Pacer Recorded 9.29.17 Praecipe HATJ

by / Friday, 29 September 2017 / Published in Absolute Data, HATJ, OPPT Absolute



Pacer Recorded 9.29.17 Praecipe HATJ
These are the documents that Heather recorded today to complete her deadline for filing documents for her hearing on October 18, 2017


 Definition of Praecipe-


noun: praecipe; plural noun: praecipes
  1. an order requesting a writ or other legal document.
    • historical
      a writ demanding action or an explanation of nonaction.

To download directly right click here


Pacer Recorded 09-29-17 Praecipe HATJ





Paul Francis McDonald added this other legal dictionary definition and a comment on HATJ’s Praecipe- BZ


A Dictionary of Law – William Anderson, 1889

PRAECIPE. L. Command.
1. An original writ in the alternative, commanding the defendant to do the thing required or to show cause why he has not done it.

Abridged from praecipe quod reddat, command that he return. The writ issued where something certain was demanded, incumbent of the defendant to perform (superscript)1

2. A paper containing the particulars of a writ, for the instruction of the officer who is to issue it. Spelled also precipe. See PRECEPT.
PRECEPT. A command or mandate in writing. Of equal import with writ or process. (superscript)4 See PRAECIPE.
“Popular Law Library Vol 1 Introduction to the study of Law Legal History”, by Albert H. Putney. 1908, Cree Publishing Company.

Section 64 The Original Writs

“The leading principle of the Norman procedure was undoubtedly the kings writ. It replaced the ancient summons, by the party injured, to the accused”
… which; in my interpretaion means that whereas originally, it was a man or a woman that had the authority to issue a summons in causes of controversy; a summons being the necessary intrument by which notice is given and notice in and of itself being a fundamental requirement to enable a hearing of the cause of matter in an open public forum to take place in the first place; thereafter then it was the king who issued a writ on behalf of his “subject”, and thereby, abrogating, subjugation,, subordinating, violating and invading the original authority and original jurisdiction of the original beings to issue as they saw fit.

Its called the commandeering of value.
Luckily, and happily that kind of carry on is no more. And the specific single instrument which achieves that once and for all is the above referenced Praecipe as filed. And the power and authority of Original is seen for what it is, and all is seen for what it is, which inevitably must lead one then to either a realization or a consciousness or a knowing of who and what One is … not someone else’s view or someone else’s truth of what that may or may not be or even ordered to be … lol, how quaint.




26 Responses to “Pacer Recorded 9.29.17 Praecipe HATJ”

  1. DMM says : Reply

    Great Work! Always Best Wishes and THANK YOU!!!


    Peace, Love, Understanding

  2. Janis says : Reply

    I AM in awe, with profound love, GRATITUDE, respect, admiration, excitement, DOing and BEing in the FLOW with unbridled IMAGINATION, CREATING, CREATING, CREATING . . . . LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to ALL!

  3. I sense the AWESOMENESS in this praecipe ..
    Bringing the Truth of the End of the Slavery System ‘home’
    How brilliant in all ways
    Gratitude flows <3

  4. Caren says : Reply

    WOW. Lots of good hefty data Heather!!!! ❤️❤️

  5. noel says : Reply

    If I understood this, as I think I have, it sounds to me as if HEATHER has turned the table’s on them and they now have to prove that the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE LAWS do not apply to them. Would that be right?
    LOVE what she is doing, POWER TO YOU HEATHER.

    • BZ ⒾAM Riger says : Reply

      Heather is clearly stating what has always been so, by their design. That is, the UCC is the Law of the land on planet and off. And is Noticing them that ALL, now know that. The UCC has been returned to Original with no thing/no entity/no standing between Original Source and each embodyment. As it is written and is standing law, unrebutted/unrebuttable since March of 2013

  6. Jeff says : Reply

    Thank you for providing the pacer document. It is surely a masterful Praecipte by Heather. Who’s fight for all humanity is without parallel.

    Your comment is extremely insightful and I would like to use it if i may from:
    A Dictionary of Law – William Anderson, 1889
    “Popular Law Library Vol 1 Introduction to the study of Law Legal History”, by Albert H. Putney. 1908, Cree Publishing Company.

    Forever grateful to you and Heather.
    The original, [Jeffrey:Ehrenkrantz:(c):All rights reserved]

    • Paul Mc says : Reply

      Hi Jeff, It was in fact the lovely BZ who provided the pacer document above and much much more besides, for what seems like forever. Amazing work all ways. You can of course use the comment, no problem. 🙂

  7. Frances in France says : Reply

    Hi, after reading the 84 or 86 pages of the detention hearing, I had the impression that Heather had to stay in a house between 8 pm and 8 am, that she could prepare her defense and she accepted not to be in contact with certain people and not to publish anything about her case. Is this publication not doing harm to her defense?

  8. jody says : Reply

    ll sounds good and I wish heather well , but the facts as I see them is they were accessing accounts that do not belong to them . I believe the best argument might be is if its not my account why have you attached me to it my entire life ?Why have you removed money from my earnings and deposited them into the account if it is not mine ?

    • jonathan says : Reply

      Please provide specifics (proof) of your claim: “the facts as I see them is they were accessing accounts that do not belong to them”.

  9. Joey says : Reply


    I am reading over this now! GOOD Stuff

  10. Anasazi says : Reply

    What is “Dimissal?”


    Dismissal was used in Praecipe #2.

    “Copy of statement of said accounts”, would be interesting to see.

  11. Joey says : Reply

    I think I read the first several pages out loud. This is profound…amazing energy…and it will be very interesting how the current court system sees this.

    I bet they all have huge ??? over there head


  12. jonathan says : Reply

    Great she included Maxims of Law so the crownsnakes avoid using “prosecutor logic” and waste time.

    Excellent that she has included FACTS of the foreclosure of the CORPORATIONS.

    Hopefully these “ignorant” of the new “legal landscape” “Just Us” system participants will ACCEPT the FACTS and end their criminal behavior.

    Heather suggests “they” all want change and “good guys” are on the inside. The FACT is: the current “Just Us” system relies on VIOLENCE and THREATS of violence to IMPOSE “jurisdiction”.

    Anyone who disagrees with this statement, provide proof that just because I live in the USA that its (“corporate”) rules (“laws”) apply to me, regardless of the OPPT filings.

    The “power” (BAR members pretending not to be BAR members) in black robes use the thugs with guns to pretend they are “of service to others”. This criminal organization (Given “offcial~ness” by BAR members) will soon choke on its own ignorance of fact.

    Remove crown and all agents of crown I say!

    Love to Heather (and team) !!!

  13. Kanani says : Reply

    Buddy Greg is dead
    Parker H. Still can’t spell his name right

    • Paul Mc says : Reply

      In the first instance it could be said that in his ‘testimony’ to the ‘grand jury’ Parker was under the impression, and to the best of his knowledge and belief, that Buddy Gregg was in the room during the course of that published telephone conversation.

      Furthermore, law is a strange animal. It may be that Parker has two names and that each of those names represent slightly different capacities or legal positions, such as if he changed his name by deed poll between the two testimonies (having instigated the application before the indictment was even considered and having had it completed before he gave his testimony in WA DC) which he may have been entitled to use in his own estimation; or, that the way his name was spelled in WA DC was a misinterpretation by the court reporter of exactly what he said.

      He may be somewhat dyslexic, which is not an uncommon condition and that when he was spelling his name he somehow misspoke the pronunciation of ‘i’ as ‘e’ and he then corrected himself, resulting in the court reporter writing verbatim what he actually said, even though he genuinely intended to state his name correctly. There are a multitude of possible explanations for what the court reporter transcribed at that moment. It simply does not prove any intention to deceive anyone, in my view in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

      It could also be said, on the basis that companies continue to exist long after their founders are deceased, that Parker was referring to the company Buddy Gregg and not its founder that was in the room and he would then of course have been quite correct.

      I really do not believe that what Parker H. Still said in his testimony, either in Knoxville or in WA DC is any real factual basis for labeling him a liar and that such a statement would be both unfair and irresponsible.

      It really is very easy to sensationalize a story, or find alleged wrongdoing by twisting peoples words or extracting meaning which are either not there at all or downright misleading. Yes, such things happen in courts all the time, but that is not an excuse to actively engage in such practices … for any reason.

  14. noel says : Reply

    I don’t claim to understand a lot of the language used on this site, so my interpretation in laymans words of BZ’s comment above, would be that, they no longer have Jurisdiction because the UCC no longer exists as it, was also FORECLOSED on March 2013. Is this correct ? B Z thank you.

  15. Laura says : Reply

    I remember how this felt in 2012 to experience these documents and how nothing in my life was ever the same afterwards! Pivotal, transformative and profound – that December was a major high moment in “experiencing” as the many! I especially love the pages between pg45 and 52 – the power in Truth that is able to BE, be-cause! We are all “cause” as creator and Be as Truth!
    Just imagining,(smile) the alleged clerks, judges, etc with these documents having to study up and doing a little bedtime reading to prepare for the hearing!
    The date 10/18 is interesting too! 10 = 1 (new beginnings) and 18 = 9 (completion) Let’s SEE this DONE for ALL!
    Major THANKS to you BZ, and the whole team supporting Heather and all of humanity right now – you know who you are – We ARE One and Many – Experiencing this monumental shift together!
    So much Love to ALL!

  16. Jay J says : Reply

    I am still praying for RKB, HATJ and for World Peace without World War. My thanks to all of you who put together the OPPT. Looking through all of these documents, I see that Heather did more than her homework – she did ours as well! I will repay this by doing my part to make this world a better place for all of us. Thanks again.

  17. MARSHA MAINES says : Reply

    My only concern is lack of proper Grammar-Syntax. Remember “their courts” use CONVERSION OF LANGUAGE. Their VERSION of English is actually copyrighted (legal).The THEY may be called out for “jurisidictional” basis of Authority solely by use of CONVERSION (Perjury – 18 USC 1001) – Lack of Full Disclosure and/or Lack of Notice of WHICH LANGUAGE GOVERNS the Proceedings – is Manifest Injustice. 😉

  18. MARSHA MAINES says : Reply

    Remember – THE ACCOUNTS only EXISTED as DERIVATIVES OF the Original Biological Creation.
    The Original Biological Data Source Accepted Assignment of the Account W/O Full Disclosure. The Account Trustees acted with Unclean Hands by use of Pre-Sump-shun THAT: #1) they were Declared Trustee by the Owner #2) they were Declared Trustee by Holders in Due Course #3) they were ASSIGNED Trustee Standing by THE STATE (which fraudulently induced a 3rd party into Contract)
    Breach of Contract by THE STATE is a valid Affirmative Defense…The INVESTOR (biological creation/data Source) and its Beneficiary (the PERSONS Consumer) were Damaged as: a result. (this case)
    The ALLEGED injured party “mr. united states of america” has Failed to Appear and Show Cause WHY this CLAIM should not be dismissed with prejudice. Bailiff must call the TWO Parties in Interest with STANDING TO APPEAR – before the court. men/women Language must FIRST be adjudicated to determine JURISDICTION. THEN – the Parties jurisdiction (standing) is Next step.

  19. George A. Chapman says : Reply

    Thank you for another opportunity to read the action of 2013 March 18 (pages 54 to 57)

  20. Traci Antaya says : Reply

    Can someone please help me with these forms ?? I am unable to do them on my on if anyone can help email me at my name is TRACI

Leave a Reply