserve objections and to give formal notice of the following facts and constitutional issues.

I. OPERATING IN DISHONOR AND FAILURE TO UPHOLD CONSTITUTIONAL OATH

It is hereby noticed that the presiding judicial officer, Judge Mary S. Scriven is operating in dishonor by failing to uphold their constitutional oath of office. An oath to support and defend the Constitution is not ceremonial; it is a binding fiduciary obligation owed to the People.

Absent proof of a valid oath of office and any required bond, the presiding officer has failed to demonstrate lawful authority to issue orders affecting my rights.

II. MISCHARACTERIZATION OF A WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

It is further noticed that the Court has mischaracterized my Writ of Quo Warranto as a “request” rather than a demand for proof of authority.

As one of We the People, I possess the fundamental right to petition the government for redress of grievances. A writ of quo warranto is a lawful mechanism by which the People may demand that an officer show by what authority they act.

This right is not extinguished by status, title, or office, nor may it be redefined by judicial mislabeling.

Federal agents and officers do not enjoy immunity when violating constitutionally protected rights. See:
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

III. IMPROPER USE OF LEGAL DEFINITIONS TO EXTEND JURISDICTION

It is noticed that the Court is employing legalistic definitions and presumptions to imply that certain statutory terms apply to me as a natural person without proof of jurisdiction or lawful authority.

We the People retain the power to demand by what authority orders are issued—particularly where the Court has failed to produce the oath of office and bond that were specifically demanded as part of the fiduciary appointment.

Attempts to divert attention from this demand do not cure the absence of authority.

IV. SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

It is well settled that any law, rule, or act repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.
See:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).

No court may lawfully proceed in contradiction to the Constitution it is sworn to uphold.

V. PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS

All rights are expressly reserved. No waiver is intended, nor shall any silence be construed as acquiescence or consent.

This Notice is entered into the public record to memorialize these objections and to place all parties on notice.