Notice & the Right of Inquiry

Jump to Comments

As I’ve written previously, procedural due process is the minimum due process that the courts and administrative agencies must provide whenever they seek to charge a defendant. Procedural due process consists of 1) Notice and 2) Opportunity to be heard.

First, note that an “Opportunity to be heard” is not necessarily an opportunity to enter evidence. An “opportunity to be heard” is merely an opportunity to speak and perhaps argue or even persuade. This “opportunity to be heard” corresponds to the modern “judicial” (actually, administrative) process wherein “argument hearings” predominate and “evidentiary hearings” are not only uncommon but “disfavored”.

Second, note that the sensible defendant may not normally want his “Opportunity to be heard”. Why? Because the “Opportunity to be heard” is the hearing or trial where, about 95 times out of 100, the kindly old judge will ignore everything he “hears” the defendant say, slap the snot out of the defendant and find the defendant guilty. As a practical matter, the “Opportunity to be heard” might also be characterized as the defendant’s “opportunity” to scream, shout, cuss and wonder th’ hell is going on in the allegedly “best legal system in the world”. Why? Because the defendant will almost inevitably suffer the enormous frustration of seeing everything he says fall on the “judge’s” deaf ears. For most defendants, the “opportunity to be heard” is, in fact, an “opportunity” to be ignored and treated with contempt. The “opportunity to be heard” is an opportunity to consent to being sentenced.

If you’re a defendant and agree with my previous characterization of the “Opportunity to be heard,” you might be wondering how to decline such a glorious “opportunity”. After all, if you could lawfully avoid the “opportunity to be heard,” the “judge” might not be able to sentence you. But make no mistake—I’m not suggesting that anyone simply refuse to appear for his “hearing”/”opportunity”. If you’ve gotta go, you’ve gotta go. Failing to appear gives the kindly old judge (who might otherwise have slapped the snot out of you) license to go postal and beat the crap out of you in the form of a default judgment.

But given that procedural process consists of 1) Notice and 2) Opportunity to be heard, it appears that the Notice must precede the alleged “Opportunity”. Thus, if you didn’t get Notice, you can’t be expected to show up for your “Opportunity to be Sentenced”.

Again, make no mistake. I am not suggesting that when a notice arrives in the mail or is handed to you by a cop that you simply throw the notice in the trash, ignore it and later lie that you’d received no such Notice. If you receive a Notice, treasure it because it just might be your opportunity to avoid the “Opportunity to be heard”/sentenced.

Increasingly, it appears that procedural due process actually consists of three elements: 1) Notice; 2) Opportunity to ask questions about the Notice; and 3) Opportunity to be heard/sentenced. I’ve previously explained the association between Notice and the “Right of inquiry” (ask questions) that’s created by the Notice. (You can search for my previous comments on “Notice” on this blog (http://adask.wordpress.com) under the heading “Notice”.)

There is case law listed in Black’s Law Dictionary (4^th Ed.) that indicates that a Notice need not provide a complete list of all facts associated with a particular charge. Instead, a Notice must merely provide enough facts to put the recipient “in inquiry”. For example, I could send you a “notice” that you owe me $50. If you remembered borrowing $50 from me, that notice might be sufficient to cause you to repay the $50. On the other hand, if you had no recollection of any reason why you might owe me $50, you could respond by asking “What th’ heck are you talkin’ about?” My notice created your “right of inquiry”. My notice created your right to ask questions about my notice and all that it implied.

Under the law described at Black’s 4^th, if you ignore a Notice and ask no questions, the court will presume that you’ve had sufficient or complete Notice and therefore deem you eligible for the “Opportunity to be heard” (sentenced). That’s not good.

On the other hand, under the law described at Black’s 4^th, if you react to the Notice by taking positive steps such as 1) calling the cops, government employees, administrative judges a bunch of treasonous whores (which is true); or 2) issuing an affidavit that declares yourself to be a “sovereign” or some such—the court will cheer because no matter what positive act or statement you make in response to the Notice, that positive act will be deemed evidence that you’ve had sufficient Notice and can now be moved down the cattle shoot into the “Opportunity to be heard” (sentenced).

As always, I stand to be corrected—but so far as I can tell, there is only one prudent response to any Notice: to exercise your “right of inquiry” by asking questions about the Notice itself and everything the Notice implies. If I’m right, it may be possible to avoid the “Opportunity to be heard” (sentenced) by simply asking the notice-sender some very insightful and potentially embarrassing questions.

Could it be that simple? Could we stop most of the existing system by simply asking the right questions? I am increasingly convinced that the answer is Yes.

Those of you who doubt my hypothesis might want to plug the term “notice pleading” into Wickipedia search engine. You’ll find an article that that explains that this country’s system of litigation started with something called “common law pleading,” later changed to “code pleading” but is today predominately “notice pleading”. It may not be true that all instances of modern litigation take place under the mantle of “notice pleading,” but I believe that most does. If so—and if the law reported in Black’s 4^th still applies—then today’s “notice pleading” must implicate a defendant’s “right of inquiry”.

Still unconvinced? If you’re familiar with modern litigation, you’ll recognize that most court cases are guaranteed to include a right of “Discovery”. What is “Discovery” other than a process for asking questions?

Thus, it’s not too surprising or controversial to suppose that any Notice may create the recipient’s “right of inquiry” (right to ask questions). The key is to know which questions to ask. Because most people have no clue as to how the modern legal system functions, they have no idea that there may be questions of a political nature that gov-co is unwilling or unable to answer publically.

If so, then it would seem to follow that if you ask questions that they can’t answer, they should not be able to lawfully proceed to the “Opportunity to be heard” (sentenced). Why? Because, under the terms of procedural due process, the defendant is entitled to complete “Notice” before he can be compelled to suffer the “Opportunity to be heard” (sentenced).

This is not to say that if you ask the “right” questions, the gov-co won’t sue, prosecute, etc.. It’s only to say that they shouldn’t. If they proceed against you without having answered all of your questions, you would seem to have a procedural due process argument that may cause the case against you to be remanded or dismissed on appeal.

If my Notice-Question hypothesis is correct, it may be surprisingly powerful. Why? Because your questions are only limited by your intelligence and imagination. For example, how many questions could you generate based on this sentence, alone? If you’re clever you might generate several. Based on this article, you might generate scores, even hundreds of questions. If you asked and I answered, each of my answers would probably create several more of your questions. If you asked five questions, and I offered five answers, you might generate another five (or ten or even twenty) questions based on my answers. If I answered your twenty newest questions with twenty more answers, my answers might inspire another hundred of your questions.

In theory, the number of questions spawned by any Notice could be endless. If the gov-co can’t proceed until you run out of questions, they may never be able to proceed.

However, it’s not my purpose to suggest that the Notice/Right-of-Inquiry elements of procedural due process be abused by asking an endless number of questions. In fact, my current objective is to reduce the number of “critical” questions to three, five, maybe ten. Maybe I’ll succeed; maybe not.

The fundamental weakness in this hypothesis is that it’s based on the definition of Notice in Black’s 4^th and 4^th Revised law dictionaries. These editions were published in A.D. 1951 and A.D. 1968. I’m convinced that the same principles apply to this day. However, the current definitions concerning Notice in Black’s 8^th (A.D. 2004) are less explicit than those in the earlier editions and thus, some uncertainty could exist. Even though Black’s 8^th does not refer to a “right of inquiry,” it does offer descriptions of sufficient Notice which include phrases like “if properly followed up” and “lead and ordinarily prudent person to investigate”.

I can’t say it’s God’s truth, but I can say that I’m convinced that every Notice creates the recipient’s “right of inquiry”. If you exercise that right by asking the right questions—and maybe lots of ‘em—you might be able to avoid the “Opportunity to be heard” (sentenced).

What follows is a “notice template” that was used by a friend of mine in response to a recent city notice that a warrant might be issued for his arrest if he didn’t paint his house. (Get that? Willful failure to paint. Our freaking government has gone mad. The arrogant, treasonous whores think they can jail people for failing to paint their houses. Apparently, the bastards are determined to foment a shooting revolution.) In any case, my friend’s hearing/trial (“Opportunity to be heard”/sentenced) was scheduled for March 9^th. When he sent a series of questions similar to those below, the local gov-co responded with a new-and-improved Notice that March 9^th would be changed to the date of his “pre-trial hearing”. In other words, the local gov-co dropped its plan to sentence my friend on March 9^th and instead decided to conduct a pre-trial hearing.

The fact that my friend is getting a “pre-trial hearing” rather than a hearing/trial (opportunity to be heard/sentenced) doesn’t prove anything. But it’s a good indication that the local municipality can’t proceed to the “Opportunity to be heard”/sentenced until either 1) my friend’s questions are answered; or, 2) that the kindly old judge can trick my friend (at the “pre-trial hearing”) into waiving his right of inquiry.

Questions have not yet defeated the local gov-co. But questions appear to have made the local gov-co blink. That’s good.

The following series of questions is roughly that used by my friend. They’ve been “sanitized” to remove his name, and other specifics. The text in red indicates information that would vary from one person’s series of questions to another.

The United States of America

The State of Texas

The County of Dallas

The City of Dallas

February 25, A. D. 2009

Registered Mail Number: RR ____ ____ ____ ____ US

To: Internal Revenue Service

P. O. Box 149338 [78714-9338]

The City of Austin

The State of Texas

The United States of America

Greetings, from The United States of America.

LETTER OF INQUIRY

1. In response to your Notice number “CP-518”, dated “02-09-2009”, and addressed to “JOHN W DOE” (hereinafter referred to as “Notice CP-518”) will you please answer the following questions? Yes ___ or No ___

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

2. Do you understand that, consistent with the Due Process clauses of the 5^th and/or 14^th Amendments to The Constitution of the United States, procedural due process is the minimum due process that must be provided by government and/or governmental agencies whenever a significant deprivation of life, liberty or property may occur?

Yes ___ or No ___

3. Are you obligated to provide procedural due process in this matter? Yes ___ or No ___

4. Do you understand that procedural due process consists of 1) Notice; and 2) Opportunity to be heard? Yes ___ or No ___

5. Do you understand that by refusing to provide sufficient Notice to a notice recipient, that you may have violated that recipient’s right to procedural due process and thereby estopped any process from lawfully proceeding to the “Opportunity to be Heard” (hearing)? Yes ___ or No ___

6. Do you understand that, as illustrated by cases such as Twitchell v. Nel­son, 131 Minn. 375, 155 N. W. 621, 62.4 ; German-American Nat. Bank of Lincoln v. Martin, 277 Ill. 629, 115 N. E. 721, 729; Commercial Credit Corpora­tion v. Coover, 101 N. J. Law, 530, 129 A. 187, 138; United States v. Booth-Kelly Lumber Co. (D. C.) 246 F. 970, 972, Notice consists of knowledge of facts which would naturally lead an honest and prudent person to make inquiry consti­tutes “notice” of everything which such inquiry pur­sued in good faith would disclose? Yes ___ or No ___

7. Do you understand that I, John William Doe, am an honest and prudent man?

Yes ___ or No ___

8. Do you understand that—as illustrated by cases such as Picklesimer v. Smith, 164 Ga. 600, 139 S. E. 72, 74 ; Brinkman v. Jones, 44 Wis. 498 ; White v. Fisher, 77 Ind. 65, 40 Am. Rep. 287; Clark v. Lambert, 55 W. Va. 512, 47 S. E. 312 ; Hopkins v. McCarthy, 121 Me. 27, 115 A. 513, 515 ; Rector v. Wildrick, 5.9 Okl. 172, 158 P. 610, 613 ; and Citizens’ State Bank of Greenup v. Johnson County, 182 Ky. 531, 207 S. W. 8, 11—that the term express notice includes all knowl­edge of a degree above that which depends upon collateral inference, or which imposes upon the party the further duty of inquiry. In this sense, actual notice is such notice as is positively proved to have been given to a party directly and per­sonally, or such as he is presumed to have received personally because the evidence with­in his knowledge was sufficient to put him upon inquiry?

Yes ___ or No ___

9. Do you understand that your Notice CP-518 has put me “on inquiry”?

Yes ___ or No ___

10. Do you understand that—as illustrated by cases such as Baltimore v. Whittington, 78 Md. 231, 27 A. 984 ; Wells v. Sheerer, 78 Ala. 142 ; Jor­dan v. Pollock, 14 Ga. 145 ; Jackson v. Waldstein (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 26 ; Acer v. Westcott, 46 N. Y. 384, 7 Am. Rep. 355 ; Charles v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation (C. C. A.) 282 F. 983, 988; City of Dallas v. Rut­ledge (Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 534, 538—“constructive notice” is informa­tion or knowledge of a fact imputed by law to a person, (although he may not actually have it) because he could have discovered the fact by proper diligence, and his situation was such as to cast upon him the duty of inquiring into it? Yes ___ or No ___

11. Is the Notice CP-518 properly defined as “actual notice,” “constructive notice” or some other kind of notices? Actual ___; Constructive ___; Other ___

12. Do you understand that (as illustrated by the case law previously cited) that by sending a Notice, the sender creates the notice recipient’s right of inquiry and the notice sender’s correlative duty to answer the recipient’s questions? Yes ___ or No ___

13. Do you understand that by sending Notice CP-518 to me, John Doe, that the I.R.S. and/or its agents and/or employees have created: 1) my right to inquire into the all facts alleged or implied in said Notices; and 2) your correlative duty to answer my inquiries? Yes ___ or No ___

14. Do you understand that if the I.R.S. and/or its agents and/or employees failed or refused to answer my inquiries into facts alleged and/or implied in said Notice CP-518 that you would violate my right to procedural due process? Yes ___ or No ___

15. Do you understand that series of questions in this Letter of Inquiry is based on my “right of inquiry” created by your previous Notice CP-518? Yes ___ or No ___

16. Do you understand that subsequent notice of your answers to this series of questions may create additional cause for me to exercise my right of inquiry and for you to perform your duty to answer my questions? Yes ___ or No ___

17. Do you understand that each new notice sent by the I.R.S. to me will create 1) additional cause for me to exercise my right of inquiry; and 2) additional obligation for you to perform your duty to answer my questions? Yes ___ or No ___

MY NATURE

18. Do you understand that, as per Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:7 of the Holy Bible all men are made in God’s image and given the breath of life by our Father YHWH, the living God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel and Father of the Christ Yahushua? Yes ___ or No ___

19. Do you understand that the Congress of the United States declared in the Second Edition of the Revised Statutes of the United States passed at the First Session of the Forty-third Congress between A. D. 1873 and A. D. 1874 that The Organic Law of The United States of America consists of 1) The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4^th, A. D. 1776 [a/k/a “Declaration of Independence”]; 2) The Articles of Confederation first proposed in A. D. 1777; 3) The Northwest Territorial Government ordinance of A. D. 1787; and 4) The Constitution of the United States of A.D. 1789? Yes ___ or No ___

20. Do you understand that the second sentence of said “Declaration of Independence” declares “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”? [Emphasis added.] Yes ___ or No ___

21. Do you understand that the third sentence of said “Declaration of Independence” declares, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”? [Emphasis added.]

Yes ___ or No ___

22. Do you understand that I, John Doe, am a living man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights? Yes ___ or No ___

23. Do you understand that, as envisioned by the founders of The United States of America, the primary obligation of “governments among men” is to “secure” to each man his God-given, unalienable Rights? Yes ___ or No ___

MY PROPER NAME

24. Do you understand that my proper name is spelled exactly “John Doe”?

Yes ___ or No ___

25. Do you understand that I cannot be directly addressed as “JOHN W DOE”?

Yes ___ or No ___

26. If you send subsequent answers, notices or case documents in this matter to “JOHN W DOE” would those documents be mistakenly addressed to “JOHN W DOE” while intended to be received “John Doe” in my proper person as a man made in God’s image?

Yes ___ or No ___

27. Do you understand and intend that the names “JOHN W DOE” and “John Doe” signify the same living man? Yes ___ or No ___

28. If you understand that “JOHN W DOE” signifies an entity other than the living man “John Doe,” do you intend “JOHN W DOE” to signify: 1) an Estate ___ or 2) an Account ___ 3) a Legal Fiction ___ 4) Nominal Party ____ 5) Nominal Defendant ___ 6) other ___?

29. If you understand that “JOHN W DOE” signifies an entity other than the living man “John Doe,” do you have evidence to suggest that I, John Doe, have knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily agreed to act as agent, representative and/or fiduciary for “it”—the entity signified by “JOHN W DOE”? Yes ___ or No ___

30. If the name “JOHN W DOE” signifies some entity other than I, John Doe, a living man—do you have authority to compel me to represent the entity “JOHN W DOE” in this matter? Yes ___ or No ___

31. Do you understand that I, John Doe am acting at arm’s in this matter? Yes ___ or No ___?

AUTHORITY

32. Do you understand that in or about A.D. 1781, an instrument known as “The Articles of Confederation” created a perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?

Yes ___ or No ___

33. Do you understand that “The State of Texas” is the proper name a member-State first admitted in or about A.D. 1845 to the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”? Yes ___ or No ___

34. Do you understand that, as per the Act of March 30^th, A.D. 1870, The United States of America in Congress assembled readmitted “The State of Texas” into the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”? Yes ___ or No ___

35. Are the terms “TX” and/or “STATE OF TEXAS” synonymous with the term “The State of Texas”—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?

Yes ___ or No ___

36. Do you understand that, with regard to the material facts alleged or implied in Notice CP-518, I have at all times knowingly and voluntarily conducted all of my activities within the physical boundaries of The State of Texas or some other member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”? Yes ___ or No ___

37. Does administrative law allow the exercise of all three fundamental powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial) to be performed by a single entity?

Yes ___ or No ___

38. Does administrative process allow the exercise of all three fundamental powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial) to be performed by a single entity?

Yes ___ or No ___

39. Is administrative process a private and/or non-constitutional process that operates outside the authority of The Constitution of the United States? Yes ___ or No ___

40. Do you understand that I am a beneficiary of The Constitution of the United States adopted on or about A. D. 1789? Yes ___ or No ___

41. Is administrative process a private and/or non-constitutional process that operates outside the authority of The Constitution of The State of Texas? Yes ___ or No ___

42. Is administrative process a private and/or non-constitutional process that operates outside the authority of The Constitution of the United States? Yes ___ or No ___

43. Do you understand that The Constitution of The State of Texas adopted on or about February 15^th, A. D. 1876 is an express charitable trust? Yes ___ or No ___

44. Do you understand that as per Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas adopted on or about February 15^th, A. D. 1876, “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit”? Yes ___ or No ___

45. Do you understand that I, John Doe, am one of the people of The State of Texas—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?

Yes ___ or No ___

46. Do you understand that I, John Doe, am a beneficiary of The Constitution of The State of Texas adopted on or about February 15^th, A. D. 1876? Yes ___ or No ___

18 U.S.C. 1001 (“Statement of entries generally”)

47. Do you understand that subsection “(a)” of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (“Statements or entries generally”) declares:

“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

“(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

“(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

“(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

“shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both”?

Yes ___ or No ___

48. Consistent with 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), is the matter referenced in your Notice CP-518 subject to the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States? Yes ___ or No ___

49. Consistent with 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), is the matter referenced in your Notice CP-518 subject to the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States? Yes ___ or No ___

50. Consistent with subsection 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), is the matter referenced in your Notice CP-518 subject to the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of the Government of the United States? Yes ___ or No ___

51. Consistent with subsection 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), is the nature of the person “JOHN W DOE” referenced in your Notice CP-518 a material fact? Yes ___ or No ___

52. Is the nature of the entity “JOHN W DOE” referenced in your Notice CP-518 that of a living man who, as per Genesis 1:26-28, is made in God’s image?

Yes ___ or No ___

53. Is the nature of the entity “JOHN W DOE” referenced in your Notice CP-518 that of a man who, as per The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (a/k/a “Declaration of Independence”) adopted on or about July 4^th, A. D. 1776, is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights? Yes ___ or No ___

54. Is the name “JOHN W DOE” referenced in your Notice CP-518 merely an alias for a man whose proper name is “John Doe”? Yes ___ or No ___

55. Consistent with subsection 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), is the identity of the person “JOHN W DOE” referenced in your Notice CP-518 a material fact? Yes ___ or No ___

56. In the matter of your Notice CP-518, does the name “JOHN W DOE” identify me, the living man, whose proper name is “John Doe”? Yes ___ or No ___

57. Do you understand that subsection “(b)” of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (“Statements or entries generally”) declares:

“(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding”? Yes ___ or No ___

58. Are the I.R.S., its agents or employees a “party to a judicial proceeding” in the matter referenced in your Notice CP-518? Yes ___ or No ___

59. Are the I.R.S., its agents or employees acting as “counsel” for a “party” in the matter referenced in Notice CP-518? Yes ___ or No ___

60. Is the “JOHN W DOE” a “party” to the matters referenced in your Notice CP-518?

Yes ___ or No ___

61. Is the man “John Doe” deemed by the I.R.S. to be a counsel for the party “JOHN W DOE” in the matters referenced in your Notice CP-518? Yes ___ or No ___

62. Do you understand that subsection “(c)” of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (“Statements or entries generally”) declares:

“(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to–

“(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

“(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate”?

Yes ___ or No ___

63. Are the matters referenced in your Notice CP-518 within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch as defined at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, of the Constitution of The United States of America adopted on March 4, A. D. 1789? Yes ___ or No ___

64. Are the matters referenced in your Notice CP-518 within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch as defined at Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17, of the Constitution of the United States of America adopted on March 4, A. D. 1789? Yes ___ or No ___

65. Are the matters referenced in your Notice CP-518 within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch as defined at Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America adopted on March 4, A. D. 1789? Yes ___ or No ___

66. Consistent with 18 U.S.C. 1001(c)(1), does your Notice CP-518 refer to “administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services”?

Yes ___ or No ___

67. Consistent with 18 U.S.C. 1001(c)(2), are the matters referenced in your Notice CP-518 based on an “investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate”? Yes ___ or No ___

Respectfully submitted at arm’s length and without the UNITED STATES, on the _____th day of the _____th month, in the year of our Lord, 2009, with reservation of all of my God-given, unalienable rights as a man created in the image of God.

By: ____________________________________ Seal

John Doe

123 Main Street Zip Code Exempt

The City of Dallas

The State of Texas

The United States of America

2 Comments

Filed under Notice