God-Given Rights Logo small
Declaration of Independence
Constitution for the u. S.
Bill of Rights
Presumptive Letter
Constitutional Challenges
Due Process of Law
Article III Jurisdiction
Titles of Nobility
Certification of Charges
Request for Admissions
Third Party Debt Collection
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.
Success Stories
Larken Rose
JUDGE :David-Wynn: Miller
Mary Elizabeth Croft
John David Van Hove
Jack & Margy Flynn Maui 2012
Jack & Margy Flynn Sacramento
Robert-Arthur Menard Seminar
Max Igan Explains Law as Trust
Law Logic & Commerce
Background Videos

Website back-up 2011-9-3
right-click to download

God-Given Rights

Constitution & Bill of Rights

Supreme Law of the Land

Constitutional Challenges To Courts, Government, and Opponents

By Notices, Motions, and Pleadings

People's challenge to unconstitutional, unlawful, and unauthorized government, court and opponents' actions by using the following Constitutional based procedures, more specifically outlined in the case Metris v. Edwards.  Challenges are done in three different successive methods, as listed below...

Government, the courts and corporate America, by their own proven, established and demonstrated actions do not serve the interests of the People or Constitutional requirements, but only themselves, and for their own best interests, done at the vast expense of the People.  Oaths mean little, if anything to public officers, who perjure those oaths at will.  Our enemies will not abide by Constitutional and lawful requirements until We, The People, so require.

As Constitutionalists, we do not consider Constitutional oaths taken by public servants to be formalities, but a sacred bond given in exchange for the Public Trust. We fully expect and require that all oaths taken by public servants to the federal and state Constitutions be abided by those public servants in their performances of their official duties.  The challenges are intended for this purpose, and for the Rights of the American People to be upheld by those governments and those courts sworn and bound to serve the People. The methods follow:

Challenges to Opponents, such as Corporate America

  1. Presumptive Letters
  2. Affidavit of Truth
  3. Pleadings, Notices, and Motions
  4. Requests For Admissions
Challenges to Governments and Courts
  1. Established Motions:
    1. Motion For Trial By Jury
    2. Challenge of Jurisdiction
    3. Motion To Dismiss
    4. Motion For Summary Judgment
    5. Judicial Notice

  2. Motions for Judge:
    1. Motion to Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights
    2. Motion to Require Judge to Read All Pleadings

Direct Challenges in Court

As stated in the previous section, we are Constitutionalists and require all public servants, including judges, to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties, including those before the court. This protects the American Citizens from government and court abuse, if enforced. The previous challenges are intended to stop any action before it gets to court. Those listed below are intended to be stated or asked by the defendant in court prior to the start of proceedings. They require "yes" or "no" responses; and you must hold the judge, only, to these answers. If you allow him to evade and avoid answering as such, then you, yourself, allow the judge to damage you, your lawful positions and the Powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to you. As you can see, either a "yes" or "no" answer serves your interests, if you understand the implications.

For the sake of convenience, we shall assume the position as defendant. Please remember that all public servants serve under limited, delegated authority from the Constitution, by and through the People, for the best interests of the People. The American People must gain courage, en masse, and stand up to and challenge all forms of government, especially the courts, which are supposed to be the last bastion of justice. Since the Constitution cannot conflict with itself, the limited powers delegated to government by the Constitution can never supercede the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to The American People. "Authority" is an extremely important word and concept. Nothing lawful can be conducted by government and the courts without Constitutional authority, and government has no authority to disparage your Rights. Keep "authority" in mind as you review the following statements and questions.


These statements and questions can be directed to the judge, for himself, the prosecuting attorney and state witnesses, such as police, etc., and to each one, individually. Not all of these need be made, so state those with which you are most comfortable. If both you and your opposition, including the judge, fully understand the very serious, lawful positions and Constitutional implications of the statements and questions, usually, only the first one is needed for Constitutional justice to be served.

When the judge asks if the parties are ready to proceed, we say, "No, not just yet, sir (or madam), I have a few matters I need to clarify before we begin."

  1. Then we make the statements we think most appropriate:
    1. You and the prosecutor have taken Oaths of Office to support and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America and that of this state. Is that correct?
    2. Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those oaths, in the performance of your official duties, including those before this Honorable Court. Is that correct?

    NOTE: If the judge, or the prosecuting attorney or other state witnesses say "no", then, obviously, they must be disqualified and/or removed from the bench, position or impeached as witnesses, along with their testimonies, for obvious reasons. This answer is evidence that the one who answered "no" will not abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties, therefore, by his own answer, his oath is meaningless to him. He is a traitor and a danger to the American People, and must be removed from power.

    All those who have taken oaths are required to answer "yes". This answer is consistent with the requirements under the oath, the bond which binds the oath and requirements of the Constitutions. A "yes" answer means that ALL actions taken by the public servant, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE must be consistent with Constitutional requirements, specific to the Bill of Rights. If the public servant's past actions failed this, and if those actions are used in an action or as evidence against the defendant, then those actions were not taken pursuant to his oath and were done in opposition to Constitutional requirements. Therefore, the public servant perjured his oath, invoked the self-executing sections 3 and 4 of the 14th amendment, vacated his office, and forfeited all benefits of that former office, including salary and pensions. All charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.

    He must be disqualified from his position, and if a witness, he and his testimony must be impeached and all his unconstitutional, unlawful actions and evidence against the defendant must be denied, and the charges dismissed. All present and future actions by the judge and court must be conducted pursuant to the Constitutions, federal and state. In this situation, if you are fully aware of your Rights and the full extent of the "yes" answer, you will prevail. However, if the judge were to then after violate his answer by his actions, you must inform him of his answer and his Constitutional requirements thereto, and his liability if he were to fail in his duty.

  2. I appear before this Honorable Court as a living, breathing natural-born American Citizen, with, and claiming, all Rights guaranteed to me in the Federal and State Constitutions, and with my name properly spelled in upper and lower case letters.

    After this is stated, wait a few seconds to look at the prosecutors and the judge, then say:

    Is there any objection to what I just stated?

    Obviously, pursuant to oaths taken by the judge, prosecutors or opposing attorneys, there can be no lawful objection to what you just stated, because all that you just stated, includes, but is not limited to, truth and fact. If what you just stated is true, namely, that you are a natural born American Citizen, it would be lawfully foolish and absurd for the judge, the prosecutor or your opposing attorneys to object. If they were to object, then, they would be forced to support their objections with fact and law, or their objections are reduced to opinions, only, and opinions are not valid bases in any court of Constitutional competence upon which to state objections or claim lawful positions. In such an event, you must specify this.

    When no objection is made, then, you appear before the Court as you stated. If there are any assumptions or presumptions made by any of your opposition regarding any alleged contracts or requirements with the fictitious entity, those assumptions, contracts, etc., were just removed with your statement and no objections made. If the case against you is based upon those contracts and assumptions, the entire basis for the case has been removed by your own direct and simple statement.

  3. This court abides by all the powers of and Rights guaranteed to American Citizens in the federal and state Constitutions, including Due Process of Law. Is that correct?

    NOTE: A "no" answer carries the same conditions as above. A "yes" answer is in compliance with Constitutional requirements for American Citizens and is consistent with the "yes" answer to #1 above. Again, if you are fully aware of your Rights and the conditions underlying the affirmative answer, you will prevail. Remember, bind the judge by his answer.

  4. I am entitled to and guaranteed a fair and impartial trial presided over by a fair, unbiased and impartial judge, in a court of record, before and decided by a well-informed jury of my peers. Is that correct?

    NOTE: A "no" answer is consistent with conditions stated above. A "yes" answer confirms the conditions of the statement, including: (1) Right to a fair and impartial trial; (2) unbiased and impartial judge; (3) a jury of my peers; (4) which jury decides guilt or innocence.

  5. I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the alleged charges, presumptions and assumptions in, by and of this court, unless proven guilty by a well-informed jury of my peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely on verified evidence and proof. Is that correct?

    NOTE: Either answer is consistent with conditions as stated above. However, in this statement, with a "yes" answer, you are confirming several vital positions: (1) presumed innocent of all ASPECTS of the alleged charges; (2) presumed innocent of ALL PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS of this court; (3) unless PROVEN guilty by a JURY OF MY PEERS; (4) proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (5) based SOLELY ON VERIFIED EVIDENCE AND PROOF.

    1. "Proof" consists of verified and demonstrated evidence, and not opinion, especially opinion unsupported by fact, law and evidence. Is that correct?

      NOTE: In this statement, by the judge's answer, you are confirming the nature and status of "proof". It is highly unlikely that any judge will, on the public record, answer "no" to this statement, since his answer will defy the very loudly proclaimed concept of American justice, will defy due process of law, deny Constitutional Rights and allow "opinion", unsupported or otherwise, to be used as "proof".

      When the judge answers "yes", that will be consistent with the judge's oath, Constitutional requirements and his other "yes" answers. He will confirm the statement, and the fact that opinion, verified or otherwise, is not proof. This is a major position, a major lawful gain and benefit. Many "testimonies" by witnesses are simply opinions, usually unsupported and unverified. The defendant can now be assured that only verified and documented proof, and not opinion, from anyone, can be used against him.

    2. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" consists solely of decisions and verdicts from a well-informed jury of my peers based entirely on proof that absolutely and conclusively confirms guilt, without any reservations or questions, whatsoever, from the jury. Is that correct?

      NOTE: A "no" answer is consistent with conditions above stated. A "yes" answer confirms ALL the conditions of the statement, due process of law, Constitutional requirements, the judge's oath, and assures that a jury of your peers will make its verdict based solely on PROOF, not opinion, that absolutely confirms guilt, without any questions, whatsoever.

  6. Opinion from any witness or prosecuting attorney unsupported and unverified by fact, law and proven evidence is simply opinion, and opinion, as previously established, is not proof. Is that correct?

    NOTE: A "no" answer is consistent with conditions stated above. A "yes" answer again confirms the status of "proof" as different from opinion. Thus, any plaintiff, (or opponent), prosecutor or witness MUST have verified proof, as described, and not opinion to support his statements. This is of vital importance to American Citizens. Therefore, "proof" by the prosecutor and testimony of witnesses is only opinion, unless supported as above stated, and if not, it is meaningless, frivolous, null and void and not accepted by the court as proof of anything, including guilt.

    1. Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state that is the plaintiff in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?
    2. Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same plaintiff against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.

      NOTE: A "no" answer is consistent with above conditions. If the judge were to answer "no", he is essentially saying, on the public record, that it is possible for a defendant to have a fair trial, even though he, the judge, the prosecutor and the state witnesses all work for and are paid by your opponent, and that all the so-called "evidence" against the defendant was obtained from sources paid by the state, again, the opponent. Even the most avowed critic can see through this fraud. A "yes" answer confirms the conditions of the statement, and conclusively demonstrates that a presiding judge recognizes, on the public record, that the referenced court conditions are not fair, not partial, and, as such, unconstitutional. This is a major Constitutional and lawful victory for the people, with far reaching implications.

  7. Since I am presumed innocent of the charges and all aspects, presumptions and assumptions of those charges and this court, I have challenged the jurisdiction of this court, which this court has not proven, on the public record. Therefore, since I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the charges and presumptions of the court, and since jurisdiction has not been proven, jurisdiction is simply a presumption of this court, of which I am presumed innocent. Therefore, I move for dismissal of all charges for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the foregoing, and to numerous federal and Supreme Court rulings, this case must be dismissed, with prejudice, and I hereby move for dismissal of all charges and this case, with prejudice.

    NOTE: By prior "yes" answers, it has been established that the defendant is presumed innocent of all assumptions and presumptions of the court. Jurisdiction is both an assumption and presumption of the court, of which the defendant is presumed innocent. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court, which the court failed to prove, on the record. Therefore, since the defendant is presumed innocent of jurisdiction, has challenged jurisdiction, which the court has failed to prove, on the public record, the court lacks jurisdiction and since jurisdiction does not exist, the charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.

    If the judge were to deny this lawful position and insist that his court has jurisdiction, without his having proven it, on the public record, the following could be stated:

    Since the judge has stated that this court conforms to all Constitutional requirements, then, this court conforms to the Bill of Rights, Article III of the federal Constitution and to due process of law. Jurisdiction is directly related to the foregoing, is an aspect of the charges, and a presumption of this court, of which the defendant is presumed innocent, yet this court has failed to prove jurisdiction, on the record.  Thus, this court defies Constitutional requirements, due process of law, federal and Supreme Court rulings, and therefore forfeits any "perceived jurisdiction", has no Constitutional authority to hear this case, so this case must be dismissed, with prejudice; or the presiding judge, pursuant to his oath, perjures that oath, commits insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, on the public record, and treason against the American People.

    1. The jury swears an oath to the Constitution. Is that correct? In its deliberations and in its verdict, the jury is required to abide by its oath. Is that correct? NOTE: Since the jury swears an oath and is required to abide by that oath, it is obvious that a "yes" answer is required. The Constitutional and lawful position here is that the jury must abide by its oath in making its verdict. If it fails to do so, then the jury perjures its oath, its actions and verdict are unconstitutional and the jury verdict null and void, without force or effect, whatsoever. Just as a public servant is required to abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties, so is the jury. However, the People must know and demand their Rights, or they have none.

      If the judge were to answer "no", which is highly unlikely, then as a defendant I would move for immediate dismissal of all charges, with prejudice, because any judge or court that permits an unconstitutional jury to perjure its oath and reach an unconstitutional verdict, pursuant to its oath, operates as an open fraud upon the People, denies and defies the Constitution and the powers of and Rights guaranteed therein to the American people, denies due process of law and has no jurisdiction over any American Citizen, whatsoever.

    2. If the jury, pursuant to its oath, makes its verdict in perjury of its oath or in opposition or contradiction to the Constitutions and the Rights guaranteed therein to American Citizens, or based in false information and fraud, that verdict is plainly unconstitutional, thus null and void.

      NOTE: Answer given in previous note. Further, pursuant to oaths taken, any jury verdict based, either in whole or in part, in fraud, deception, manipulation, lies or false information is null and void.

      If the judge were to say that this is not correct, then I, as a defendant, would inform him, pursuant to his oath and pursuant to his preceding "yes" answers, why his response is not only incorrect, but unconstitutional and unlawful. Further, I would inform him that he has no Constitutional authority to deny, on the public record, the very Constitution to which he, bound by bond, and the jury swore an oath. Further, he has no Constitutional authority to exceed his limited Constitutionally delegated authority, or to step outside that authority. It is obvious that the judge is not a higher authority than the Constitution, therefore, he cannot overrule it.

      If the judge were to insist that the jury verdict, even when based in fraud, etc., as above described, is valid, I would remind him of his first "yes" answer to statement #1, in which he is required to conduct his professional duties pursuant to his oath, as is the jury also required. I would then remind the judge of his other "yes" answers, in which he confirmed, including, but not limited to, the Constitutional duties of the court. His response is made in contradiction to his oath, as is the jury's verdict, thus, both are unlawful, unconstitutional, without force or effect whatsoever, and not binding in a Constitutionally compliant court, which the judge stated, on the public record, is the status of this court.

      At this point, I would move for immediate dismissal of all charges and this case, with prejudice, for, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction, lack of Constitutional authority, defiance of the federal and state Constitutions, denial of due process, perjury of oath, insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, and treason against the American People, in the instant case, the defendant.

      If the "judge" were to remain firm, then, as a defendant, I would inform him that I am entitled to a fair and impartial trial, by a jury of my peers, as he has previously agreed, and as is Constitutionally guaranteed, yet this jury is not a jury of my peers for many reasons, including, but not limited to: (1) jury members are not part of my ethnicity; (2) they do not work in the same profession I do; (3) they do not come from the same background and education that I do; (4) they are not Constitutionalists and supporters of the Supreme Law of the Land, as I am; (4) they are traitors to the Constitution and to the American People, which I am not.

      I would then, again, move for dismissal of all charges and the case, with prejudice, based upon previously stated grounds, and further include the fact that the judge would permit an unconstitutional verdict by a lawless, unconstitutional jury not of my peers. The Constitutions guarantee me a jury of my peers, yet this judge denies this Constitutionally guaranteed Right to me. Pursuant to his oath, he has no Constitutional authority to overrule the very same Constitution to which he swore an oath, and, further, is not a higher authority than the Constitution. If the judge were to remain firm, I would again inform him that, by his own actions and responses, he committed insurrection, sedition and treason against the American People, is a traitor to this Nation and its People, and must be removed from the bench for his treason. I will immediately file criminal and civil charges against him, personally, and in his professional capacity, and take action against him in an Article III federal court, which I will demand, by Motion.

Questions To Ask The Jury:
  1. Are you aware that the Constitution of the united States of America, to which you swore an oath when you were initiated into jury duty, is the Supreme Law of the Land -- the Highest Authority in this Nation -- and that, as such, no other law, statute, rule or ordinance can supersede it, and no other authority, including the Supreme Courts, federal and state, any judge, prosecutor, district attorney, attorney general or other public officer, can be a higher authority than the Constitution?
  2. Are you aware that the Constitution is the foundation of all forms of American government, including the courts, and that it LIMITS the power of government to take away any of the People's inherent Sovereign Rights?
  3. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, guarantees to all Americans their inherent, unlimited, inalienable Rights, including, but not limited to, all due process Rights, such as those set out in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution.
    1. Are you, as jurors, fully aware of what these Amendments mean and how they apply in this proceeding?
    2. If not, will you request the court provide you with copies of the Constitution so you can fully understand due process of law?
    3. If you do so, will you make your verdict in this trial in strict compliance with Constitutional due process of law and uphold all Constitutionally guaranteed Rights of the Defendant?
  4. Pursuant to your oath, is there anyone on this jury who will not abide by his/her oath in the performance of his official duties, including, but not limited to, jury deliberations and reaching jury verdict?
  5. Are there any jury members who believe and will abide by the belief that the government is superior to the People and that government is Sovereign in this Nation, and that the People are required to obey the government in all situations, no matter how unlawful and unconstitutional that government or its actions may be?
  6. Are there any members on this jury who are lawyers, government officers, or work for any form of any government, in any capacity, or are employed by corporations or companies that work for government?
  7. Are there any informants, paid or otherwise, spies or provocateurs on this jury, for anyone or anything?
  8. You have been asked these questions and are expected to, and will be held to, your answers, pursuant to your oaths. Does anyone wish to change his answer?