bz: I have added some definitions and discussions to bring additional clarity into view when reading this response to a “motion” that does not exist. posted after the response.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
To download directly right click here
Response to De Motion to Dismiss 10-12-17
Discussions and definitions:[10/12/2017 10:33:50 PM] BZ ⒾAM Riger: what are people’s thoughts on response to motion? as expected for them to respond? [1:03:45 AM | Edited 1:04:51 AM] Paul Francis McDonald: I’m not aware of any sworn declaration of Anne-Marie Svolto verifying her authority and or jurisdiction over H & R specifically.
To be honest i expected something like that a while back. They have to throw in something to save face and their jobs maybe … probably. Its weak as an argument because she admits that she is not competent in relation to the UCC filings and any authorities or opinions she cites are not specific to the issue at hand but are entirely general … but anyway the Praecipe supercedes that filing. Who is there to deny that praecipe to be made a rule of law … nobody is my guess, other than if they attempt to presume some authority, which simply cannot stand up. Its a mathematical certainty.
[1:16:39 AM | Edited 1:16:45 AM] Paul Francis McDonald: … Looks like poor ole Anne-Marie was made to carry the can by others who knew better or thought they did 🙂
[6:38:30 AM | Edited 6:38:54 AM] Paul Francis McDonald: … there is no dispute as to the Declaration of Facts … soooooooooo, it must be true then. And if it is true, then US is a foreclosed entity and all its tangible assets and systems are claimed as full title rights and ownership thereof and ‘replevined’.
The there’s the other aspect of it, aside from all that .. what’s going on behind the scenes? That’s the multigazillion dollar question.[5:54:56 AM] Terran: Thing is… it wasn’t a motion. It was a praecipe. [6:01:24 AM] Angel Voice: Could someone please summarize the motion to dismiss please … i m in my car with not enough internet to read ir ? Thanks
[6:08:03 AM] Paul Francis McDonald: its actually a praecipe, which is a command from the only one with the authority to do so, in the confirmed absence of any other authority; grounded as it is on 10 maxims of law and the Declaration of Facts, commanding the ‘clerk of court’ to issue the orders and adjust the record as required in the praecipe and also commanding any ‘judge’ to issue and enter a dismissal with prejudice and releasing all ‘defendants’ from detainment.
See above for description of Praceipe and the history of the original writs.
[6:12:04 AM] Reuben Emmanuel of the Bailey family Ⓘ: The “US” response is that what was advanced in the praecipe is “frivolous” and “without legal merit”. Not exactly surprising given that they were told they do not legally exist.
[6:13:11 AM] Paul Francis McDonald: … relying entirely as they do on assumption, presumption and therefore necessarily hearsay 🙂
[6:39:36 AM] Paul Francis McDonald: Yes … absolutely 😀
[6:40:03 AM] Arthur K: (inlove) …. well played…. (inlove)
[6:41:22 AM] Paul Francis McDonald: we’re on a roll! (y)
[7:06:15 AM] Terran: It wasn’t the senior prosecution that put her name on the reply, she seems to have recognized what it was, and fobbed it off on the junior prosecutor, who does not seem to know the difference between a praecipe and a motion. For a motion to even exist, there must be jurisdiction, and no such proof of jurisdiction was provided. [7:10:21 AM] Terran: Kind of reminds me of a discussion that occurred between some Brits and Americans in Wiltshire in 1989.
Brit: “Our constitution is superior to yours because it’s unwritten…”
American: “You have no constitution, because by definition a constitution is in writing”
Brit when he realizes the truth: :O
[7:11:06 AM] Terran: Use of presumption on the populace is widespread….
[7:35:02 AM | Edited 7:35:59 AM] Arthur K: PRAESTUMERE. L. To take in advance
of ; to take to be true without positive proof,
but upon the basis of probability; to i)re-
Bume, Prsesumptio. Supposition, assumption,
presumption, q. ti.
Omnia pr8esum.iiiitur contra spoliatorem.
All things are inferred against one
who destroys (or withholds) documentary
evidence. See further Spoliation, 3.
Omnia prsesumuntur rite et solemnitur
esse acta. All things are presumed
to have been done in due and solemn
The principle is, that there is a disposition
in the courts to uphold official, judicial, and
other acts, rather than to render them inoperative.
Where, then, there is general evidence
of acts having been legally and regularly
done, proof of circumstances, essential
to the validity of those acts, and by whichare accompanied in most instances, will
be dispensed with.^
The law presumes that every man In his private
and official character does his duty, until the contrary
is proved ; that all things are rightly done, unless the
circumstances of the case overturn this presumption.
Thus, it presumes that a man acting in a public office
has been rightly appointed; that entries in public
books were made by the proper officer; that, upon
proof- of title, matters collateral thereto are consistent
A superior court of general jurisdiction, proceeding,
within the general scope of its powers, is presumed to
act rightly. All intendments of law are in favor of its
acts. It is presumed to have jurisdiction to give the
judgment it renders, until the contrary appears—
jurisdiction of the cause or subject-matter of the action,
and of the parties. Tl^e former will generally
appear from the character of the judgment, and will
be determined by the law creating the court or prescribing
its general powers. The latter should regularly
appear by evidence in the record of service of
process upon the defendant or his appearance in the
action. But where the former exists, the latter will
be presumed. The rule is different with respect to
courts of special and limited authority: there is no
presumption pf law in favor of their jurisdiction ; that
must affirmatively appear by sufficient evidence or
proper averment in the record, or their judgments
will be deemed void on their face.^
Presumptions as to the judgments of superior
courte only arise with respect to jurisdictional facts
concerning which the record is silent. Presumptions
are only indulged to supply the absence of evidence
or averments respecting the facts presumed. They
have no place for cbnsideration when the evidence’is
disclosed or the averment is made. When, therefore,
the reqord states the evidence or makes an averment
with reference to a jurisdictional fact, it will be understood
to speak the truth on that point, and it will riot
be presumed that there was other or different evidence,
or that the fact was otherwise than as averred.
Were this not so it would never be possible to attack
collaterally the judgment of a superior court, although
a want of jurisdiction might be apparent upon its
face; the answer to the attack would always be that,
notwithsta|nding the evidence or the averment, the
necessary facte to support the judgment are presumed.
These presumptions are also limited to jurisdiction
over persons within the territorial limits of the
courts, persons who can be reached by their process,
and also over proceedings which are in accordance
with the course of the common law.s
” The extent to which presumptions will be made in
support of acts depends very much upon whether they
are favored or not by law, and also on the nature of
the fact required to be presumed.” The maxim does
1 3 Best, Ev. § 353; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 19.
2 Bank of United States v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 69-
.70 (18S7), Story, J. See also 30 Wall. 350; 115 U. S. 451
18 F. R. 36; 4 Hughes, 519.
3 Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 365-73 (1873), cases, Field,
J. ; Comett v. Williams, 30 id. 350 (1873).
not apply to give jurisdiction to magistrates or other
inferior tribunals, nor to give jurisdiction in proceedings
which are not according’ to the common course of
Prsesumptio juris. A presumption of
law. Prsesumptio juris et de jure. A
presumption of law and of right. The former
characterizes a rebuttable, the latter an irrebuttable,
The latter was originally intended to express intense
or “superlative” presumptions. Difficulty being felt
in finding suitable limits for such presumptions, doubt
as to their force was got rid of by making them irrebuttable.
Our courts, while holding to the old phrase-
ology, are so far contracting the range of this class of
presumptions that no perfect individual of the class
can be found.^
Pacer Doc History – 10-12-17
To download directly right click herePacer Doc History - 10-12-17