Order 0801 Staying Muni

AUG 0 1 2007 IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF CLAY - DIVISION 2 William Duff, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER WILLIAM FRAZIER, (SERIAL 3092) AND OFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL # 4090) Defendants.

Clay County Circuit Court

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

IN THIS COURT OF RECORD, THE COURT taking cognizance of the facts and law of this case respecting plaintiffs motion for judicial notice, and cognizes the facts and law as follows;

LAW: 1. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page

318.] 2. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are: A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, CJ. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229,231] D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 23 l.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 23 l.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] 3. 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. [Magna Carta, Article 34]. 4. "Inferior courts" are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law." Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652 5. "The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California 'superior court' is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195" 7 Cal. Jur. 579 6. However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. "The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)] 7. Exhibit F of plaintiff's action. FACTS: 1. 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), (See Exhibit C) is a traffic court with statutory jurisdiction and fails to meet all the requirements of a court of record;

2. William Duff vs. William Frazier and Alan Roth 07CY-CV06125 is a court of record proceeding according to the common law and meets all the requirements of same; 3. A conflict exists between the two courts respecting the duties of the judge in one and the magistrate in the other as well as jurisdictional issues and the law applicable to this controversy; 4. The property at controversy, whether it be property or money is the property of William Duff; 5. The Claim by defendants seeks to take property belonging to William Duff before he is heard; THIS COURT OF RECORD FINDS AS FOLLOWS; Property belonging to Plaintiff is at the center of this controversy in both actions and defendants seek to take said property pursuant to its claim that is disputed by plaintiff. A property right is involved. As such, this court possesses superior jurisdiction over the inferior traffic court respecting adjudication of that property right, to wit; ORDER This court of record, being fully informed in this matter; orders as follows; The traffic court action herein described as; traffic citations State Driver License case# 224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9), being adjudicated in the Municipal Court of Kansas City, Mo in room B be suspended until such time as this court of record, styled as William Duff vs. William Frazier and Alan Roth 07CY-CV06125, has fully adjudicated the property rights of plaintiff respecting the claim brought by William Frazier and his agents. Further, the property heretofore taken from plaintiff on or about June 5, 2007 by defendant is to be returned to plaintiff without delay. PRECEAPE: The Clerk of this court is directed to issue a writ of replevin with waiver of bond and deliver it to the Sheriff of Jackson County, Missouri or whatever county in

Missouri wherein the property referenced above is located, without cost or delay to plaintiff and that all costs related thereto are to be taxed against defendants, and that the property above described be returned to plaintiff at 108 NW 101 Place Kansas City, Mo 64155 without delay. This order shall be copied and delivered to the Municipal court of Kansas City, Mo room B Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all other interested parties a brief no later than 10 (ten) days after receipt of this order to show cause to this court why this order should not take effect or should be modified and notice of intent to file said brief must be filed within 3 days of receiving this order either by email or by fax or by filing same into the record of this case. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fair play, will liberally construe the arguments presented. IT IS SO ORDERED,

Private Attorney Cc: William Duff to: [email protected], William Frazier and Alan Roth to: 1001 NW Barry Rd. Kansas City, Missouri C/O KCMO Police Department - North Division

Seal of the court

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify the forgoing document has been sent to all defendants at 1001 NW Barry rd KCMO c/o Kansas City Police Department - north division