by / Sunday, 21 January 2018 / Published in HATJ, OPPT Absolute


Filled on and published on The I UV, on January 21, 2018






1.21.18_Doc 92_DUE REJECTION OF DOC 85

click here to download directly

1.21.18_Doc 92_DUE REJECTION OF DOC 85




click here to download directly





click here to download directly





click here to download directly



click here to download directly





17 Responses to “#HATJ & RKB 1.21.18 Doc #92,93,94,95… DUE REJECTION OF OFFER TO RE-CONTRACT”

  1. Cynthia says : Reply

    I love Heather! She is going down in history as the most remarkable tenacious warrior!! These guys have got to be pulling their hair out???? They have never seen so much tenacity!! I would LOVE to see the look on their faces when they receive her responses. She is blowing their minds. HATJ is way out of their league. This is absolutely phenomenal!!!

    • savanna lynn says : Reply

      Go Heather!

    • Bill T. says : Reply

      Please help me understand this better, because I don’t have a good feeling right before the trial starts. Heather’s strategy is to write “rejected” on everything and send it back with the statement that they don’t have jurisdiction over her. But they already said that they do, and they’re sure acting like they do.

      The fact that she is only using the same argument over and over worries me. She didn’t file anything about how the treasury accounts are real, which would not only get her set free but would prove to the government that they have to let people access them, which would help all of us end tyranny and do better for ourselves and our families. But she’s not filing anything like that, and it’s too late to file evidence of that now.

      So I’m not sure that filing the same thing over and over is “blowing their minds.” Am I missing something? I really want this to work out the way it’s supposed to but I don’t have a good feeling.

      • Jeffrey Ehrenkrantz says : Reply

        To those that are having a problem comprehending the repeated rejections,
        It’s all “contract law” both parties must knowingly, willingly and intentualy (some say intelligently) agree to contract.
        The courts are all businesses and have to have a valid contract to adjudicate. Ever new document from the court and or the alleged plaintiff must have a valid contract with the purported defendants to proceed. **** This is heart of the matter ***
        Obligation of contracts!!! IN short – don’t agree to a contract, the court has no jurisdictional authority. If they transgress there authority (go above without resolving the issue of standing) the perpetrator has committed treason.

        See all 4 versions of the constitution’s ;
        Article I section 10
        :No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title …

  2. Paul Mc says : Reply

    !Attention ALL Personnel. This is NOT a test! Go indoors immediately! Close all windows and doors. Make your way beneath the kitchen table and remain there till the all clear is given. Essential items such as cookies, iPad and cushions are mandatory!”

    “Tcard, Tcard, come in Tcard … chill out and watch the show!”

  3. Catherine Baird says : Reply

    This should not have been necessary, and it is not pretty. But when the law of the land ceases to be just, transparent, or honorable, we the people have no choice but to revoke the apparent powers of those who like to say that they have any reason or right to govern free people in any jurisdiction.

    It is over. Not just for HATJ, but for all. It’s done.

    Never again!
    ~Cath Baird~

    • BZ ⒾAM Riger says : Reply


      You said “But when the law of the land ceases to be just, transparent, or honorable, …”
      Expand out a bit to See- what is really being shown…

      It Did NOT Cease to be…-

      It NEVER Was!

  4. PASTOR Eddie says : Reply

    Dear; Heather, I love the way you handle those in Superior positions trying to intimidate the public keep pressing forth and I would like to know a little more about something in specific please email me!

  5. carm says : Reply

    GO ,TEAM LIGHT, GO! All are in the DOing of Focused Presence and Our Expansion is based on SELF Truth. What a Love-ly example of Knowing this IS …. MUCH GRATITUDE for yOur clear attitude and participations! 🙂

  6. Joey says : Reply

    Hi All,

    Although I seem to connect the dots at each state of his play, and can somewhat put together the understanding of the rejected documents.

    From a clearly task based linear understanding. Can someone or BZ help me with a question I have.

    When ALL these documents are rejected for due cause, where do they go, and who see’s them?
    What is the next action of the alleged court if ALL is rejected? How can they have an alleged trial if ALL is rejected?

    Thanks Joey!

  7. Joey says : Reply

    Hi ALL/BZ

    I think I answered my own question. After pondering…

    Where do the docs go? They go to H. Why? Because the courts have not proven jurisdiction. So what next? Well H has the so called power here. In order for anything to move forward, with this alleged case, the alleged courts MUST prove jurisdiction over her or any human, which they have not nor can they. Thus rejecting any such alleged case against H and R

    I think I got it now..WOW


  8. Dee Ess Double Ewe says : Reply

    You Go, Heather! Kick that evil corrupt criminal ass! 😉

  9. Christine says : Reply

    Go girl. We love you.

  10. Aidan says : Reply

    No faith whatsoever in this Corrupt Judicial Banking Court House it is a sham fraud scam all about the Birth Trusts they are attempting to take out of now…I hate this system the Court it is in my opinion a Rothschild’s Bank & the Puppets work directly for these Hoods…

  11. Edwin Roman says : Reply

    Dear; HATJ, or whoever is handling her business please fill us in what’s going on, there seems to be a confusion going on? And the spirit needs to be cleared!!!

  12. Noel says : Reply

    Relax Bill, the play is near the end, Heather knows the outcome already. Only she could play this part exposing the bad actors and corruption and putting it on Court Record, with a little help from her friends. GO GIRL.

  13. I AM says : Reply

    Sua sponte
    In law, sua sponte (Latin: “of his, her, its or their own accord”) or suo motu “on its own motion”[1] describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties. The form nostra sponte (“of our own accord”) is sometimes used by the court itself, when the action is taken by a multi-member court, such as an appellate court, rather than by a single judge (third parties describing such actions would still refer to them as being taken by the court as a whole and therefore as ‘sua sponte’). While usually applied to actions of a court, the term may reasonably be applied to actions by government agencies and individuals acting in official capacity.

    One situation in which a party might encourage a judge to move sua sponte occurs when that party is preserving a special appearance (usually to challenge jurisdiction), and therefore cannot make motions on its own behalf without making a general appearance. Common reasons for an action taken sua sponte are when the judge determines that the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction or that the case should be moved to another judge because of a conflict of interest, even if all parties disagree.

    Notable cases Edit
    Carlisle v. United States 517 U.S. 416 (1996) – The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a district court could not move sua sponte to grant a judgment of acquittal (notwithstanding the verdict) to remedy the late filing of the equivalent motion.[2]
    Trest v. Cain 522 U.S. 87 (1997), 94 F.3d 1005 – The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit moved sua sponte to reject a habeas corpus claim because of procedural default, citing an obligation to do so. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not obligatory, but declined to rule whether it was permitted.[3]
    Since 2009, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has frequently taken up suo motu cases against government authorities there. This includes cases involving violence in the country, government corruption, imposing price ceilings on various commodities, and many other cases.[4][5][6][7][8] The extent to which the court should exercise this authority is a matter of political debate.[9]
    A special reference as to the initiation of Inquisitorial proceedings was also made by the Supreme Court of India, to facilitate this epistolary proceedings (suo moto cognizance), a Public interest litigation cell has been opened in the Supreme Court to which letters addressed to the Court or individual judges are forwarded which are placed before the Chief Justice after scrutiny by the staff attached to the cell. The court is not bound by the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act to fulfill the object and purpose of Article 32, and can devise inquisitorial or other procedures.
    Other uses Edit
    The 75th Ranger Regiment (United States Army Rangers) uses Sua Sponte as their regimental motto, referring to the Rangers’ ability to accomplish tasks with little to no prompting and to recognize that a Ranger volunteers three times: for the U.S. Army, Airborne School, and service in the 75th Ranger Regiment.[10]
    The Fenn School in Concord, Massachusetts, uses Sua Sponte as its school motto, usually seen written in a furled banner beneath an engraving of the Daniel Chester French The Concord Minute Man of 1775 statue.
    See also Edit
    Motu proprio
    References Edit
    ^ “(See–> Paragraph 26) Political Parties Dispute Tribunal & another v Musalia Mudavadi & 6 others Ex Parte Petronila Were [2014] eKLR”. The National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law) 17-11- 2014. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
    ^ Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (Supreme Court of the United States 1996).
    ^ Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court of the United States 1997).
    ^ Karachi violence suo motu: Supreme Court to resume proceedings from today – The Express Tribune
    ^ SC reserves verdict in POL GST suo motu case | Pakistan Today | Latest news | Breaking news | Pakistan News | World news | Business | Sport and Multimedia
    ^ Pakistan court takes suo motu notice of Hazara killings – The Hindu
    ^ Daily Times – Leading News Resource of Pakistan
    ^ Pak`s CJ takes suo motu notice of illegal CNG licences
    ^ The power of suo motu – The Express Tribune
    ^ US Army Ranger Association http://www.ranger.org/page-593596. Retrieved 29 March 2015. Missing or empty |title= (help)
    Last edited 7 months ago by SourceOhWatch (SrotahaUvacha)
    Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
    Terms of UsePrivacyDesktop

Leave a Reply