All Criminal Complaint Clay Cover

William Duff 2605 So Westport Rd Independence, Mo 64052 816-503-9055 cell 816-365-1600 email [email protected]

ASSOCIATE JUDGE JANET SUTTON 7 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI Division 7 11 SO WATER ST LIBERTY, MISSOURI 64068 [email protected] 407-3970 fax 407-3971 Judge of the Court 7 th or 16th Judicial Circuit of Missouri I am providing felony complaints comprehending both Clay and Jackson County venues against two Kansas City, Missouri Police officers and two Judges, one in Clay County and one in Jackson County in comprehension of RSMO 544.020 and expect same to be vigorously pursued in comprehension of RSMO 575.020. 1(1) AND (2). I am faxing only the Frazier complaint to the division and emailing all said complaints to the clerk/secretary for judge and by certified mail # In view of the fact that the complaints involve government men I expect all actions thereon to be copied to me for audit and documentation at the above address without exception. In addition, I demand to be present at any indictment proceedings herewith associated and transcripts therefrom in that it is reasonable to presume that it is possible a prosecuting attorney, also being a government man/woman, may be tempted to fail intentionally. If you have any questions concerning any of the complaints or the probable cause thereof you may contact me through email or at one of the phone numbers as above referenced. Please be advised that all my contact information is subject to change momentarily so please try all provided phones and email when attempting to contact Should action not proceed upon these complaints within 30 days of you receiving them I will copy them to the U.S. Attorney’s office for investigation.

Thank you in advance William Duff

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

FELONY COMPLAINT IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF CLAY COMES NOW; William D Duff, SWEARING UPON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AND STATES THAT THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 5,2007, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, THE ACCUSED; WILLIAM FRAZIER, PERFORMED THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO SO ACT AND EFFECTIVELY VACATING HIS OFFICE OF TRUST THROUGH WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND RIGHTS OF ACTION BELONGING TO THIS INJURED PARTY AND IN THE FACE OF NOTICE OF HIS WRONG DOING THAT CONSTITUTED LOSS OF JURISDICTION TO SO ACT, AS SUCH HE ASSUMED PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR THOSE ACTS AS RECOGNIZED IN RSMO 562.061 “A person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an offense which he performs or causes to be performed in the name of or in behalf of a corporation or unincorporated association to the same extent as if such conduct were performed in his own name or behalf”, AND IN SO DOING COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES: COUNT 1: KIDNAPPING THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 565.110 (5), COMMITTED THE CLASS B FELONY OF KIDNAPPING, CHARGE CODE 1602005.0 PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(2), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLICTING PHYSICAL INJURY ON AND OR TERRORIZING William Duff, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE:

FELONIOUS RESTRAINT

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF , RSMO SECTION 565.120 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSES HIM TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. COUNT 2: KIDNAPPING THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 565.110 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS A FELONY OF KIDNAPPING, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, FROM HIS LIBERTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THAT PERSON FOR RANSOM OR REWARD, OR FOR ANY OTHER ACT TO BE PERFORMED OR NOT PERFORMED FOR THE RETURN OR RELEASE OF William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE:

FELONIOUS RESTRAINT

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF , RSMO SECTION 565.120 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, FROM HIS LIBERTY, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSES HIM TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. COUNT 3: ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 571.015, RSMO, COMMITTED THE UNCLASSED FELONY OF ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION, CHARGE CODE 31010990 PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT UNDER COLOR OF LAW ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FELONIES OF ROBBERY AND KIDNAPPING OR FELONIOUS RESTRAINT CHARGED IN COUNT I & 4, ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONIES OF ROBBERY, KIDNAPPING AND OR FELONIOUS RESTRAINT BY, WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON. COUNT 4: ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 569.020, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS A FELONY OF ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, UNDER COLOR OF LAW THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FELONY OF ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE DURING THE KIDNAPPING CHARGED IN COUNT I, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONY ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE BY, WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON. COUNT 5:

FALSE AFFIDAVIT

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 575.050, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF MAKING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT, PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY and JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF MAKING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY CLOAKING HIMSELF WITH THE SAME OFFICE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY VACATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP CRIMES IN COUNTS 1 THRU 4, CITING CHARGES: STATE DRIVER LICENSE CASE# 224354(4), VALID STATE LICENSE PLATES CASE# 2243355(1) AND PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CASE# 2243356(9) AND INSTRUCTION TO TOW DUFFS CAR TO THE KCMO TOW LOT AGAINST William Duff AND CAUSING THE KANSAS CITY, MO PROSECUTOR JUDGE AND TOW LOT OPERATOR TO RELY THEREON. ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL BY REFERENCE. . COUNT 6 FALSE IMPRISONMENT: THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 565.130. 1, RSMO COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT BECAUSE HE UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED DUFF OF HIS LIBERTY IN THAT DEFENDANT, AND OR HIS AGENTS UNLAWFULLY TOOK JURISDICTION OVER THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF William Duff WITHOUT HIS CONSENT AND WITHOUT LAWFUL JURISDICTION TO DO SO. THE FACTS THAT FORM THE BASIS FOR THIS INFORMATION AND BELIEF ARE CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF FACTS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, WHICH STATEMENTS ARE MADE A PART HEREOF BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL AND ARE SUBMITTED HEREWITH AS A BASIS UPON WHICH THIS COURT MAY FIND THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT.

WHEREFORE, William Duff, PRAYS THAT ARREST WARRANTS, ATTACHED HERETO, BE ISSUED AS PROVIDED BY LAW. William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN MISSOURI Address: 2605 So. Westport Rd Independence, Missouri Phone; 8165039055 cell 8163651600 Email: [email protected] WITNESSES: JOHN MICHAEL OYER CHARLES OLIVER KCMO POLICE OFFICER ATTACHED TO NORTH PATROL STATION (UNKNOWN)

BOND REQUEST: $3,000,000.00 COB SEE ATTACHED PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT RANGE OF PUNISHMENT:

PER MISSOURI STATUTE 558.011.1, RSMO

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

__________________________ 10/2/2008 (Signature)

NOTE: Notary is only necessary if signor does not swear a solemn affirmation in recognition of the laws of perjury Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________day of_______________, 20___. ___________________________ Notary Public

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT I, William Duff, one of the people within Missouri, being the real injured party, and being first duly sworn according to law, having first hand knowledge of the facts and law herein, and being of sound mind and competent to testify, do aver, testify and affirm that the facts and law herein are stated by William Duff, the real injured party, and are true, correct, complete, not misleading, nor declared for any immoral or unethical purpose or frivolous reason, and are material to the matter at hand and made with respect and awareness for the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America. To wit: LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF THIS LAND MATERIAL TO THIS COMPLAINT 1. THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF MISSOURI: RSMo 1.010: The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding; 2. THE MAGNA CARTA AS ALTERED BY INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY IN AMERICA IS THE COMMON LAW PER BILL OF RIGHT: CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM October 10, 1297,

25 Edw. i, c. i. Danby

Pickering (ed.), Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1726-1807), I, 273-75. Declares the Magna Carta to be the common law of England and was so declared during the era eluded to in #1 above;

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

3. COMMON LAW VALID IN MISSOURI:

1

In determining the status of the

common law on the issue before us, we follow the general principle that unless a statute clearly abrogates the common law either expressly or by necessary implication, the common law rule remains valid. N.E. & R. Partnership v. Stone, 745 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).; NOTE:

A STATUTE, BEING A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT HAS NO

STANDING TO ALTER THE DUE PROCESS AS WRITTEN IN THE MAGNA CARTA. NOR THE 5TH AMENDMENT AND EQUAL RESTRAINTS AS REPRESENTED IN THE MISSOURI STATE CONSTITUTION SEE #4 NEXT 4. DUE PROCESS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY FROM ALL GOVERNMENT INTRUSION: “Due process principles extend to every proceeding, which may deprive person of life, liberty, or property. - Legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the judicial determination of issues involving life, liberty, or property, a fortiori the finding of a bureau chief or a government department head ruling cannot do so, consistently with the guarantees embodied in the Constitutions of this state and the United States. The protective principles summed up in these due process clauses extend to every proceeding, which may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, whether the process be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943). 5. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF THIS LAND: "An act of the legislature is not necessarily the 'law of the land.' A state cannot

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

make anything 'due process of law' which, by its own legislation, it declares to be such." Burdick v. People, 36 N.E. 948, 949, 149 Ill. 600 (1894). 6. DUE PROCESS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL OPINION: "Due process of law does not mean merely according to the will of the Legislature, or the will of some judicial or quasi-judicial body upon whom it may confer authority. It means according to the law of the land, including the Constitution with its guaranties and the legislative enactments and rules duly made by its authority, so far as they are consistent with constitutional limitations." Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N.W. 595, 620 (1913), cases cited. 7. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TERMINATES ALL JURISDICTION: “Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process”, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985). 8. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND: "Daniel Webster, in the Dartmouth College Case, stated: ‘By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land.’ - It is thus entirely correct in assuming that a legislative enactment is not necessarily the law of the land." - Judge Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

Constitutional Limitations, 5th Ed. Little, Brown & Co.: Boston, 1883, Sec.35354, p.432. 9. DUE PROCESS MEANS “DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW” AS BEING THE LAW OF THIS LAND: “The understanding which the founders of the American constitutional system, and those who wrote the due process clauses, brought to the subject they derived from Coke (Sir Edmund Coke), who in his Second Institutes expounded the proposition that the term ``by law of the land'' was equivalent to ``due process of law,'' which he in turn defined as ``by due process of the common law,’’ As such, the due process mandated in the 5th amendment to the fed constitution and copied in all State constitutions means "Due Process of the Common law is the supreme law of this land” pursuant to Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America. 10. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW AS MANDATED BY THE MAGNA CARTA (some elements material to this action): a. ARTICLE 45. “We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.” i. MEANING

IN

THIS

SOCIETY:

Officials

must

be

knowledgeable about the law, and willing to apply it rightly and obey it as a condition of their office of trust. b. ARTICLE 39: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: One can only be put in jail if a jury puts him there (or if he agrees to be put there). Peers are members of the peerage (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron, in America the “people”). c. ARTICLE 38. “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.” i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: No government official may be a witness in court. And if he is going to impose his law on another, then he must have the support of non-governmental witnesses (2 or more). Witnesses paid by the government are not considered faithful witnesses. d. ARTICLE 34. “Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. “ i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: "Praecipe" = order to show cause against property. "Rights" are property. A free man (i.e. nobleman) has his own land and people (slaves). The king may not force a nobleman into the king’s court in such a way that the nobleman would be deprived of his own court. In America, there can be no order or act by an official that would cause a freeman to lose his court where the subject matter originates in his own

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

private domain consisting of his Life, Liberty and Property and secured by the constitution in its “blessings of Liberty” clause. (see “The American Birthright” www.williamduff.com for detailed definition) e. ARTICLE 40. “To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice. “ i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: Free justice, without delay. The government will assume the entire cost of prosecution. Defense from that prosecution is included. This is why the court will appoint free counsel. f. USA SUPREME COURT:

“Where rights are secured by the

Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966). i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY:

Rights secured by the

constitutions are specifically Individual Life, Liberty and Property. 11.FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS VOIDS JURISDICTION: ‘Violation of due process vacates jurisdiction over the subject matter’, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019

FACTS 12. Duff went to the Kansas City Missouri north patrol police station seeking help with an unrelated theft by deception issue on or about June 5, 2007. Clerk (doe) asked for proof of ownership of the property in question. Duff provided said

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

proof in a signed and witnessed original bill of sale for the property. Clerk (doe) then asked for Duff’s State Driver License for identification purposes. Duff informed Clerk doe that he did not use a State driver license and offered other forms of identification. Clerk doe asked Duff ‘how did you get here?’. Duff replied ‘ I traveled using my private property upon the public right of way’. Clerk doe then went to talk with the duty officer (Frazier). Thereafter Frazier came to the counter and asked the same questions of Duff. Duff’s answers were virtually identical as when first answered. Frazier said that Duff must have a State Driver license. Duff disagreed.

Frazier threatened to have his agent,

another officer, stop Duff as he left the Station and arrest him for not having the State Driver License. Duff informed Frazier that doing so would be an unlawful restraint on his Liberty and Right of action, in that; The protective principles summed up in these due process clauses extend to every proceeding, which may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, whether the process be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943).

Frazier terminated the conversation and Duff went to his

automobile and was arranging paperwork when Frazier and another officer yelled at Duff to stop. Frazier approached Duff’s auto with his hand on his gun, ordering duff out of his auto (in derogation of #10(b,c & f) above and therefore lost all jurisdiction to proceed upon this action pursuant to #10 & 11 above and become COUNTS 3, 4, 5 AND 6 ABOVE. Duff informed them he did not consent to this action and gave Frazier a three-page document entitled “Notice” that informed Frazier of his wrongdoing. Frazier ignored said notice. Duff was

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

searched, seized, bound and imprisoned (COUNT 1 thru 6 ABOVE). Duff’s property in his body and auto were searched and seized by Frazier, in derogation of #10(b,c & f) above, and his agent who declared Duff’s auto and property therein would be towed to the police impound lot somewhere in the vicinity of the Royals Baseball Stadium.

Frazier, with agent Alan Roth, thereby forfeited

their office of trust and committed the acts described in the complaint numbering Counts 1 thru 6, above, without being due the respect and protection of that office (pursuant to #4 above) and RSMO 562.061. Duff declared he did not consent to enter into any contractual duty with anyone and especially not the police tow lot. Frazier did remove Duff’s private plate from Duff’s auto claiming to keep it as evidence. Frazier, serial # 3092, wrote three civil traffic citations claiming Duff’s failure to have valid State Driver License case# 224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9), all of which are Kansas City, Missouri Municipal ordinance violations (COUNT 5) where Frazier later testified without the assent of non government witnesses respecting the charges and where Frazier failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of his claim. Duff was held in that jail, approximately 1.5 hours, until he posted bond of $300, (COUNTS 1 & 2), all of which are denial of due process as referenced in #10, a,b,c,f and #11 above. Duff called next friends; John Michael Oyer and Charles Oliver who came to the Station and who called the bondsman on Duff’s behalf. Both witnessed Duff’s release from that facility. Duff posted the bond and was released to find

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

that Frazier had made good on his threat to take duff’s car and personal property including but not limited to original bills of sale for the car taken and a second car owned by Duff (COUNT 4). Duff presumed that Frazier had had Duff’s car with personal property towed to the police tow lot. Later, Duff found that to be true and noticed the person in charge of the error. It is important to note here that Duff’s car was parked in the parking lot at the station, in a publicly owned right of way, and was not obstructing others use.

SUMMARY Duff claims Defendants and all their agents in support of their action have individually and severally injured Duff with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Right of action, unreasonable search and seizure of Duff’s person and property, armed criminal action, kidnapping, false imprisonment, Trespass with violence, conspiracy against rights, battery, making a false affidavit, and false imprisonment against Duff’s Dominion over his own private domain and Right of action done under color of law and without lawful authority to act nor office of trust because the Police Power of this State does not and can not extend beyond the boundaries established by the controlling constitutions. As such, their actions deserve no more respect than a criminal engaged in those same acts. All acts of which have restrained Duffs Liberty and capacity to pursue further opportunities in order to fulfill his needs and therefore, resulting in loss of other unnamed properties; restraint of his liberty from that day to this, tantamount to a walking distance prison, and are directly and by enlarge responsible for Duffs current inability to satisfy his most basic needs, where for the past 40 years this circumstance has never existed. As such, to say that Duff desperately needs to find an office holder in Missouri who understands the law of this land and is willing to apply and observe it rightly is a gross understatement. Duff, one of the people within Missouri, is due that office holder and has a right to prefer criminal charges against all who refuse to rightly prosecute their office of trust.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

Frazier exceeded his jurisdiction in that he ignored due process of law, and therefore vacated his office of trust, by either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another did cause plaintiff Duff to be unlawfully and forcibly carried away and imprisoned1 against his will and in disregard for prior notice to them of the wrong they engaged, without jurisdiction or good cause shown (pursuant to #4 above). Even if Duff were subject to the rules Frazier was attempting to enforce, which he is not and no proof to the contrary emerged at trial, they would be “civil” in nature and not subject to criminal enforcement such as was used. At the onset of the unlawful imprisonment and property theft plaintiff Duff injured no one and was duly2 engaged in good faith and in his own private capacity, and at all times within the “Bright Line Boundary” of his own private domain, and exercising his Right to go with his property upon the Public Right of Way while injuring no one. Said Defendants, being noticed, and acting with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Rights secured by the Constitutions and without good cause, interrupted Duff’s Private Right of Action putting him in apprehension of further harm, and stating claims of compulsory duties arising out of jurisdictions foreign to Duff’s domain and Right of Action therein, did, without consideration for his lack of consent unreasonably searched and seized and then imprison plaintiff Duff. During imprisonment the Defendants took further ill-considered actions to further injure plaintiff Duff by trespassing upon Duff’s Domain and his Dominion over that domain, did search and seize Duff’s property, over Duff’s express objection thereto, in the form of his papers and effects and one 1996 Buick Rivera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668 and original bill of sales for two other automobiles, under color of laws foreign to Plaintiff’s domain and individual private capacity and without good cause shown, the judgment of the people of Missouri or due process of law. 1 Imprison:

To confine a person or restrain his liberty in any way. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

Imprisonment: ...it may be in a locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual application of any physical agencies of restraint (such as locks or bars), as by verbal compulsion and the display of available force. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition 2 Duly: ...according to law in both form and substance. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

From the moment he was taken away till the present, Duff, under color of law, was kept in actual or constructive imprisonment.

Although he objected to the assumed

jurisdiction, those who kept him imprisoned under color of law did not respond to any of his demands and requests for proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his liberty. Defendants and their agents continued to assume the jurisdiction without proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at proof of jurisdiction in direct contravention of #4 and #10(f) above. Duff continues to be subjected, under color of law, to the assumed jurisdiction, will and control of the Defendants and their agents and therefore needs and is due this relief in order to again secure his liberty. This collectivist mentality ignores the exclusivity of dominion over property that is so pervasive among our office holders is causing otherwise good people to act as criminals. This must stop. You must respect the Life, Liberty and Property of everyone and you must secure that for everyone if you are to hold an office of trust in this society. If you don’t you must lose your office and be held accountable for your acts that harm others. It is incredible how many judges think that they have no duty to secure the Life, Liberty and property rights of the people who hire them. It is the opinion of this man that the general welfare of the people of Missouri is first in the securing of those blessings of liberty and that there is no excuse for a government entity to initiate action against one of them without probable cause shown that they are engaged in an intentional injury to another. To do otherwise is intellectual dishonesty at the very least. The facts and law are represented in this document to the best of Duffs ability the quality of which far exceeds contemporary legal thought. Any such allegations of facts that are shown to be misapplied or tangled with other facts are correctible through interaction with Duff for that purpose. Duff makes these allegations by solemn affirmation of the truth herein contained and in recognition of the laws against perjury. Wherefore Duff believes he has provided sufficient facts and law to support probable cause to believe that all the named defendants and their agents have intentionally injured Duff with willful and wanton disregard for their duty and for Duffs right of action.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT

_________________________________________ 10/2/2008 William Duff, Affiant

NOTE: Notary is only necessary if signor does not swear a solemn affirmation in recognition of the laws of perjury

Subscribed and sworn to before me this__________day of_______________, 20___. ___________________________

Notary Public

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

WARRANT FOR ARREST

STATE OF MISSOURI ) COUNTY OF CLAY ) IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL COURT WITHIN AND FOR SAID COUNTY. THE STATE OF MISSOURI TO ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI: You are hereby commanded to arrest WILLIAM FRAZIER who is charged with multiple felonies, alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of this court and in violation of the laws of the State of Missouri, and to bring him forthwith before this court to be here dealt with in accordance with law; and you, the officer serving this warrant, shall forthwith make return hereof to this court. WITNESS THE HONORABLE the seal thereof, issued in the county and state aforesaid on this

Judge of the said court and day of , 20

........................................ Judge/Clerk of said Court

........................................ ....................................... Return Served the within warrant in my County of day of 19 by arresting the within named him before the said court on the day of 19

and in the State of Missouri on this and producing

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZING SEARCH FOR STOLEN PROPERTY STATE OF MISSOURI ) COUNTY OF CLAY ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY THE STATE OF MISSOURI TO ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI: WHEREAS a complaint in writing, duly verified by oath, has been filed with the undersigned Judge of this court, stating that heretofore the following described personal property, to-wit: one 1996 Buick Rivera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668 and original bill of sales for two other automobiles along with legal files documents tools and personal property of the goods and chattels belonging to William Duff, has been unlawfully stolen, and it further appears from the allegations of said complaint that said property is last known to be kept or held at the Kansas City, Mo police tow lot in Jackson County of this state. NOW, THEREFORE, these are to command you that you search the said premises above described within 10 days after the issuance of this warrant by day or night, and take with you, if need be, the power of your county, and, if said above described property or any part thereof be found on said premises by you, that you seize the same and take same into your possession, making a complete and accurate inventory of the property so taken by you in the presence of the person from whose possession the same is taken, if that be possible, and giving to such person a receipt for such property, together with a copy of this warrant, or, if no person be found in possession of said property, leaving said receipt and said copy upon the premises searched, and that you thereafter return the property so taken and seized by you, together with a duly verified copy of the inventory thereof and with your return to this warrant to this court to be herein dealt with in accordance with law. Witness my hand and seal of this court on this ...... day of ........, 19.... In the event that said property has been disposed you are to ascertain to where and whom said property is now and go there and execute it, or send this warrant to that local authority for execution within 10 days of your knowledge thereof. ........................................ JUDGE OF SAID COURT RETURN AND INVENTORY I, ……………………………….. being a peace officer within and for the aforesaid county, to-wit: ........, do hereby make return to the above and within warrant as follows: that on the ...... day of ......, 19..., and within ten days after issuance of said warrant, I went to the location and premises described therein and searched the same for personal property described therein, and that upon said premises I discovered the following personal property described in the warrant which I then and there took into my possession (inventory of property taken on back): or I found the property had been disposed to another party: to wit: ……………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………… , county of ……………………. State of …………. Where I forwarded copy of this warrant for execution. Or: 723 that I made this inventory in the presence of the person from whose possession I took said property (that there was no person present from whose possession said property was taken); that I delivered to such person a receipt for the property taken, together with a copy of this warrant (that, there being no person in possession of said property present on said premises, I left a copy of this warrant with a receipt for the property taken, in a conspicuous place on said premises); that I have now placed said property so taken in the possession of this court. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ...... day of ........, 19....

........................................ CLERK, MAGISTRATE COURT

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

FELONY COMPLAINT IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF CLAY

COMES NOW; William D Duff, BEING DULY SWORN UPON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AND STATES THAT THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6,2006, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, THE ACCUSED; ALAN ROTH, A KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI POLICE OFFICER AFTER VACATING HIS OFFICE OF TRUST THROUGH LOSS OF JURISDICTION, COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES AS ACCESSORY TO THE FACT WITH WILLIAM FRAZIER: COUNT 1: KIDNAPPING THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 565.110 (5), COMMITTED THE CLASS B FELONY OF KIDNAPPING, CHARGE CODE 1602005.0 PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(2), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLICTING PHYSICAL INJURY ON AND OR TERRORIZING William Duff, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE: FELONIOUS RESTRAINT THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF , RSMO SECTION 565.120 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSES HIM TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. COUNT 2: KIDNAPPING THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 565.110 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS A FELONY OF KIDNAPPING, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, FROM HIS LIBERTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THAT PERSON FOR RANSOM OR REWARD, OR FOR ANY OTHER ACT TO BE PERFORMED OR NOT PERFORMED FOR THE RETURN OR RELEASE OF William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE: FELONIOUS RESTRAINT THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF , RSMO SECTION 565.120 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, FROM HIS LIBERTY, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSES HIM TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. COUNT 3: ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 571.015, RSMO, COMMITTED THE UNCLASSED FELONY OF ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION, CHARGE CODE 31010990 PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT UNDER COLOR OF LAW ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FELONIES OF ROBBERY AND KIDNAPPING OR FELONIOUS RESTRAINT CHARGED IN COUNT I & 4, ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONIES OF ROBBERY, KIDNAPPING AND OR FELONIOUS RESTRAINT BY, WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON. COUNT 4: ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 569.020, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS A FELONY OF ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, UNDER COLOR OF LAW THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FELONY OF ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE DURING THE KIDNAPPING CHARGED IN COUNT I, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONY ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE BY, WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON. COUNT 5: FALSE AFFIDAVIT THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 575.050, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF MAKING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT, PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY and JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF MAKING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY CLOAKING HIMSELF WITH THE SAME OFFICE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY VACATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP CRIMES IN COUNTS 1 THRU 4, CITING CHARGES: STATE DRIVER LICENSE CASE# 224354(4), VALID STATE LICENSE PLATES CASE# 2243355(1) AND PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CASE# 2243356(9) AGAINST William Duff AND CAUSING THE KANSAS CITY, MO PROSECUTOR TO RELY THEREON. ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL BY REFERENCE. . COUNT 6 FALSE IMPRISONMENT: THE FACTS THAT FORM THE BASIS FOR THIS INFORMATION AND BELIEF ARE CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF FACTS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, WHICH STATEMENTS ARE MADE A PART HEREOF BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL AND ARE SUBMITTED HEREWITH AS A BASIS UPON WHICH THIS COURT MAY FIND THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT.

WHEREFORE, William Duff, PRAYS THAT ARREST WARRANTS, ATTACHED HERETO, BE ISSUED AS PROVIDED BY LAW. William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN MISSOURI Address: 2605 So. Westport Rd Independence, Missouri Phone; 8165039055 cell 8163651600 Email: [email protected] WITNESSES: JOHN MICHAEL OYER CHARLES OLIVER KCMO POLICE OFFICER (UNKNOWN)

ATTACHED

TO

NORTH

PATROL

BOND REQUEST: $3,000,000.00 COB SEE ATTACHED PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT RANGE OF PUNISHMENT: PER MISSOURI 558.011.1, RSMO

STATION

STATUTE

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

__________________________ 10/2/2008 (Signature)

NOTE: Notary is only necessary if signor does not swear a solemn affirmation in recognition of the laws of perjury Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________day of_______________, 20___. ___________________________ Notary Public

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT I, William Duff, one of the people within Missouri, being the real injured party, and being first duly sworn according to law, having first hand knowledge of the facts and law herein, and being of sound mind and competent to testify, do aver, testify and affirm that the facts and law herein as stated by William Duff, the real injured party, and are true, correct, complete, not misleading, nor declared for any immoral or unethical purpose or frivolous reason, and are material to the matter at hand and made with respect and awareness for the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America. To wit: LAW MATERIAL TO THIS COMPLAINT 13. THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF MISSOURI: RSMo 1.010: The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding; 14. THE MAGNA CARTA AS ALTERED BY INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY IN AMERICA IS THE COMMON LAW PER BILL OF RIGHT: CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM October 10, 1297,

25 Edw. i, c. i. Danby

Pickering (ed.), Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1726-1807), I, 273-75. Declares the Magna Carta to be the common law of England and was so declared during the era eluded to in #1 above;

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

15. COMMON LAW VALID IN MISSOURI:

1

In determining the status of the

common law on the issue before us, we follow the general principle that unless a statute clearly abrogates the common law either expressly or by necessary implication, the common law rule remains valid. N.E. & R. Partnership v. Stone, 745 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).; NOTE:

A STATUTE, BEING A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT HAS NO

STANDING TO ALTER THE DUE PROCESS AS WRITTEN IN THE MAGNA CARTA. SEE #4 NEXT 16. DUE PROCESS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY FROM ALL GOVERNMENT INTRUSION: “Due process principles extend to every proceeding, which may deprive person of life, liberty, or property. - Legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the judicial determination of issues involving life, liberty, or property, a fortiori the finding of a bureau chief or a government department head ruling cannot do so, consistently with the guarantees embodied in the Constitutions of this state and the United States. The protective principles summed up in these due process clauses extend to every proceeding, which may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, whether the process be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943). 17. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF THIS LAND: "An act of the legislature is not necessarily the 'law of the land.' A state cannot make anything 'due process of law' which, by its own legislation, it declares to be such." Burdick v. People, 36 N.E. 948, 949, 149 Ill. 600 (1894).

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

18. DUE PROCESS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL OPINION: "Due process of law does not mean merely according to the will of the Legislature, or the will of some judicial or quasi-judicial body upon whom it may confer authority. It means according to the law of the land, including the Constitution with its guaranties and the legislative enactments and rules duly made by its authority, so far as they are consistent with constitutional limitations." Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N.W. 595, 620 (1913), cases cited. 19. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TERMINATES ALL JURISDICTION: “Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process”, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985). 20. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND: "Daniel Webster, in the Dartmouth College Case, stated: ‘By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land.’ - It is thus entirely correct in assuming that a legislative enactment is not necessarily the law of the land." - Judge Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations, 5th Ed. Little, Brown & Co.: Boston, 1883, Sec.35354, p.432.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

21. DUE PROCESS MEANS “DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW” AS BEING THE LAW OF THIS LAND: “The understanding which the founders of the American constitutional system, and those who wrote the due process clauses, brought to the subject they derived from Coke (Sir Edmund Coke), who in his Second Institutes expounded the proposition that the term ``by law of the land'' was equivalent to ``due process of law,'' which he in turn defined as ``by due process of the common law,’’ As such, the due process mandated in the 5th amendment to the fed constitution and copied in all State constitutions means "Due Process of the Common law is the supreme law of this land” pursuant to Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America. 22. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW AS MANDATED BY THE MAGNA CARTA (some elements material to this action): a. ARTICLE 45. “We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.” i. MEANING

IN

THIS

SOCIETY:

Officials

must

be

knowledgeable about the law, and willing to apply it rightly and obey it as a condition of their office of trust. b. ARTICLE 39: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: One can only be put in jail if a jury puts him there (or if he agrees to be put there). Peers are members of the peerage (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron, in America the “people”). c. ARTICLE 38. “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.” i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: No government official may be a witness in court. And if he is going to impose his law on another, then he must have the support of non-governmental witnesses (2 or more). Witnesses paid by the government are not faithful witnesses. d. ARTICLE 34. “Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. “ i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: "Praecipe" = order to show cause against property. "Rights" are property. A free man (i.e. nobleman) has his own land and people (slaves). The king may not force a nobleman into the king’s court in such a way that the nobleman would be deprived of his own court. In America, there can be no order or act by an official that would cause a freeman to lose his court where the subject matter originates in his own private

domain.

(see

“The

American

Birthright”

www.williamduff.com for detailed definition)

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

e. ARTICLE 40. “To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice. “ i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: Free justice, without delay. The government will assume the entire cost of prosecution. Defense from that prosecution is included. This is why the court will appoint free counsel. f. USA SUPREME COURT:

“Where rights are secured by the

Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966). i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY:

Rights secured by the

constitutions are specifically Individual Life, Liberty and Property. 23.FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS VOIDS JURISDICTION: ‘Violation of due process vacates jurisdiction over the subject matter’, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 FACTS 24. Duff went to the Kansas City Missouri north patrol police station seeking help with an unrelated theft by deception issue on or about June 6, 2006. Clerk (doe) asked for proof of ownership of the property in question. Duff provided said proof in a signed and witnessed original bill of sale for the property. Clerk (doe) then asked for Duff’s State Driver License for identification purposes. Duff informed Clerk doe that he did not use a State driver license and offered other forms of identification. Clerk doe asked Duff ‘how did you get here?’. Duff replied ‘ I traveled using my private property upon the public right of way’.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

Clerk doe then went to talk with the duty officer (Frazier). Thereafter Frazier came to the counter and asked the same questions of Duff. Duff’s answers were virtually identical as when first answered. Frazier said that Duff must have a State Driver license. Duff disagreed.

Frazier threatened to have his agent,

another officer, stop Duff as he left the Station and arrest him for not having the State Driver License. Duff informed Frazier that doing so would be an unlawful restraint on his Liberty and Right of action, in that; The protective principles summed up in these due process clauses extend to every proceeding, which may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, whether the process be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943).

Frazier terminated the conversation and Duff went to his

automobile and was arranging paperwork when Frazier and another officer; Alan Roth, yelled at Duff to stop. Frazier approached Duff’s auto with his hand on his gun, ordering duff out of his auto (in derogation of #10(b,c & f) above and therefore lost all jurisdiction to proceed upon this action pursuant to #10 & 11 above and become acts as described in COUNTS 3, 4, 5 AND 6 ABOVE for want of all jurisdiction. Duff informed them he did not consent to their action and gave Frazier a three-page document entitled “Notice” that informed Frazier and Roth of their wrongdoing (filed in CLAY COUNTY Case #07CYCV06125. Frazier ignored said notice. Duff was searched, seized, bound and imprisoned (COUNT 1,2,6 ABOVE). Duff’s property in his body and auto were searched and seized by Frazier, in derogation of #10(b,c & f) above, and his agent who declared Duff’s auto and property therein would be towed to the police

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

impound lot somewhere in the vicinity of the Royals Baseball Stadium. Frazier, with agent Alan Roth, thereby forfeited their office of trust and committed the acts described in the complaint numbering Counts 1 thru 6, above, without being due the respect and protection of that office (pursuant to #4 above). Duff declared he did not consent to enter into any contractual duty with anyone and especially not the police tow lot. Frazier did remove Duff’s private plate from Duff’s auto claiming to keep it as evidence. Frazier, serial # 3092, wrote three civil traffic citations claiming Duff’s failure to have valid State Driver License case# 224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9), all of which are Kansas City, Missouri Municipal ordinance violations (COUNT 5) where Frazier later testified without the assent of non government witnesses respecting the charges and where Frazier failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of his claim. Duff was held in that jail, approximately 1.5 hours, until he posted bond of $300, (COUNTS 1 & 2), all of which are denial of due process as referenced in #10, a,b,c,f and #11 above. Duff called next friends; John Michael Oyer and Charles Oliver who came to the Station and who called the bondsman on Duff’s behalf. Both witnessed Duff’s release from that facility. Duff posted the bond and was released to find that Frazier had made good on his threat to take duff’s car and personal property including but not limited to original bills of sale for the car taken and a second car owned by Duff (COUNT 4). Duff presumed that Frazier had had Duff’s car with personal property towed to the police tow lot. Later, Duff found that to be true and noticed the person in charge over the lot of the error. It is important to note

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

here that Duff’s car was parked in the parking lot at the station, in a publicly owned right of way, and was not obstructing others use.

SUMMARY

Duff claims Defendants and all their agents in support of their action have individually and severally injured Duff with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Right of action, unreasonable search and seizure of Duff’s person and property, armed criminal action, kidnapping, false imprisonment, Trespass with violence, conspiracy against rights, battery, making a false affidavit, and false imprisonment against Duff’s Dominion over his own private domain and Right of action, all of which done under color of law and without lawful authority to act nor as a lawful function of the office of trust. As such, their actions deserve no more respect than a criminal engaged in those same acts. All acts of which have restrained Duffs capacity to pursue further opportunities in order to fulfill his needs and therefore, resulting in loss of other unnamed properties; restraint of his liberty from that day to this, tantamount to a walking distance prison, and are directly and by enlarge responsible for Duffs current inability to satisfy his most basic needs, where for the past 40 years this circumstance has never existed. As such, to say that Duff desperately needs to find an office holder in Missouri who understands the law of this land and is willing to apply and observe it rightly is a gross understatement. Duff, one of the people within Missouri, is due that office holder and has a right to prefer criminal charges against all who refuse to rightly prosecute their office of trust..

Frazier and Roth exceeded their jurisdiction, and therefore vacated their office of trust, by either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another did cause plaintiff Duff to be unlawfully and forcibly carried away and imprisoned3 against his will and in disregard for prior 3 Imprison:

To confine a person or restrain his liberty in any way. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

Imprisonment: ...it may be in a locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

notice to them of the wrong they engaged, without jurisdiction or good cause shown (pursuant to #4 above). Even if Duff were subject to the rules Frazier was attempting to enforce, which he is not and no proof to the contrary emerged at trial, they would be “civil” in nature and not subject to criminal enforcement such as was used. At the onset of the unlawful imprisonment and property theft plaintiff Duff injured no one and was duly4 engaged in good faith and in his own private capacity, and at all times within the “Bright Line Boundary” of his own private domain, and exercising his substantive Right to go with his property upon the Public Right of Way. Said Defendants, being noticed, and now acting with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Rights secured by the Constitutions and without good cause, interrupted Duff’s Private Right of Action putting him in apprehension of further harm, and stating claims of compulsory duties arising out of jurisdictions foreign to Duff’s domain and Right of Action therein, did, without consideration for his consent or lack thereof, then imprison plaintiff Duff. During imprisonment the Defendants took further ill-considered actions to further injure plaintiff Duff by trespassing upon Duff’s Domain and his Dominion over that domain, did search and seize Duff’s property, over Duff’s express objection thereto, in the form of his papers and effects and one 1996 Buick Rivera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668 and original bill of sales for two other automobiles, under color of laws foreign to Plaintiff’s domain and individual private capacity and without good cause shown, the judgment of the people of Missouri or due process of law.

From the moment he was taken away till the present, Duff, under color of law, was kept in actual or constructive imprisonment.

Although he objected to the assumed

jurisdiction, those who kept him imprisoned under color of law did not respond to any of his demands and requests for proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his liberty. Defendants and application of any physical agencies of restraint (such as locks or bars), as by verbal compulsion and the display of available force. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition 4 Duly: ...according to law in both form and substance. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

their agents continued to assume the jurisdiction without proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at proof of jurisdiction in direct contravention of #4 and #10(f) above. Duff continues to be subjected, under color of law, to the assumed jurisdiction, will and control of the Defendants and their agents and therefore needs and is due this relief in order to again secure his liberty.

This collectivist mentality ignores the exclusivity of dominion over property that is so pervasive among our office holders is causing otherwise good people to act as criminals. This must stop. You must respect the Life, Liberty and Property of everyone and you must secure that for everyone if you are to hold an office of trust in this society. If you don’t you must lose your office. It is incredible how many judges think that they have no duty to secure the Life, Liberty and property rights of the people who hire them. It is the opinion of this man that the general welfare of the people of Missouri is first in the securing of those fundamental liberties and that there is no excuse for a government entity to initiate action against one of them without probable cause shown that they are engaged in an intentional injury to another. To do otherwise is intellectual dishonesty at the very least.

The facts and law are represented in this document to the best of Duffs ability. Any such allegations of facts that are shown to be misapplied or tangled with other facts are correctible through interaction with Duff for that purpose.

Duff makes these allegations by solemn

affirmation of the truth herein contained and in recognition of the laws against perjury. Wherefore Duff believes he has provided sufficient facts and law to support probable cause to believe that all the named defendants and their agents have intentionally injured Duff with willful and wanton disregard for their duty and for Duffs right of action..

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT

__________________________ 10/2/2008 (Signature)

NOTE: Notary is only necessary if signor does not swear a solemn affirmation in recognition of the laws of perjury Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________day of_______________, 20___. ___________________________ Notary Public

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

WARRANT FOR ARREST

STATE OF MISSOURI ) COUNTY OF CLAY ) IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL COURT WITHIN AND FOR SAID COUNTY. THE STATE OF MISSOURI TO ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI: You are hereby commanded to arrest ALAN ROTH who is charged with multiple felonies, alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of this court and in violation of the laws of the State of Missouri, and to bring him forthwith before this court to be here dealt with in accordance with law; and you, the officer serving this warrant, shall forthwith make return hereof to this court. WITNESS THE HONORABLE the seal thereof, issued in the county and state aforesaid on this

Judge of the said court and day of , 20

........................................ Judge/Clerk of said Court

........................................ ....................................... Return Served the within warrant in my County of day of 19 by arresting the within named him before the said court on the day of 19

and in the State of Missouri on this and producing

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

FELONY COMPLAINT IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF CLAY

COMES NOW; William Duff, SWEARING UPON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND STATES THAT THERE EXISTS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 22,2007, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, THE ACCUSED; ANTHONY (REX) GABBERT (hereinafter GABBERT) OF THE CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IN LIBERTY, MISSOURI CONSPIRED WITH WILLIAM FRAZIER AND OTHER AGENTS TO INJURE William Duff BY IGNORING FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND ASCEEDING TO CORRUPTION, ALL WITH WILLFUL AND WANTON INTENT TO INJURE William Duff, AS SUCH, HE EFFECTIVELY VACATED HIS OFFICE OF TRUST BECAUSE GABBERT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN HE POSSESSED NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER WITH WHICH TO ACT OR DECIDE UPON DUFF’S CLAIMS IN CASE #07CY-CV06125, IN THAT GABBERT WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THAT FACT IN DUFFS PETITION FILED AS A CIVIL COMPLAINT #07CY-CV06125 AND STRUCTURED AS A COURT OF RECORD PROCEEDING ACCORDING TO THE COURTSE OF THE COMMON LAW WHEREIN SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WAS ALLOCATED TO THE TRIBUNAL(SEE PETITION FOR SPECIFICS) RESPECTING SAID CHARGES, AND GABBERT, WHO WAS EMPOWERED ONLY IN A MINISTERIAL CAPACITY TO HOLD THE ACTION IN THE PEOPLES COURT AND TO EXTEND THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE PEOPLE TO A JUST RESOLUTION OF THE CONTROVERSY, ATTEMPTED TO PROTECT FRAZIER, ROTH, WILLIAMS AND THEIR AGENTS BY UNLAWFULLY TAKING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BY FORCE AND BY USING THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY AND AN ARMED BALIFF TO ENFORCE RULINGS AND JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE EXPRESS REFUSAL OF CONSENT BY THE TRIBUNAL. GABBERT INTENTIONALLY ENTERED UPON A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT CAUSED HIS AUTHORITY IN HIS OFFICE OF TRUST TO BE EXTINGUISHED AND THEREBY FACILITATED OR COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES: COUNT 1: ACCEDING

TO CORRUPTION

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 575.280. 1 (1) COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF ACCEDING TO CORRUPTION, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(2), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 2007 AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, GABBERT UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY AGREED TO ACCEPT ANY BENEFIT, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, ON THE REPRESENTATION OR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL INFLUENCE HIS OFFICIAL ACTION IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING PENDING IN ANY COURT OR BEFORE SUCH OFFICIAL IN THAT HAVING BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL OF HIS LACK OF ALL JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE HIM HE IGNORED SAID FACT WHICH ACT WAS TO HIS BENEFIT, THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO AND TO THE BENEFIT OF WILLIAM FRAZIER AND HIS AGENTS WITH WHOM HE CONSPIRED TO UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRE DOMINION OVER THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF William Duff, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

COUNT 2: FELONIOUS RESTRAINT THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF , RSMO SECTION 565.120 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 2007 AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT AND OR HIS AGENTS, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNALS SPECIAL MASTER, JOHN MICHAEL OYER FROM HIS DULY APPOINTED DUTIES AND HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT THE TRIBUNAL’S CONSENT, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSE HIM TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. COUNT 3: ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION THE DEFENDANT AND OR HIS AGENT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 571.015, RSMO, COMMITTED THE UNCLASSED FELONY OF ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION, CHARGE CODE 31010990 PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT UNDER COLOR OF LAW AT HEARINGS RESPECTING CASE #07CY-CV06125, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, GABBERT DID USE AN ARMED BALIFF TO OBSTRUCT DUFF AND THE SPECIAL MASTER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES, ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONIES OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT BY, WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON. COUNT 4: CONSPIRACY

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 564.016. 1, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF. CONSPIRACY BECAUSE HE CONSPIRED WITH ANOTHER PERSON OR PERSONS TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE IF, WITH THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING OR FACILITATING ITS COMMISSION HE AGREES WITH SUCH OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS THAT THEY OR ONE OR MORE OF THEM WILL ENGAGE IN CONDUCT WHICH CONSTITUTES SUCH OFFENSE RSMO564.016. 1., IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 2007 AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT BY CLOAKING HIMSELF WITH COLOR OF AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP CRIMES IN ALL COUNTS PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED AGAINST FRAZIER, ROTH AND WILLIAMS AND THEIR AGENTS, IN MAKING RULINGS AND JUDGMENTS AGAINST William Duff WITHOUT POSSESSING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND CAUSING THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT TO RELY THEREON. ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL BY REFERENCE. CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ISSUED AGAINST WILLIAM FRAZIER, ALAN ROTH AND KCMO MUNICIPAL JUDGE WILLIAMS COURT A FILED IN EITHER CLAY OR JACKSON COUNTY, MO. ARE ENTERED HERE BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.. WHEREFORE, William Duff, PRAYS THAT ARREST WARRANTS, ATTACHED HERETO, BE ISSUED AS PROVIDED BY LAW. William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN MISSOURI Address: 2605 So. Westport Rd Independence, Missouri Phone; 8165039055 cell 8163651600 Email: [email protected]

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

WITNESSES: JOHN MICHAEL OYER CHARLES OLIVER KCMO POLICE OFFICER ATTACHED TO NORTH PATROL STATION (UNKNOWN)

BOND REQUEST: $3,000,000.00 COB SEE ATTACHED PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT RANGE OF PUNISHMENT: PER MISSOURI STATUTE 558.011.1, RSMO

__________________________ 10/2/2008 (Signature)

NOTE: Notary is only necessary if signor does not swear a solemn affirmation in recognition of the laws of perjury Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________day of_______________, 20___. ___________________________ Notary Public

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT

I, William Duff, one of the people within Missouri, being the real injured party herein, and being first duly sworn according to law, having first hand knowledge of the facts and law herein, and being of sound mind and am competent to testify, do aver, testify and affirm that the facts and law herein as stated by William Duff, the real injured party, are true, correct, not misleading, nor declared for any immoral or unethical purpose or frivolous reason, and are material to the matter at hand and made with respect and awareness for the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America. To wit:

LAW MATERIAL TO THIS COMPLAINT 25. THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF MISSOURI: RSMo 1.010: “The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding”; 26. THE MAGNA CARTA AS ALTERED BY INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY IN AMERICA IS THE COMMON LAW PER BILL OF RIGHT: CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM October 10, 1297,

25 Edw. i, c. i. Danby

Pickering (ed.), Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1726-1807), I, 273-75. Declares

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

the Magna Carta to be the common law of England and was so the law of this land during the era eluded to in #1 above as it is today here in Missouri; 27. COMMON LAW VALID IN MISSOURI: “In determining the status of the common law on the issue before us, we follow the general principle that unless a statute clearly abrogates the common law either expressly or by necessary implication, the common law rule remains valid”. N.E. & R. Partnership v. Stone, 745 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).; NOTE: A statute, being a legislative enactment has no standing to alter the due process of law as written in the Magna Carta and secured by the 1820 Missouri constitution through article 13 clause 22 as a right retained by the individual people . SEE #4 NEXT 28. DUE PROCESS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY FROM ALL GOVERNMENT INTRUSION: “Due process principles extend to every proceeding, which may deprive person of life, liberty, or property. - Legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the judicial determination of issues involving life, liberty, or property, a fortiori the finding of a bureau chief or a government department head ruling cannot do so, consistently with the guarantees embodied in the Constitutions of this state and the United States. The protective principles summed up in these due process clauses extend to every proceeding, which may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, whether the process be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943).

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

29. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF THIS LAND: "An act of the legislature is not necessarily the 'law of the land.' A state cannot make anything 'due process of law' which, by its own legislation, it declares to be such." Burdick v. People, 36 N.E. 948, 949, 149 Ill. 600 (1894). 30. DUE PROCESS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL OPINION: "Due process of law does not mean merely according to the will of the Legislature, or the will of some judicial or quasi-judicial body upon whom it may confer authority. It means according to the law of the land, including the Constitution with its guaranties and the legislative enactments and rules duly made by its authority, so far as they are consistent with constitutional limitations." Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N.W. 595, 620 (1913), cases cited. 31. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TERMINATES ALL JURISDICTION: “Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process”, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985). 32. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND: "Daniel Webster, in the Dartmouth College Case, stated: ‘By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules, which govern society. Everything which may pass

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land.’ - It is thus entirely correct in assuming that a legislative enactment is not necessarily the law of the land." - Judge Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations, 5th Ed. Little, Brown & Co.: Boston, 1883, Sec.35354, p.432. 33. DUE PROCESS MEANS “DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW” AS BEING THE LAW OF THIS LAND: “The understanding which the founders of the American constitutional system, and those who wrote the due process clauses, brought to the subject they derived from Coke (Sir Edmund Coke), who in his Second Institutes expounded the proposition that the term ``by law of the land'' was equivalent to ``due process of law,'' which he in turn defined as ``by due process of the common law,’’ As such, the due process mandated in the 5th amendment to the fed constitution and copied in all State constitutions means "Due Process of the Common law is the supreme law of this land” and is mandated upon all States without their consent and as a condition of statehood by Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America. 34. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW AS MANDATED BY THE MAGNA

CARTA

AND

THE

5TH

AMENDMENT,

TO

THE

CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (some elements material to this action): a. ARTICLE 45. “We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.”

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

i. MEANING

IN

THIS

SOCIETY:

Officials

must

be

knowledgeable about the law, and willing to apply it rightly and obey it as a condition of their office of trust. Failure to do so is a denial of due process5. b. ARTICLE 39: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: One can only be put in jail if a jury puts him there (or if he agrees to be put there). Peers are members of the peerage (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron, in America the “people”). Failure is a denial of due process (see FN 1). c. ARTICLE 38. “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.” i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: No government official may be a witness in court. And if he is going to impose his law on another, then he must have the support of non-governmental witnesses (2 or more). Witnesses paid by the government are not faithful witnesses. Failure to do so is a denial of due process (see FN 1). 5

Should such official fail to be knowledgeable of the law of this land or unwilling to apply it rightly they are denying due process of the law and have lost all jurisdiction to act. Any action that injures another without that jurisdiction must be treated in the same way as any other intentional injury as their oath admits their competence in their knowledge.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

d. ARTICLE 34. “Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. “ i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: "Praecipe" = order to show cause against property. "Rights" are property. A free man (i.e. nobleman) has his own land and people (slaves). The king may not force a nobleman into the king’s court in such a way that the nobleman would be deprived of his own court. In America, there can be no order or act by an official that would cause a freeman to lose his court where the subject matter originates in his own private

domain.

(see

“The

American

Birthright”

www.williamduff.com for detailed unassailable definition) e. ARTICLE 40. “To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice. “ i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: Free justice, without delay. The government will assume the entire cost of prosecution. Defense from that prosecution is included. This is why the court will appoint free counsel. Failure to do so is a denial of due process (see FN 1). f. USA SUPREME COURT:

“Where rights are secured by the

Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY:

Rights secured by the

constitutions are specifically Individual Life, Liberty and Property. 35.FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS VOIDS JURISDICTION: ‘Violation of due process vacates jurisdiction over the subject matter’, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 FACTS

Gabbert was advised as to the nature and structure of case #07CY-CV06125 by the original complaint filed by William Duff 6/15/2007 service was returned 7/17/2007. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, dated 8/4/2007 but not filed until after 8/16/2007 per case file, claiming Duff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as a matter of law but provided no other answers to allegations in Duffs petition. Duff filed rebuttal to defendants claim and the Tribunal denied defendants motion to dismiss. During the 8/29/07 preliminary hearing that followed Duff referred to the court as being the “Duff Court” to which Gabbert responded ‘ this is not the Duff court this is the Clay County Circuit Court’ (see transcript for accurate statement) (discoverable on the record of that hearing). Duff then asked Gabbert if he had read the papers filed in the action to which Gabbert responded that he had. Gabbert demeanor showed strain and unwillingness to engage Duff. Toward the end of that hearing Gabbert attempted to set another hearing to hear defendants motion to dismiss to which Duff Objected by saying “I do not consent”. Gabbert ignored Duff and ended the hearing but did set hearing over Duffs objection. The Tribunal issued a writ of error quo coram nobis which vacated the Gabbert ordered hearing date and subject matter as a caution to Gabbert of his excess and ordered a new hearing to discuss the evidence supporting the action., the fact that defendant had defaulted their defense as they failed to timely answer the complaint, and to discuss the appropriateness of the Attorney General defending defendants as defendants were sued in their private capacity for acts

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

performed outside their official capacity. In the mean time Duff motioned the tribunal for tender of issue in that defendants had defaulted and their late answer was non responsive. The tribunal thereafter sustained Duff’s tender and ruled in Duff’s favor. At approximately the same time the defendant (Ass’t AG Emily Dodge) motioned for hearing on its motions to dismiss for 11/07/2007. Duff objected by motion and the Tribunal denied the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss as being moot. At the hearing on 11/07/2007 Gabbert called the case and when Duff and Special Master Oyer proceeded to the bench the bailiff restrained all but Duff from entering the bar and then he asked defendant to make argument in support of its motion to dismiss. Duff objected. Gabbert said, “you can’t object”. Gabbert listened to defendant and then asked Duff for rebuttal. Duff said ‘you can read that in the paperwork’ and once again objected to the hearing in its entirety. Then Duff attempted to address the matters mentioned in the preceding paragraph and Gabbert disallowed that subject matter and concluded the hearing saying he would consider the evidence and rule. A day or two later Gabbert dismissed Duff’s action for the reasons stated by defendants in their motions to dismiss. The Tribunal issued a writ of error quo coram nobis vacating all that Gabbert had done and reasserted its default judgment.

APPLICATION OF FACTS TO THIS COMPLAINT

Gabbert, apparently not accepting the structure of the court and his capacity therein and effectively denying Duff his court and any interaction that included determination of Duffs right of action as was comprehended by the original complaint in this case, obstructed the business of the court in order to deny Duff a fair hearing and remedy to the benefit of all the government actors herein engaged as well as his own. Gabbert facilitated the taking of Duff’s court, his Liberty and Property without due process of law in direct violation of Article 34, 38 and 45 of the Magna Carta and every principle of justice in this society.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

Duff claims Defendants and all their agents in support of their action have individually and severally injured Duff with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Right of action, unreasonable search and seizure of Duff’s person and property, Trespass with violence, armed criminal action, and conspiring against Duff while adversely effecting his Dominion over his own private domain and Right of action, all of which was done under color of law and without lawful authority to act nor as a lawful function of the offices of trust herewith associated. As such, their actions deserve no more respect than a criminal engaged in those same acts. Anthony (rex) Gabbert had a duty to know the law of the land and to observe it rightly.(see #10 (a) above) and further that failure to do so is a basic due process violation that must extinguish all his jurisdiction over the proceedings and his acts that facilitated the wrongs committed by Frazier, Roth, Williams and their agents appear to be an attempt to hide all such crimes in derogation of # 10 (f) and # 11 above and finally binds him as an accessory after the fact. Anthony (rex) Gabbert and his agents exceeded their jurisdiction, and therefore vacated their offices of trust, by either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another caused, facilitated or obscured the crimes committed against plaintiff Duff in willful and wanton disregard for prior notice to each of them of the wrong they engaged, and without jurisdiction or good cause shown (in derogation of #4 above).

At the onset of action Duff vs. Frazier Duff as plaintiff brought subject matter jurisdiction with him and allocated it to the tribunal rather than Gabbert who sat generally to hold the proceeding. In doing so Gabbert was denied jurisdiction over the subject matter and the discretion that goes hand in hand therewith. From the outset, Gabbert was empowered with the Territorial jurisdiction, as are all such courts have which necessarily limit his authority to a ministerial capacity wherein he can make no lawful rulings or judgments without the consent of the Tribunal that does have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

Duff injured no one and was duly6 engaged in good faith and in his own private capacity, and at all times within the “Bright Line Boundary” of his own private domain, and exercising his Right to go with his property upon the Public Right of Way. Gabbert willfully and wantonly conspired with defendants and made himself accessory thereto by refusing to allow justice to prevail respecting the following:

Said Defendants acting with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Rights secured by the Constitutions and without good cause shown at any point in the proceedings, interrupted Duff’s Private Right of Action putting him in apprehension of further harm, and stating claims of compulsory duties arising out of jurisdictions foreign to Duff’s domain and Right of Action therein, did, without consideration for his consent or lack thereof, then imprison plaintiff Duff. During imprisonment the Defendants took further ill-considered actions to further injure plaintiff Duff by trespassing upon Duff’s Domain and his Dominion over that domain, did search and seize Duff’s property, over Duff’s express objection thereto, in the form of his person, papers and effects and taking one 1996 Buick Rivera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668 and original bill of sales for two other automobiles, under color of laws foreign to Plaintiff’s domain and without good cause shown, the judgment of the people of Missouri or due process of law (see 10 (b) above ). Judge Williams, like Frazier and others, had a duty to know the law of the land and to observe it rightly.(see #10 (a)(f) above) and thereby knew or should have known that Frazier having lost jurisdiction to act from the outset had therefore failed to bring to his court any proof of jurisdiction over the subject matter or of the person for which Judge Williams was further advised by Duff in his answer to the charges on or about 6/22/07 and the only lawful action 6 Duly: ...according to law in both form and substance. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

remaining for Williams was to dismiss the Frazier action in its entirety and to notify the proper office of government of the probable crimes he was now privy to, and further that failure to do so is a basic due process violation that must extinguish all jurisdiction over the proceedings. In addition, Williams ignored two court orders from the clay county court, case 07CY-CV06125 first to stay his proceedings while Duffs right of action was litigated and second to dismiss that action with prejudice for lack of all jurisdiction once Duff’s rights had been proven Williams ignored everything and passed judgment upon Duff where even Williams must have known he had no lawful jurisdiction to do so. In view of these facts, Williams actions constitute probable cause to believe he was in fact an accessory to the criminal acts of others associated herewith., Williams effectively vacated his position of honor and joined Frazier and other agents as an accomplice and was likely attempting to cover up the crimes associated therewith.

From the moment he was taken away till the present, Duff, under color of law, was kept in actual or constructive imprisonment.

Although he objected to the assumed

jurisdiction, those who kept him imprisoned under color of law did not respond to any of his demands and requests for proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his liberty (all evidence thereof being discoverable). Defendants and their agents continued to assume the jurisdiction without providing proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at providing proof of jurisdiction on the record of the case in direct contravention of #4 and #10(f) above. Duff continues to be subjected, under color of law, to the assumed jurisdiction, will and control of the Defendants and their agents and therefore needs and is due this relief in order to again secure his liberty.

This collectivist mentality ignores the exclusivity of dominion over property that is so pervasive among our office holders is causing otherwise good people to act as criminals. This must stop. You must respect the Life, Liberty and Property of everyone and you must secure that for everyone if you are to hold an office of trust in this society. If you don’t you must lose your office. It is incredible how many judges think that they have no duty to secure the Life,

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

Liberty and property rights of the people who hire them. It is the opinion of this man that the general welfare of the people of Missouri is first in the securing of those fundamental liberties and that there is no excuse for a government entity to initiate action against one of them without probable cause shown that they are engaged in an intentional injury to another. To do otherwise is intellectual dishonesty at the very least.

The facts and law are represented in this document to the best of Duffs ability. Any such allegations of facts that are shown to be misapplied or tangled with other facts are correctible through interaction with Duff for that purpose.

Duff makes these allegations by solemn

affirmation of the truth herein contained and in recognition of the laws against perjury.

Wherefore Duff believes he has provided sufficient facts and law to support probable cause to believe that all the named defendants and their agents have intentionally injured Duff with willful and wanton disregard for their duty and for Duffs right of action..

NOTE: NO INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION OF THIS COMPLAINT CAN POSSIBLY BE THOROUGH WITHOUT HIS PARTICIPATION AND THEREFORE WISHES TO BE COPIED WITH ALL AUDIO OR WRITINGS HEREWITH ASSICIATED. FORWARD ALL SUCH MATERIAL TO: William Duff 2605 So Westport Rd. Independence, Mo 64052 816-5039055 816-3651600 [email protected]

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT

__________________________ 10/2/2008 (Signature)

NOTE: Notary is only necessary if signor does not swear a solemn affirmation in recognition of the laws of perjury Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________day of_______________, 20___. ___________________________ Notary Public

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

WARRANT FOR ARREST

STATE OF MISSOURI ) COUNTY OF CLAY ) IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL COURT WITHIN AND FOR SAID COUNTY. THE STATE OF MISSOURI TO ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI: You are hereby commanded to arrest JUDGE ANTHONY (REX) GABBERT, who is charged with multiple felonies, alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of this court and in violation of the laws of the State of Missouri, and to bring him forthwith before this court to be here dealt with in accordance with law; and you, the officer serving this warrant, shall forthwith make return hereof to this court. WITNESS THE HONORABLE the seal thereof, issued in the county and state aforesaid on this

Judge of the said court and day of , 20

........................................ Judge/Clerk of said Court

........................................ ....................................... Return Served the within warrant in my County of day of 19 by arresting the within named him before the said court on the day of 19

and in the State of Missouri on this and producing

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

FELONY COMPLAINT IN THE 16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF JACKSON

COMES NOW; William Duff, BEING DULY SWORN UPON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND STATES THAT THERE EXISTS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 22,2007, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, THE ACCUSED; JUDGE WILLIAMS OF THE KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI MUNICIPAL COURT, ROOM A, CONSPIRED WITH THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO. PROSECUTOR AND WILLIAM FRAZIER AND HIS AGENTS TO INJURE William duff BY IGNORING FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND ASCEEDING TO CORRUPTION, ALL WITH INTENT TO INJURE William Duff, AND EFFECTIVELY VACATED HIS OFFICE OF TRUST IN SO DOING BECAUSE THE COURT POSSESSED NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OR THE PERSON WITH WHICH TO ACT OR DECIDE UPON FRAZIER’S CLAIMS IN THAT WILLIAMS WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THAT FACT IN DUFFS ANSWER TO SAID CHARGES AND A RESULT OF WHICH WILLIAMS, HAVING DISPOSED OF HIS JUDICIAL IMMUNITY, INTENTIONALLY ENTERED UPON A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT FACILITATED OR COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES: COUNT 1: ACCEDING

TO CORRUPTION

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 575.280. 1

(1) COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF

ACCEDING TO CORRUPTION, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(2), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 22, 2007, IN THE COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY AGREED TO ACCEPT ANY BENEFIT, DIRECT OR

INDIRECT, ON THE REPRESENTATION OR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL INFLUENCE HIS OFFICIAL ACTION IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING PENDING IN ANY COURT OR BEFORE SUCH OFFICIAL IN THAT HAVING BEEN NOTIFIED BY William Duff OF HIS LACK OF ALL JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER BEFORE HIM HE IGNORED SAID CLAIM WHICH ACT WAS TO HIS BENEFIT, THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO AND TO THE BENEFIT OF WILLIAM FRAZIER WITH WHOM HE CONSPIRED TO ACQUIRE DOMINION OVER THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF William Duff, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. COUNT 2: FELONIOUS RESTRAINT THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF , RSMO SECTION 565.120 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 22, 2007, IN THE COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED, OR FACILITATED SAID RESTRAINT, William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSE HIM TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. COUNT 3: ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 571.015, RSMO, COMMITTED THE UNCLASSED FELONY OF ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION, CHARGE CODE 31010990 PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT UNDER COLOR OF LAW ON OR ABOUT JUNE 22, 2007 AND SEVERAL TIMES THEREAFTER, IN THE COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT ASSISTED IN THE COMMIISION OF THE FELONIES OF ROBBERY AND KIDNAPPING OR FELONIOUS RESTRAINT CHARGED IN COUNT I OF THE 9/11/08 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST WILLIAM FRAZIER, ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONIES OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT BY, WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON. . COUNT 6 FALSE IMPRISONMENT: THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 565.130. 1, RSMO COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT BECAUSE HE UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED DUFF OF HIS LIBERTY IN THAT DEFENDANT, AND OR HIS AGENTS UNLAWFULLY TOOK JURISDICTION OVER THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF William Duff WITHOUT HIS CONSENT AND WITHOUT LAWFUL JURISDICTION TO DO SO. THE FACTS THAT FORM THE BASIS FOR THIS INFORMATION AND BELIEF ARE CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF FACTS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, WHICH STATEMENTS ARE MADE A PART HEREOF BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL AND ARE SUBMITTED HEREWITH AS A BASIS UPON WHICH THIS COURT MAY FIND THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT COUNT 5: CONSPIRACY

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 564.016. 1, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF. CONSPIRACY BECAUSE HE CONSPIRED WITH ANOTHER PERSON OR PERSONS TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE IF, WITH THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING OR FACILITATING ITS COMMISSION HE AGREES WITH SUCH OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS THAT THEY OR ONE OR MORE OF THEM WILL ENGAGE IN CONDUCT WHICH CONSTITUTES SUCH OFFENSE RSMO564.016. 1., IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 2007 AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, IN THE COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT BY CLOAKING HIMSELF WITH COLOR OF AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP CRIMES IN ALL COUNTS PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED AGAINST FRAZIER, ROTH, GABBERT AND THEIR AGENTS, IN MAKING RULINGS AND JUDGMENTS AGAINST William Duff WITHOUT POSSESSING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND CAUSING THE 16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT TO RELY THEREON. ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL BY REFERENCE. CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ISSUED AGAINST WILLIAM FRAZIER, ALAN ROTH FILED IN EITHER CLAY OR JACKSON COUNTY, MO. ARE ENTERED HERE BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.. WHEREFORE, William Duff, PRAYS THAT ARREST WARRANTS, ATTACHED HERETO, BE ISSUED AS PROVIDED BY LAW. William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN MISSOURI Address: 2605 So. Westport Rd Independence, Missouri Phone; 8165039055 cell 8163651600 Email: [email protected]

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

WITNESSES: JOHN MICHAEL OYER CHARLES OLIVER KCMO POLICE OFFICER ATTACHED TO NORTH PATROL STATION (UNKNOWN)

BOND REQUEST: $3,000,000.00 COB SEE ATTACHED PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT RANGE OF PUNISHMENT: PER MISSOURI STATUTE 558.011.1, RSMO

__________________________ 10/2/2008 (Signature)

NOTE: Notary is only necessary if signor does not swear a solemn affirmation in recognition of the laws of perjury Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________day of_______________, 20___. ___________________________ Notary Public

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT

I, William Duff, one of the people within Missouri, being the real injured party herein, and upon solemn affirmation, having first hand knowledge of the facts and law herein, and being of sound mind and competent to testify, do aver, testify and affirm that the facts and law herein as stated by William Duff, the real injured party, are true, correct, not misleading, nor declared for any immoral or unethical purpose or frivolous reason, and are material to the matter at hand and made with respect and awareness for the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America. To wit: LAW MATERIAL TO THIS COMPLAINT 36. THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF MISSOURI: RSMo 1.010: The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding; 37. THE MAGNA CARTA AS ALTERED BY INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY IN AMERICA IS THE COMMON LAW PER BILL OF RIGHT: CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM October 10, 1297,

25 Edw. i, c. i. Danby

Pickering (ed.), Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1726-1807), I, 273-75. Declares the Magna Carta to be the common law of England and was so declared during the era eluded to in #1 above;

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

38. COMMON LAW VALID IN MISSOURI:

1

In determining the status of the

common law on the issue before us, we follow the general principle that unless a statute clearly abrogates the common law either expressly or by necessary implication, the common law rule remains valid. N.E. & R. Partnership v. Stone, 745 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).; NOTE:

A STATUTE, BEING A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT HAS NO

STANDING TO ALTER THE DUE PROCESS AS WRITTEN IN THE MAGNA CARTA. AND REFERENCED IN THE 5 TH AMENDMENTSEE #4 NEXT 39. DUE PROCESS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY FROM ALL GOVERNMENT INTRUSION: “Due process principles extend to every proceeding, which may deprive person of life, liberty, or property. - Legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the judicial determination of issues involving life, liberty, or property, a fortiori the finding of a bureau chief or a government department head ruling cannot do so, consistently with the guarantees embodied in the Constitutions of this state and the United States. The protective principles summed up in these due process clauses extend to every proceeding, which may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, whether the process be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943). 40. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF THIS LAND: "An act of the legislature is not necessarily the 'law of the land.' A state cannot make anything 'due process of law' which, by its own legislation, it declares to be such." Burdick v. People, 36 N.E. 948, 949, 149 Ill. 600 (1894).

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

41. DUE PROCESS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL OPINION: "Due process of law does not mean merely according to the will of the Legislature, or the will of some judicial or quasi-judicial body upon whom it may confer authority. It means according to the law of the land, including the Constitution with its guaranties and the legislative enactments and rules duly made by its authority, so far as they are consistent with constitutional limitations." Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N.W. 595, 620 (1913), cases cited. 42. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TERMINATES ALL JURISDICTION: “Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process”, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985). 43. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND: "Daniel Webster, in the Dartmouth College Case, stated: ‘By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land.’ - It is thus entirely correct in assuming that a legislative enactment is not necessarily the law of the land." - Judge Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations, 5th Ed. Little, Brown & Co.: Boston, 1883, Sec.35354, p.432.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

44. DUE PROCESS MEANS “DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW” AS BEING THE LAW OF THIS LAND: “The understanding which the founders of the American constitutional system, and those who wrote the due process clauses, brought to the subject they derived from Coke (Sir Edmund Coke), who in his Second Institutes expounded the proposition that the term ``by law of the land'' was equivalent to ``due process of law,'' which he in turn defined as ``by due process of the common law,’’ As such, the due process mandated in the 5th amendment to the fed constitution and copied in all State constitutions means "Due Process of the Common law is the supreme law of this land” pursuant to Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America. 45. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW AS MANDATED BY THE MAGNA CARTA AND THE 5 TH AMENDMENT (some elements material to this action): a. ARTICLE 45. “We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.” i. MEANING

IN

THIS

SOCIETY:

Officials

must

be

knowledgeable about the law, and willing to apply it rightly and obey it as a condition of their office of trust. Failure to do so is a denial of due process. b. ARTICLE 39: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: One can only be put in jail if a jury puts him there (or if he agrees to be put there). Peers are members of the peerage (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron, in America the “people”). Failure is a denial of due process. c. ARTICLE 38. “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.” i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: No government official may be a witness in court. And if he is going to impose his law on another, then he must have the support of non-governmental witnesses (2 or more). Witnesses paid by the government are not faithful witnesses. Failure to do so is a denial of due process. d. ARTICLE 34. “Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. “ i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: "Praecipe" = order to show cause against property. "Rights" are property. A free man (i.e. nobleman) has his own land and people (slaves). The king may not force a nobleman into the king’s court in such a way that the nobleman would be deprived of his own court. In America, there can be no order or act by an official that would cause a freeman to

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

lose his court where the subject matter originates in his own private

domain.

(see

“The

American

Birthright”

www.williamduff.com for detailed unassailable definition) e. ARTICLE 40. “To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice. “ i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: Free justice, without delay. The government will assume the entire cost of prosecution. Defense from that prosecution is included. This is why the court will appoint free counsel. Failure to do so is a denial of due process. f. USA SUPREME COURT:

“Where rights are secured by the

Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966). i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY:

Rights secured by the

constitutions are specifically Individual Life, Liberty and Property. 46.FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS VOIDS JURISDICTION: ‘Violation of due process vacates jurisdiction over the subject matter’, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 FACTS 47. Williams, having read Duff’s answer to Fraziers charges knew or should have known he had no jurisdiction to make rulings in those cases other than to dismiss or to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction. Williams did neither. Williams heard fact scenario of the cases and refused to hear jurisdictional

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

challenges. Because Williams did make rulings that restrained Duff as well as issuing warrants for Duff respecting those rulings, all of which injure Duff, he refused to provide due process of law and therefore lost any jurisdiction he may have had in that denial of due process as comprehended by The 5th amendment and the Missouri declaration of rights having the same meaning vacates jurisdiction. (see #11 above).. Williams act became willful and wanton upon actual notice of the facts and in so doing made himself an accessory to the crimes committed against Duff by Frazier and his agents. 48. Frazier, serial # 3092, wrote three civil traffic citations claiming Duff’s failure to have valid State Driver License case# 224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9), all of which are Kansas City, Missouri Municipal ordinance violations where Frazier later testified without the assent of non government witnesses respecting the charges and where Frazier failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of his claim.

Williams held all Frazier’s actions to be valid except the financial

responsibility charge which he dismissed saying “ you can’t charge that unless the vehicle is registered’ (COUNTS 1,2,3,4 AND 5 ). Duff was held in that jail, approximately 1.5 hours, until he posted bond of $300, ( FRAZIER COUNTS 1 & 2), all of which are denial of due process as referenced in #10, a,b,c,f and #11 above. 49. Duff called next friends; John Michael Oyer and Charles Oliver who came to the Station before Duff was released and who called the bondsman on Duff’s behalf. Both witnessed Duff’s release from that facility. Duff posted the bond and was released to find that Frazier had made good on his threat to take duff’s car and

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

personal property including but not limited to original bills of sale for the car taken and a second car and other valuable personal property owned by Duff. Duff presumed that Frazier had had Duff’s car with personal property towed to the police tow lot. Later, Duff found that to be true and gave notice of the unlawful act to the person in charge over the tow lot of the error. It is important to note here that Duff’s car was parked in the parking lot at the station, in a publicly owned right of way, and was not obstructing others use. 50. Thereafter Frazier did take the three charges previously defined to the City prosecutor where the case against Duff was filed before the Municipal court and Judge Williams of courtroom A was appointed to hear the matters. Duff filed an answer with that court on or about June 22, 2007 and from that time on Williams had full knowledge of the facts herein related and failed to dismiss with prejudice and later at the hearing refused to dismiss. (COUNT 1) 51. Williams issued or caused to be issued orders of appearance against bond (COUNTS 1,2) 52. Williams issued judgment against Duff with an armed bailiff poised and ready to do the judges bidding. (COUNTS 1,2,3,4) 53. Williams issued bench warrant for contempt as Duff did not pay fines imposed by Williams associated with the charges and therefore extended the constructive imprisonment of Duff to this day. (COUNT 5) 54. During testimony the only witness against Duff was one government witness, William Frazier, who provided no evidence in support of his charges. (see # 10 (c) above COUINTS 1, 2 )

SUMMARY Duff claims Defendants and all their agents in support of their action have individually and severally injured Duff with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Right of action,

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

unreasonable search and seizure of Duff’s person and property, kidnapping, false imprisonment, Trespass with violence, armed criminal action, battery, robbery, and false imprisonment against Duff adversely effecting his Dominion over his own private domain and Right of action, all of which was done under color of law and without lawful authority to act nor as a lawful function of the offices of trust herewith associated. As such, their actions deserve no more respect than a criminal engaged in those same acts. Judge Williams, as did all actors, had a duty to know the law of the land and to observe it rightly.(see #10 (a) above) and further that failure to do so is a basic due process violation that must extinguish all jurisdiction over the proceedings including the charges made by Frazier that appear to be an attempt to hide his crimes (see # 10 (f) and 11 above ). Frazier and Roth exceeded their jurisdiction, and therefore vacated their office of trust, by either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another causing plaintiff Duff to be unlawfully and forcibly carried away and imprisoned 7 against his will and in willful and wanton disregard for prior notice to them of the wrong they engaged, without jurisdiction or good cause shown (pursuant to #4 above). Even if Duff were subject to the rules Frazier was attempting to enforce, which he is not and no proof to the contrary emerged at trial, they would be “civil” in nature and not subject to criminal enforcement such as was used. At the onset of the unlawful imprisonment and property theft plaintiff Duff injured no one and was duly8 engaged in good faith and in his own private capacity, and at all times within the “Bright Line Boundary” of his own private domain, and exercising his Right to go with his property upon the Public Right of Way. Said Defendants, being noticed, and now acting with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Rights secured by the Constitutions and without good cause, interrupted Duff’s Private 7 Imprison:

To confine a person or restrain his liberty in any way. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

Imprisonment: ...it may be in a locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual application of any physical agencies of restraint (such as locks or bars), as by verbal compulsion and the display of available force. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition 8 Duly: ...according to law in both form and substance. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

Right of Action putting him in apprehension of further harm, and stating claims of compulsory duties arising out of jurisdictions foreign to Duff’s domain and Right of Action therein, did, without consideration for his consent or lack thereof, then imprison plaintiff Duff. During imprisonment the Defendants took further ill-considered actions to further injure plaintiff Duff by trespassing upon Duff’s Domain and his Dominion over that domain, did search and seize Duff’s property, over Duff’s express objection thereto, in the form of his person, papers and effects and taking one 1996 Buick Rivera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668 and original bill of sales for two other automobiles, under color of laws foreign to Plaintiff’s domain and without good cause shown, the judgment of the people of Missouri or due process of law (see 10 (b) above ). Judge Williams, like Frazier and others, had a duty to know the law of the land and to observe it rightly.(see #10 (a)(f) above) and thereby knew or should have known that Frazier having lost jurisdiction to act from the outset had therefore failed to bring to his court any proof of jurisdiction over the subject matter or of the person for which Judge Williams was further advised by Duff in his answer to the charges on or about 6/22/07 and the only lawful action remaining for Williams was to dismiss the Frazier action in its entirety and to notify the proper office of government of the probable crimes he was now privy to, and further that failure to do so is a basic due process violation that must extinguish all jurisdiction over the proceedings. In addition, Williams ignored two court orders from the clay county court, case 07CY-CV06125 first to stay his proceedings while Duffs right of action was litigated and second to dismiss that action with prejudice for lack of all jurisdiction once Duff’s rights had been proven (COUNT 1,2) (see #10 (d) ).. Williams ignored everything and passed judgment upon Duff where even Williams must have known he had no lawful jurisdiction to do so. In view of these facts, Williams actions constitute probable cause to believe he was in fact an accessory to the criminal acts of others associated herewith., Williams effectively vacated his position of honor and joined Frazier and other agents as an accomplice and was likely attempting to cover up the crimes associated therewith.

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

From the moment he was taken away till the present, Duff, under color of law, was kept in actual or constructive imprisonment.

Although he objected to the assumed

jurisdiction, those who kept him imprisoned under color of law did not respond to any of his requests for evidence of proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his liberty (all evidence thereof being discoverable). Defendants and their agents continued to assume the jurisdiction without proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at proof of jurisdiction in direct contravention of #4 and #10(f) above.

Duff continues to be subjected, under color of law, to the assumed

jurisdiction, will and control of the Defendants and their agents and therefore needs and is due this relief in order to again secure his liberty. This collectivist mentality ignores the exclusivity of dominion over property that is so pervasive among our office holders is causing otherwise good people to act as criminals. This must stop. You must respect the Life, Liberty and Property of everyone and you must secure that for everyone if you are to hold an office of trust in this society. If you don’t you must lose your office. It is incredible how many judges think that they have no duty to secure the Life, Liberty and property rights of the people who hire them. It is the opinion of this man that the general welfare of the people of Missouri is first in the securing of those fundamental liberties and that there is no excuse for a government entity to initiate action against one of them without probable cause shown that they are engaged in an intentional injury to another. To do otherwise is intellectual dishonesty at the very least. The facts and law are represented in this document to the best of Duffs ability. Any such allegations of facts that are shown to be misapplied or tangled with other facts are correctible through interaction with Duff for that purpose.

Duff makes these allegations by solemn

affirmation of the truth herein contained and in recognition of the laws against perjury. Wherefore Duff believes he has provided sufficient facts and law to support probable cause to believe that all the named defendants and their agents have intentionally injured Duff with willful and wanton disregard for their duty and for Duffs right of action..

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT

__________________________ 10/2/2008 (Signature)

NOTE: Notary is only necessary if signor does not swear a solemn affirmation in recognition of the laws of perjury Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________day of_______________, 20___. ___________________________ Notary Public

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer

WARRANT FOR ARREST

STATE OF MISSOURI ) COUNTY OF JACKSON ) IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL COURT WITHIN AND FOR SAID COUNTY. THE STATE OF MISSOURI TO ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI: You are hereby commanded to arrest JUDGE WILLIAMS OF COURTROOM A KANSAS CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, who is charged with multiple felonies, alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of this court and in violation of the laws of the State of Missouri, and to bring him forthwith before this court to be here dealt with in accordance with law; and you, the officer serving this warrant, shall forthwith make return hereof to this court. WITNESS THE HONORABLE the seal thereof, issued in the county and state aforesaid on this

Judge of the said court and day of , 20

........................................ Judge/Clerk of said Court

........................................ ....................................... Return Served the within warrant in my County of day of 19 by arresting the within named him before the said court on the day of 19

and in the State of Missouri on this and producing

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer