Final Decree

1 2 3 4 5 6

IN THE 7™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF CLAY - DIVISION 2 William Duff, Plaintiff, v.

7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

OFFICER WILLIAM FRAZIER, (SERIAL 3092) AND OFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL #4090) Defendants.

) CASE NO. 07CY-CV06125 ) )ORDER ) FOR TRESPASS, AND ) TRESPASS ON THE CASE ) ) ) VERIFIED )

FINAL JUDGMENT, DECISION AND ORDER COMES NOW, THE COURT being fully informed in the premises herein associated makes absolute the judgments and orders previously filed in this case and further states, to wit;

19 20

JUDGMENT;

21

Even though defendant had long since defaulted its duty to defend this action this court allowed

22

defendant's attorney; Assistant Attorney General of Missouri (AAGM), to present arguments on behalf

23

of defendants and the State, in the interest of fair and impartial justice. Those arguments now having

24

been heard and rebutted by plaintiff and with sufficient time for the AAGM to answer plaintiffs

25

rebuttal and demand for the body of evidence in support now expired, this court adjudges as follows;

26 27

Title to the property taken from plaintiff and sold by defendants and their agents correctly belongs to

28

William Duff as title passed from a jurisdiction other than the State of Missouri directly into the

29

domain (jurisdiction) of William Duff and in no way implicated Missouri statute as claimed by

30

AAGM. See; RSMo 400.9-303.' As such the order of Replevin issued by this court stands as issued.

31 1

RSMo 400.9-303. (a) This section applies to goods covered by a certificate of title, even if there is no other relationship between the jurisdiction under whose certificate of title the goods are covered and the goods or the debtor. (b) Goods become covered by a certificate of title when a valid application for the certificate of title and the applicable fee are delivered to the appropriate authority. Goods cease to be covered by a certificate of title at the earlier of the time the certificate of title ceases to be effective under the law of the issuing jurisdiction or the time the goods become covered subsequently by a certificate of title issued by another jurisdiction. (c) The local law of the jurisdiction under whose certificate of title the goods are covered governs perfection, the effect of perfection or non-perfection, and the priority of a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title from the time the goods become covered by the certificate of title until the goods cease to be covered by the certificate of title.

Page 1

10/1/2007

32

This court does however amend its previous judgment respecting this property in that should sheriffs

33

not be able to find and return said property plaintiff is entitled to and is awarded five (5) times the

34

value placed on the property by plaintiff or Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), plus an

35

additional Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for important private property contained in said

36

automobile. This amendment is in comprehension of defendants and their agents taking and disposal

37

of said property without any due process of law whatsoever.

38 39

Respecting defendants clear default and original failure to timely answer this action and now

40

defendant's attorney's failure to answer plaintiffs rebuttal to defendant's motions to dismiss, this court

41

finds no sufficient facts or law presented by defendants that would allow this court to decide for

42

defendants, in that, "It [the doctrine of Estoppel by Silence] arises where a person is under duty to

43

another to speak or failure to speak is inconsistent with honest dealings." Heckler v Community Health

44

Services, 467 US 51, at 59,60, and therefore the previous judgment of this court stands with respect to

45

plaintiffs right to compensation for Trespass with violence by defendants.

46

Further, this court finds that governmental immunity does not protect defendants as the acts

47

complained of here exceed any grant of authority possessed by the defendants or their agents as is

48

consistent with Ex Parte v Young, 209 US 123 (1908) .2

49 50

Respecting Proceedings against William Duff in the Municipal court of Kansas City, Mo, including the

51

3 original charges (supra) and latest charge of "improper use of evid of registration/certif of title" case

52

# 022433551, this court finds said Municipal court devoid of all jurisdiction to hear or decide said

53

issues unless the City of Kansas City or the State of Missouri can first provide evidence that the State,

54

County or the City either possess an ownership interest in Mr. Duff3 or in his property4. Barring those

55

unlikely evidences this court directs said Municipal court to dismiss its action forth with. Further,

56

respecting rights associated with ownership bar such enforcement.5 In comprehension of Plaintiff s 2

Further, being advised, as in Ex Parte v Young, 209 US 123 (1908), "The attempt of a State Officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of and does not effect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity, and is an illegal act, and the officer is stripped of his official character and is subject in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. 3 Amendments barring slavery preclude any such evidence 4 Defendats attorney, AAGM failed or refused to provide any such evidence in this proceeding and time has run to do so 5 "Either you have a right to own property, or you are property." - E. Wayne Hage, March 1992 In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit.

Page 2

10/1/2007

57

Liberty and property interests further action respecting these matters, against William Duff, will be

58

viewed by this court as contempt and trespass on this case.

59 ORDER

60 61

All previous orders by this court respecting the instant case are to be enforced forthwith as amended

62

herein. The Sheriff of any county in Missouri wherein Plaintiffs property is found is directed by this

63 64

court to immediately return same to him with costs borne by defendants, and further;

65

for lack of jurisdiction in that all such matters have been fairly decided here, and further;

66

Every act, once noticed, to any public official in Missouri inconsistent with this decision shall be

67

evidence of contempt of this decision and of this court.

68

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECIDED, AND DECREED

69

DATED Monday, October 01,2007

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

The actions against William Duff by City of Kansas City, Mo as referenced herein are to be dismissed

THE COURT By

William Da^tfuffffl Attornatus Privitus

SEAL

Cc: William Duff to: [email protected], William Frazier and Alan Roth to: 1001 NW Barry Rd. Place Kansas City, Missouri C/O KCMO Police Department - North Division EMILY A. DODGE Assistant Attorney General at; [email protected] and emily.dodge(S)ago.mo.gov

Page 3

10/1/2007