by / Friday, 13 October 2017 / Published in Absolute Data, HATJ

response motion to dismiss




 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.





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 🙂

[6:28:52 AM] Reuben Emmanuel of the Bailey family Ⓘ: It puts their whole “modus operandi” on blatant display.
[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
and regular.’*
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 here

Pacer Doc History - 10-12-17


  1. Jay J says : Reply

    Thanks for taking the time to post this for us. Light workers, please do your thing and share that positive light & I will continue to pray on my end – anyone who wants to join is welcome; it’s so awesome when we work together. Unified and focused we can get this world (and all these situations) on track so we all can live and peace and happiness.

    World peace without World War. Much love.

  2. Andrew says : Reply

    Grasping at nothing as usual I see, amusing how the oxymoron “sovereign citizen” is still somehow relied upon per the old script. Beyond an actual rebuttal, you know, one of specificity and particularity regarding the actual facts of the matter that have been placed upon the record, I see the merit question raised as purely a projection of the purported prosecutor’s own short comings and lack of lawful jurisdiction and standing. I wish the best for all involved in this matter, may the highest purpose of humanity be served through this experience. May the clarity of higher purpose shine brightly upon and though those souls tasked with unwinding the old, and bringing forth the true.

  3. Andrew says : Reply

    I feel it may be a statement of the obvious, yet…
    Indecipherable = admission of incompetence.
    Ignorance of the law is not a valid argument.
    Recommend the purported prosecution seek competent council regarding the subject matter…

  4. BoBo says : Reply

    Let the theatrics begin… Heather is trying to flip the script on their production and in their theater. To admit that Heather and Randy aren’t within their jurisdiction, based on their motion, would be to recognize foreclosure. I can’t fathom how that happens. Imagine it…’yep, she’s right… no one rebutted her UCC filings… this company has been foreclosed on. You’re free to go. Let’s pack ’em up and head home. Been nice working with you everyone’… The only way this is successful (jurisdiction hearing or trial) is if this is an inside job and the controllers want to use this to start to dismantle the planetary system. The fact that both of them are still alive gives me hope…

  5. Cary says : Reply

    wow – well said all //agree Andrew

  6. Mike says : Reply


    The U.S. District Court for the District of Tennessee is not a court ordained with power under the Constitution, Art. III. It must be an Art. III court in order to have jurisdiction over One of the People.

    Jurisdiction must be shown by evidence in the record. 1 Stat. 496 does in fact establish the a court in for the State of Tennessee but nowhere is there is expressed that it was ordained with the judicial power of the United States. Enter a copy of statute into the record to establish that it was NOT so ordained with Art. III power. The Plaintiff must rebut that evidence with Satute at Large contrary Statute at Large evidence showing that Congress did ORDAIN the court with power under Art. III.

    Congress knows how to express it as it did so for Hawaii. 73 Stat. 8, provided that: “The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States:

    • Kelly says : Reply

      yes, great information.

    • Paul says : Reply

      ‘The U.S. District Court for the District of Tennessee is not a court’ … . This much IS correct. Everything else however is vacated, as you can see from the void indictment above. That is the law; if there BE such a thing.

      Keep smilin’, get celebration plans in action. ALL the best for now! (wave) 🙂

      • BZ ⒾAM Riger says : Reply

        Absolutely Paul,
        Shine up those happy dance shoes!

        Make sure your celebration plans give you quiet moments to integrate all the heart expansion sessions that will rapidly unfold.

        Looking forward to our after party celebration on the magical shores of the Salish Sea.

        (Heart). BZ

        • Jennifer says : Reply

          Hello BZ,

          I am sooo liking forward to, asking for and allowing all heart expansion sessions!

          “SEND” me any invite! I look forward to facing on those beautiful shores! I will show up in my brightest lightest dress!

          Deepest Love and Joy to ALL,
          Jennifer B.

      • Paul says : Reply

        lol! … Correction. “… as you can see from the void indictment ,..” – here: http://tx0.org/g3

  7. Kelly says : Reply

    defendant means dead. One needs to face this on the argument of what they
    are doing wrong. 18 USC 241 combined with 18 USC 1201 = conspiracy of rights
    and kidnapping. combined is a capital offense! you are dealing with a defacto system. you have to use their own
    rules to show there is no justice for the people.

  8. Joey says : Reply

    WOW amazing

    WOW goose bumps I have LOTs to read this weekend!

  9. Also interesting that the court papers say regarding jurisdiction that they have “in personam” jurisdiction and Blacks Law dictionary says that it means “about a certain thing”. They don’t have full jurisdiction over a human.

  10. Ginger says : Reply

    Frivolous what a word to use as the reason the motion is denied. Frivolous means a joke or not having any valid persuasion. Why if the cause has no valid persuasion do they even entertain the idea, the joke is really on the court as not only do they have no jurisdiction, ask for the bond the state has against the case because there is no other valid argument they can come up with to fight this case. How can the prove wire fraud when the funds were held in Randall’s name with his credentials. The true fraud is the ones holding the accounts (Fed Banks), but God forbid we ever mention this in court. When the true fraud is revealed in court, its the end of the Admiralty Law courts as this is not a criminal matter its fraud committed at the highest levels and the courts are protecting the Fed Banks which are not Federal and not the US Citizens that are the true power of the courts. The ownership is in the credentials and not the courts decision. The money held is to be released to the owner of said funds, and if he chooses to purchases a $500 motor home its his money held in his name, so they really have no case at all. Take the power back and ask who gives the Federal Reserve banks protection to keep funds held in Randall’s name with his credentials. The one who asks the questions is the KING, do not let the courts take your power away. Change the narrative and win the case easily. Force the courts to answer your questions, and rapid fire them with a million questions, that gives you the power and authority. Do not answer their questions, as that takes your power away. Randall is the King he needs to use that power to show he is the owner and they are just a facilitator of the accounts.

  11. DMM says : Reply

    Peace, Love Understanding and as always In Honour!

    Thank You for ALL the hard work everyone has been doing especially HATJ and RKB!

  12. Oceanno says : Reply

    Who would ever claim UCC knowing it was the slavery system I could be prosecuted as such, that is why nobody regarding the filings. Controllers had a decision to have a controlled demolition or having explode. This case proves they want control demolition, which is in the best interest of All! The Love Light will be blinding in that courtroom on the 18th, might want to tell Heather and Randy to ware their shades.

  13. Joey says : Reply

    I read the statement, and it seems to me lawyers may not know what they are doing. Terms such as argument and frivolous are in the wrong context…. and siting other cases that do have weight based on this case is laughable at best. It seems to me they are very lost and not understanding prime law UCC.

    • BZ ⒾAM Riger says : Reply

      Joey, All is not what it seems

      How would you write the script for the final part to the illusion that is this case. Remembering this case is Your Case, ALL’s Case. That Unravels/UnBounds All, on every layer/level/dimension/frequency…

      perhaps you start by having the 2nd chair prosecutor write the response NOT the Lead and “most qualified/knowing” prosecutor.

      you might have them have it be directed at and referring to a Motion to Dismiss, when actually no such document/filling exists.

      you might have them make sure to never address/use the term/aknowledge even in tacit acknowledgement, what the real filling is/is called/meaning/weight of, a Praecipe

      you might then have Chief District Judge write an order that specifically references the Praecipe and refers it to the Chief Magistrate Judge, who has nothing scheduled on his schedule after October 18th, and is retiring.

      and to add in some human interest and expansive content you might have said Chief Magistrate Judge, just happen to appear on a special two part, long running popular local interest interview show with over 400 episodes called Anything is Possible, the day the Praecipe is filled. With part 2 airing the day the responses are Due and the order of referral is filled. Where he announces he is retiring and has learned that being open to flow and “Gods plan is far more exciting than his normal routine of having everything planned out…

      what other creative ways can you set the stage and script the unfolding of all that is there with Honor… ;- )

      I Love You,

  14. Foggy says : Reply

    I plead the fifth dimension.

  15. Dawn says : Reply

    Can someone please help me? I made a payment all the way back on July 5th to hughesnet and it stuck all this time until now. I got a message from hughesnet today that the July payment has reversed! 90 days later! Can they reverse 90 days later? I can’t find anything in google that tells me how long an ach payment can be reversed so I have no idea what to say when I call Hughesnet and nobody on the facebook groups has had any comments.

    • Pixovine says : Reply

      Customer initiated- a customer can dispute an ACH charge up to 90 days after the transaction was processed. (A friend contacted me once about a buyer that initiated 6 months after the sale- large sum of money was sucked right out of his bank account, no notice.)

      Bank initiated- if the account has security restrictions and your Origination ID is not on file. (Prevent by requiring customer to confirm there’s no R29 block for the ID you provide.) Typically it’s blocked on the very first transaction, but could happen later.

  16. Ronald Patterson says : Reply

    This may help someone~

    Published on May 9, 2014

    Articles of Incorporation – UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY (1925)
    Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

  17. Pixovine says : Reply

    This is a worthless presentment, the assumptions and presumptions within it are by definition
    presumptions and have no standing or merit in presentable or material fact. A response is just written opinion

    The writer has no personal first hand knowledge of events and no delegation of authority to represent a fictional corporate entity. Require her foreign agent registration and anti bribery statement. Statements of counsel in brief on in argument are not facts before the court, her statement is inadmissible.

    No de facto corporate entity has jurisdiction over the living man, evidence of such is required to appear upon the record.

Leave a Reply