TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

HEREIN

Kenneth Wayne in his contracted capacity as Power of Attorney in Fact
Plaintiff

VS.

Cop 1
C/o Tacoma Police department
930 Tacoma Av. 3rd Floor
Tacoma, Washington

Cop 2
C/o Tacoma Police department
930 Tacoma Av. 3rd Floor
Tacoma, Washington

City of Tacoma
Tacoma City Council
747 Market Street
Tacoma, Washington

Pierce County
c/o County Comission
930 Tacoma Ave.
Tacoma, Washington

Gerald A. Horne; and,
Phillip K. Sorenson;
930 Tacoma Ave. S. #946
Tacoma, Washington

Supreme Court “State of Washington”
Temple of Justice
Olympia, Washington

Kathleen H. Stolz
C/o Superior Court Administration
930 Tacoma Av. 5th Floor
Tacoma, Washington

Bruce W. Cohoe (Judge)
c/o Superior Court
930 Tacoma Ave.
Tacoma, Washington

COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF’S HEREIN to petition the above captioned court for redress of grievances pursuant to the authority recognized guaranteed at Article I in Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, the authority of the court established by congress pursuant to Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America, and allege, to wit:

I. JURISDICTION

1. The district court has venue jurisdiction pursuant to law as the acts complained of occurred, in substantial part, in the western district of Washington, and the primary place of business of the primary defendant(s) is located in the western district of Washington, codified at 28 USC 128(b), 28 USC 132; 28 USC 1391;

2. The district court has subject matter jurisdiction of the claims for remedy or relief, as each claim raises a federal question, pursuant to law as codified at 28 USC 128(b), 28 USC 132, 28 USC 1391;

3. The district court has subject matter jurisdiction of the claims for declaratory remedy or relief pursuant to law as codified at 28 USC 2201, et seq.;

4. The district court has subject matter jurisdiction of the claims for injunctive remedy or relief pursuant to law as codified at 28 USC 1651;

II. PARTIES

The court has personum jurisdiction of the parties as follows:

5. Plaintiff Kenneth Wayne in his Official capacity as Power of Attorney by express contract for the interests of the primary parties in interest, Principal 1 and Principal 2, who are not joined to this action, to prosecute the interest(s) of the principal(s) who are two of the people of the state of Washington, a member of the union of the united States of America, and as such are person(s) guaranteed due process of law and equal protection of the law as if Citizens of the United States as guaranteed at Article XIV in Amendment to the federal constitution, the authority of the contracted Power of Attorney to bring the complaint on behalf of the unjoined principal parties is recognized at FRCP 17(a). Plaintiff Kenneth Wayne in his Official Capacity as Power of Attorney bring claims for acts upon his principal(s) by the Defendants within the western district of the state of Washington, one of the several members of the union of the several states as the United States of America at all times herein alleged.

DEFENDANTS:

6. Defendant Gerald A. Horne (Defendant Horne) is a natural person who also holds, or purports to hold, the public office of prosecuting Attorney for Pierce County (aka: County of Pierce) a subdivision of the supreme court whose process runs in the name “State of Washington”, in which name the process is brought which is the subject of this action. Defendant Horne is a person subject to an Oath of Office contract executed before entering upon the duties of the office of Prosecuting Attorney incorporating by reference the United States Constitution. Defendant Horne is a person subject to an Oath of Office contract as an attorney admitted to practice in the name and under the authority of the supreme court whose process runs in the name “State of Washington” which appears to be the plaintiff in the process which is the subject of this action, said Oath contract incorporating by reference the United States Constitution.

7. Defendant Phillip K. Sorenson (Defendant Sorenson) is a natural person who also holds, or purports to hold, the public office of Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Pierce County (aka: County of Pierce) a subdivision of the supreme court whose process runs in the name “State of Washington”, in which name the process is brought which is the subject of this action. Defendant Sorenson is a person subject to an Oath of Office contract executed before entering upon the duties of the office of Deputy Prosecuting Attorney incorporating by reference the United States Constitution. Defendant Sorenson is a person subject to an Oath of Office contract as an attorney admitted to practice in the name and under the authority of the supreme court whose process runs in the name ‘State of Washington” which appears to be the plaintiff in the process which is the subject of this action, said Oath contract incorporating by reference the United States Constitution.

8. Defendant Bruce W. Cohoe (Defendant Cohoe) is a natural person who holds, or purports to hold, office as a judicial officer under the authority of the supreme court whose process runs in the name “State of Washington” organized by the Washington legislature December 23, 1889, which appears to be the Plaintiff in the action which is the subject of this action. Defendant [Judge] also is a member of the Washington State bar Association, an agency of the Plaintiff in the process which is the subject of this action.

9. Defendant Supreme Court is the corporate body organized by act of the Washington legislature December 23, 1889 whose process is to run in the name “State of Washington”, and who appears to be the Plaintiff in the process which is the subject of this action.

10. Defendant Pierce County is a subdivision of the corporate body organized by act of the Washington legislature December 23, 1889 whose process is to run in the name “State of Washington’, operating at Pierce county, Washington, and is the person who employs the natural person defendants named in this action.

III. FACTS

VERIFICATION OF FACTS #1
Pierce county
The state of Washington
DECLARATION
Declarant states that Declarant is competent to be a witness and that the facts stated herein are true and correct to the best of Declarant’s first hand knowledge and belief under penalty of perjury pursuant to the law of the state of Washington.

Declarant Signature       Date

VERFICATION OF FACTS #2
Pierce County
The state of Washington
DECLARATION
Declarant states that Declarant is competent to be a witness and that the facts stated herein are true and correct to the best of Declarant’s first hand knowledge and belief under penalty of perjury pursuant to the law of the state of Washington.

Declarant Signature       Date

FACTS ALLEGED:

1. “State of Washington” is the process name for the corporate body organized by the Washington territorial legislature on December 23, 1389, styled a “supreme court”.

2. “Pierce County”, and “County of Pierce” are the names used by the subdivision of “State of Washington” doing business at Pierce county, Washington.

3. City ot Tacoma is a corporate body organized under process executed in the name “State of Washington”.

4. Public records show that “Cop 1” is a State of Washington Police Officer employed by City of Tacoma.

5. Public records show that “Cop 2” is a State of Washington Police Officer employed by City of Tacoma.

6. Public records show that “Katherine M.Stolz” acts in, and issues process in the name “state of Washington” in the following capacities:
a. Sworn officer ot the supreme court whose process runs in the name “State of Washington”, as “admitted to practice” in its name and under its authority; and,
b. Authorized agent of dba “State of Washington” by membership in its Agency “Washington State Bar Association”; and,
c. “Judicial” officer of “State of Washington” employed to resolve internal controversies within its Pierce County subdivision; and,
d. Also appearing to provide from time to time, in a defacto capacity, the services of a court of general jurisdiction for the state of Washington at Pierce county.

7. The records of the superior court at Pierce County show that on or about the xx day of xxxxx, 2002, a person identified in superior court records as “Cop 1” (herein Cop 1) made a “complaint on Oath” to a person identified in said record as Kathleen M. Stolz (herein Stolz) who holds office as a superior court judge for dba “State of Washington” at its subdivision dba COUNTY OF PIERCE, operating at Pierce county, Washington.

8. The record references a complaint of: “felony, to wit: unlawful manufacture of a Controlled Substance; Marijuana RCW 69.50.401 and Conspiracy RCW 69.50.407 ...”;

9. Stolz issued an instrument captioned “SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR COUNTY OF PIERCE, SEARCH WARRANT, (Evidence)” (herein ‘the instrument”) dated xxxxx xx, 2002, purporting to authorize a search and seizure at 123 Law Abiding Lane, Tacoma, Washington.

10. Stolz purported in the instrument to have found that Cop 1 had testified to facts sufficient to find probable cause that a felony crime had occurred, referencing the codification at RCW 69.50 of the Washington Controlled Substances Act, relating to marijuana.

11. The instrument authorizes the search of a house at 123 Law Abiding Lane, Tacoma, Washington and the seizure of:
a. Controlled substances in particular marijuana and/or marijuana plants; and miscellaneous gardening equipment;
b. Safes, books records, receipts, notes, ledgers, and other papers relating to transport, ordering, purchase and distribution of controlled substances, in particular marijuana;
c. Addresses and or telephone books and papers reflecting names, addresses and or telephone numbers, including but not limited to names of, addresses of, and or telephone numbers of co—conspirators in the manufacture, distribution, purchase, and possession of marijuana, telephone bills which may tend to establish the identity of co—conspirators who do not live in the same area code;
d. Books, records, receipts, bank statements and records, money drafts letters of credit, money orders and cashiers checks receipts, passbooks, bank checks and other items evidencing the obtaining secreting, transfer and or concealment of, and or expenditure of money. Bank cards, credit cards, billing record relating to same;
e. Photographs, in particular photographs of co—conspirators, assets, and or controlled substances, in particular marijuana;
f. Drug paraphernalia, including materials for packaging, trimming, weighing, and distributing marijuana including but not limited to baggies, scales, and heat sealers;
g. Indicia of occupancy, residency, dominion and control and/or ownership of the place and vehicles described in the search warrant, including but not limited to telephone bills, cancelled envelopes, and keys;
h. computer records, software, disks, tapes, printouts relating to the distribution of controlled substances, in particular marijuana;
i. United States currency;
j. Firearms and ammunition.

12. In a document styled “IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE, RETURN OF SERVICE” (herein “the document”) which appears to be signed by a person identified as “Cop 2” who has been identified as a Police Officer for city of Tacoma, evidences a taking of several items of private property from the home at 123 Law Abiding Lane, Tacoma, Washington.

13. The document admits to the seizure of:
a. Gun;
b. Documents;
c. Tax DOCUMENT;
d. MARIJUANA;
e. BALLASTS;
f. COMPS AND MISC. GROW EQUIPMENT

14. Washington Session Law (WSL) as enacted in the process name of "State of Washington" reads (in pertinent part):

RCW 69.50.410   Prohibited acts: D -- Penalties.
1) Except as authorized by this chapter it shall be unlawful for any person to sell for profit any controlled substance or counterfeit substance classified in Schedule I, RCW 69.50.204, except leaves and flowering tops of marihuana.

RCW 69.50.302   Registration requirements.
(c)  The following persons need not register and may lawfully possess controlled substances under this chapter:
(3)  an ultimate user  or ... (emphasis added)

WSL 1993 c 187 § 16; 1989 1st ex. s. c9 § 432; 1971 ex. s. c308 § 69.50.302

15. Plaintiff has reviewed the “search warrant” and cannot locate any finding of the fact that any person who may have possessed, controlled, or otherwise been involved in any activities relating to a controlled substance at the location identified in the search warrant is not an ultimate user and thus in lawful possession of the controlled substance under this chapter relating to manufacture, distribution and possession of such controlled substances;

16. Plaintiff has reviewed the “search warrant” and cannot locate any conclusion of any constitutional delegation of authority for the servant (government, and/or its corporate subdivisions or subsidiaries) to control or regulate the private conduct of the master (people);

17. Plaintiff has reviewed the “search warrant” and cannot locate any conclusion that any person who may have possessed, controlled, or otherwise been involved in any activities relating to a controlled substance at the location identified in the search warrant was not one of the sovereign people whom the government (and any corporate subdivision or subsidiary) may not regulate or control absent specific constitutional delegation of authority.

18. Plaintiff has reviewed the “search warrant” and cannot locate any finding of fact and conclusions of law, the totality of which could evidence any crime or criminal activity over which the government (or any corporate subdivision or subsidiary) could constitutionally warrant a search and seizure.

19. Public record show that on the xx day of xxxxx, 2002, defendant Sorenson, acting in the name of Defendant Horne, executed process styled an INFORMATION accusing Principal 1 and Principal 2 of the crime of UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURING OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE based upon the Uniform Controlled substances Act.

20. The INFORMATION does not show that it was issued by a grand jury of the county wherein the crime was alleged to have been committed.

21. The United States Constitution, incorporated by reference in the Oath of Office contract required to have been executed before entering upon the duties of an officer under one of the several states reads in pertinent part:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

22. Plaintiff has reviewed the INFORMATION and can find no evidence that the action arises in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

23. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act as codified at RCW 69.50. reads in pertinent part:

Prohibited acts: A —— Penalties.
(a) Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance.
(1) Any person who violates this subsection with respect to:
(iii) any other controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II, or III, is guilty of a crime and upon conviction may be imprisoned for not more than five years, fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both;

24. Principal 1 is an ultimate user

25. Principal 2 is an ultintate user.

26. The (chapter) act codified at RCW 69.50.302—above) expressly authorizes ultimate users to, WITHOUT REGISTRATION, possess the controlled substances UNDER THIS ACT (chapter) which references the manufacture, distribution, and possession of the controlled substance(s) otherwise regulated by the act.

27. Defendant Sorenson, in a DECLARATION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE dated February 28, 2002 and evidencing a location of 930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 936, Tacoma Washington, verified under “penalty of perjury” that Principal 1 and Principal 2 “did unlawfully manufacture controlled substances”.

28. Plaintiff has reviewed the facts presented in the DECLARATION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE and is unable to find any evidentiary statement by the Declarant that the persons named were not ultimate users.

29. Plaintiff has reviewed the INFORMATION and the DECLARATION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE and can find no complaint or allegation of injury or damage caused by an intentional act upon which the criminal judicial power of the state off Washington may be constitutionally invoked.

30. Public records show that on the xx day of xxxxx 2002, Defendant Cohoe executed process styled ORDER FOR SUMM0NS.

31. Plaintiff has reviewed the ORDER FOR SUMMONS and can find no evidence that Cohoe made any finding that the “charges” were brought by an indictment or presentment of a grand jury of the county wherein the crimes are alleged to have occurred.

32. Public records show that on the xx day of xxxxx, 2002, clerk BOB SAN SOUCIE issued process styled SUMMONS indicating as WITNESS THE HONORABLE BRUCE W. COHOE summoning Principal 1 to appear and answer to the charge of UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURING OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.

IV. ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS

Plaintiff states and alleges:

33. In violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution protecting the right(s) of the real party in interest on whose behalf Plaintiff brings this action:
a. The supreme court, organized by the act of December 23, 1889, whose process runs in the name “State of Washington” caused, or allowed to be caused, initiation of process through its officer “Cop 1”, employed by its “City of Tacoma” subdivision;
b. On the xx day of xxxxx, 2002;
c. At the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE doing business at Pierce county, Washington;
d. Without a record of evidence of any injured victim of tort; without evidence of intent to intentionally violate any person's rights to liberty or property; and without evidence of any contractual obligation upon which a claim could lie;
e. Said process being intended to cause (and subsequently did cause) an unwarrantable search and seizure under color of State law, resulting in violations of Plaintiff’s principal’s rights and causing Plaintiff’s principals damages and injuries for which Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to a remedy as an operation of law.

34. In violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution and the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights as incorporated in the federal constitution by Amendment protecting the right(s) of the real party in interest on whose behalf Plaintiff brings this action:
a. “Cop 1”, a natural person who is required by the federal constitution to be subject to an Oath of Office contract incorporating by reference the United States Constitution before entering upon the duties of office, employed by the “City of Tacoma” subdivision of the body whose process runs in the name “State of Washington”;
b. In breach of his/her Oath of Office contract;
c. In the SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE doing business at Pierce county, Washington;
d. On or about xxxxx xx, 2002, made a sworn statement he did not know to be true (perjury-testilying), (asserting the existence of a felony) with the intent to cause to be created the appearance of process (search warrant) under color of State law;
e. Applying for a search warrant with the intent to deprive Plaintiff’s principals of their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures;
f. Resulting in an unconstitutional search and seizure at a house held by Plaintiff’s principals;
g. Causing Plaintiff’s principals damages for which Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to a remedy as an operation of law.

35. In violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution and the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights as incorporated in the federal constitution by Amendment protecting the right(s) of the real party in interest on whose behalf Plaintiff brings this action:
a. “Kathleen M. Stolz”, who is a natural person employed by the “Pierce County” subdivision of the body whose process runs in the name “State of Washington”;
b. In breach of his/her Oath of Office contract;
c. Willfully and intentionally, or with gross negligence;
d. On the xx day of xxxxx, 2002, refused or neglected to prevent the issuance of the appearance of process styled a search warrant under color of State law;
e. When the record presented failed to evidence all necessary elements of a crime (violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act);
f. Resulting in the unlawful and unconstitutional issuance of purported process (search warrant) resulting in the unlawful and unconstitutional search and seizure at a house held by Plaintiff’s principals for which Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to a remedy as an operation of law.
36. In violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution and the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights as incorporated in the federal constitution by Amendment protecting the right(s) of the real party in interest on whose behalf Plaintiff brings this action:
a. "cop 2", who is a natural person employed by the "City of Tacoma” subdivision of the body whose process runs in the name “State of Washington”;
b. In breach of his/her Oath of Office contract;
c. Willfully and intentionally, or with gross negligence;
d. On the xx day of xxxxx, 2002, refused or neglected to prevent the unwarranted search and seizure at 123 Law Abiding Lane, Tacoma, Pierce county, Washington;
e. On the xx day of xxxxx, 2002, conducted the unwarranted search and seizure at 123 Law Abiding Lane, Tacoma, Pierce county, Washington;
f. Resulting in the unlawful and unconstitutional search and seizure at a house held by Plaintiff’s principals for which Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to a remedy as an operation of law, and the unconstitutional and unlawful taking of private property, to wit:
a. Gun;
b. Documents;
c. Tax DOCUMENT;
d. MARIJUANA;
e. BALLASTS;
f. COMPS AND MISC. GROW EQUIPMENT

37. In violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution and the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights as incorporated in the federal constitution by Amendment protecting the right(s) of the real party in interest on whose behalf Plaintiff brings this action:
a. Defendant Horne, acting in the person of Defendant Sorenson, who is/are a natural person(s) employed by the “Pierce County” subdivision of the body whose process runs in the name “State of Washington”;
b. In breach of his/her/their Oath of Office contract(s);
c. Willfully and intentionally, or with gross negligence;
d. On the xx day of xxxxx, 2002;
e. Made a false statement in a document presented to the court styled an INFORMATION, to wit: “That Principal 1 and Principal 2, in Pierce County, on or about the xx day of xxxxx, 2002, did unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly manufacture a controlled substance, to wit: MARIJUANA, classified under Schedule I of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, contrary to RCW 69.50.401(a)(1)(iii), and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington”;
f. Resulting in the unlawful and unconstitutional issuance of “criminal process” against Plaintiff’s principals for which Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to a remedy as an operation of law;

38. In violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution and the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights as incorporated in the federal constitution by Amendment protecting the right(s) of the real party in interest on whose behalf Plaintiff brings this action:
a. Defendant Sorenson, who is/are a natural person(s) employed by the “Pierce County” subdivision of the body whose process runs in the name “State of Washington”;
b. In breach of his/her/their Oath of Office contract(s);
c. Willfully and intentionally, or with gross negligence, and with the intent to mislead the court;
d. On the xx day of xxxxx, 2002;
e. Made a declaration “UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY” he did not know to be true (perjury—testilying) statement in a document presented to the court styled an DECLARATION FOR DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE, to wit: “That Principal 1 and Principal 2, in Pierce County, on or about the xx day of xxxxx, 2002, did unlawfully, manufacture controlled substances;
f. Resulting in the unlawful and unconstitutional issuance of “criminal process” against Plaintiff’s principals for which Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to a remedy as an operation of law;

39. In violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution and the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights as incorporated in the federal constitution by Amendment protecting the right(s) of the real party in interest on whose behalf Plaintiff brings this action:
a. Defendant Horne, Defendant Sorenson, and Defendant Doe #1, acting in concert or conspiracy;
b. On the xx day of xxxxx, 2002;
c. At the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR PIERCE COUNTY doing business at Tacoma, Pierce county, Washington;
d. Willfully and intentionally, or with gross negligence, and with the intent that Plaintiff’s principals be coerced into answering to an infamous crime;
e. Without an indictment or presentment of a grand jury;
f. Issued or caused to be issued, an ORDER FOR SUMMONS and the service of two SUMMONS ordering Plaintiff’s principals to appear and answer to an infamous crime without the benefit of an indictment or presentment of a grand jury;
g. Resulting in injuries and damages for which Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to a remedy as an operation of law.

V. REMEDY REQUESTED

WHEREFORE:

40. Plaintiff requests the court provide declaratory judgment on the following issues of fact and law:

A. Declare that the state of Washington, and any and all subdivision thereof, as a member of the union, is subject to the supremacy clause of Article VI of the federal constitution;

B. Declare that each of the natural person defendant(s) are subject to the Oath requirement of Article VI of the federal constitution;

C. Declare that a breach of the oath contract required BEFORE ENTERING UPON THE DUTIES OF OFFICE by Article VI of the federal constitution defensible as NOT an official act of the office held;

D. Declare that there is no official immunity to claims for damages relating to omissions of duties where the party sued is required to be a party to the Oath contract required at Article VI of the federal constitution;

E. Declare that the Plaintiff in the State court action complained of above brought in the name “State of Washington” is the supreme court of Washington organized by the act of the Washington legislature on December 23, 1889;

F. Declare that the supreme court organized by the act of the Washington legislature December 23, 1889, is a corporate body entrusted with the books and records of the Territory of Washington until turned over to the government of the people of the state of Washington admitted to the union by act of Congress;

G. Declare that each and every person who is “admitted to practice” in said supreme court is an officer having allegiance, or otherwise subject to, the Plaintiff in the State court action complained of above;

H. Declare that every member of the Washington State Bar Association is an agent of, and subject to, the Plaintiff in the State court action complained of above;

I. Declare that the officers of the several states, members of the union organized by the federal constitution, may not bring any action to compel any person to answer for an infamous crime without an indictment or presentment of a grand jury without breaching the Oath contract required of said state officers at Article VI of the federal constitution;

J. Declare that the process brought to compel Plaintiff’s principals to answer for an infamous crime in the State action complained of is without an indictment or presentment of a grand jury and VOID;

K. Declare that a state, having its powers delegated by the sovereign people who organized it and their successors, without express delegation of authority in its organizing instrument (constitution and amendments), regulate or control the private not public or publicly licensed) activities of the people;

L. Declare that Absent an express waiver of authority in its organizing instrument (constitution and amendments thereto), a member state while a party to the federal constitution, may not prohibit its individual sovereign people from performing any act which does not injure another;

M. Declare that it a breach of the Oath contract required at Article VI of the federal constitution for a state officer to bring process seeking a search warrant as contemplated at Article IV in amendment to the federal constitution without stating claims of every necessary element of a crime;

N. Declare that the process complained of above created by the natural person defendants fails to state a crime upon which a search may be found warrantable;

O. Declare that it a breach of the oath contract required at Article VI of the federal constitution for a state executive (police) officer to commit the crime of perjury for the purpose of causing the issuance of a search warrant when the proposed search and seizure is unwarrantable based upon the facts;

P. Declare that it is a breach of the Oath contract required at Article VI of the federal constitution for a state judicial officer to fail to prevent the issuance of a search warrant, when an application is presented, when the record upon which the search warrant is brought fails to evidence every necessary element of a crime;

Q. Declare that the record presented to Defendant Stolz fails to evidence every necessary element to state a crime;

R. Declare that it is a breach of the Oath contract required at Article VI of the federal constitution for a state prosecutorial (quasi-judicial) officer to seek process to compel a person to answer for an infamous crime without an indictment or presentment of a grand jury;

S. Declare that the evidence shows that Defendant Horne, Defendant Sorenson, and Defendant Cohoe acted in concert or conspiracy to issue or cause to be issued process seeking to compel Plaintiff’s principals to answer for an infamous crime without an indictment or presentment of a grand jury in violation of their respective Oath contracts required by Article VI of the federal constitution;

T. Declare that it is a breach of the Oath contract required at Article VI of the federal constitution for a state judicial officer to fail to prevent the issuance of process to compel a person to answer to an infamous crime without an indictment or presentment of a grand jury;

U. Declare that Defendant Cohoe breached the Oath contract required by Article VI of the federal constitution by causing or allowing to be caused the issuance of process to compel Plaintiff’s principals to answer for an infamous crime without an indictment or presentment of a grand jury;

V. Declare that the commission of a crime may not be defended as an official act of a state, or submission thereof;

W. Declare that Plaintiff’s claims state, and the evidence support, that each and every natural person defendant has breached the Oath contract required by Article VI of the federal constitution and the acts and omissions claimed are private acts outside the scope of official authority, committed under color of State law;

X. Declare that the natural person defendants have violated the rights guaranteed by the federal constitution to Plaintiff’s principals under color of State law;

Y. Declare that Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to remedies and relief from the natural person defendants as provided by law as codified at 42 USC 1983;

Z. Declare that Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to remedies and relief from the state bodies for failure to prevent or correct as provided by law as codified at 42 USC 1986;

AA. Declare that Plaintiff’s principals are entitled to remedy and relief from the unlawful and unconstitutional taking of property.

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL ISSUES.

Presented this xx day of xxxxx 2002.

Kenneth Wayne
in his contracted Capacity of Power of Attorney

Plaintiff