NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY AND FRAUD from Freewill

For educational use only

NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY AND FRAUD
          The Plaintiff(s) (People of the State of Michigan) AS A MATTER OF FACT, DO NOT EXIST AND DID NOT EXIST IN LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINATION OF THIS ALLEGED COMPLAINT AS BEING A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND IS CIVILLY DEAD, SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192 JUNE 5th, 1933, YOU ARE CIVILLY DEAD! A BANKRUPT CORPORATION!  
         Michigan courts have consistently held that a dissolved Corporation is essentially a  " DEAD PERSON ", the same applies to a BANKRUPT CORPORATION, making any action taken by IT NULL AND VOID OF LAW.  Please see Matter of Dissolution of Esquire Products Intern,, Inc. 145 Michigan Appeals 106, 377 NW 2nd 356 (a 1985 case), citing U.S. TRUCK Co. vs. Pennsylvania Surety Corp., 259 Mich. 422,  243 NW 2nd 311 (a 1932 case).
          THIS COURT IS NOT THE TRUSTEE OF THE SAID UNITED STATES, NOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN CORPORATE BANKRUPTCY, AND WOULD HAVE NO SUCH AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR THAT BANKRUPT CORPORATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF THE PLAINTIFF(S), OR AGENT(S) WERE PROPERLY LICENSED AND SWORN TO THEIR TIMELY OATH OF OFFICE, AND FILED THEIR SURETY BONDS TIMELY WITH THE PROPER AUTHORITY. THIS COURT HAS NO LAWFUL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR, OR ACT FOR THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES, NOR FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. FURTHER THE PLAINTIFF(S),  AND AGENT(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR LAWFUL CAPACITY TO SUE THIS Alleged Defendant IN ERROR and any claims to the contrary are 100% FRAUD IN FACT!!
         Now Michigan Courts have addressed the " STANDING TO SUE " DOCTRINE in several cases. In Department of Social Services  vs. Baayoun 204 Mich. Appeals 170 , 514 NW 2nd 522 (a 1994 case),  the Court held that " STANDING " relates to position or situation of a Party relative to the cause of action and other Parties at the time a Party seeks relief from the Court. Now in Taylor vs. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, 205 Mich. App. 644, 517 NW 2nd 864 (a 1994 case), the Court held that " STANDING " is a legal term used to denote the existence of a Party's interest in the outcome of litigation, which will assure sincere and vigorous advocacy
          The Court further stated for the Record that to have "STANDING " a Party MUST DEMONSTRATE a legally protected interest that is in M.C.L.A. 201.3,  jeopardy of being adversely affected and must allege a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of the dispute to ensure that the controversy to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversarial setting capable of judicial resolution.
              In order to have standing, a party MUST SHOW  a substantial interest and stake in the outcome of a controversy.  Further see; ROGAN Vs. MORTON, 167  Mich. App. 483, 423 NW 2nd 237 ( a 1988 case), which held,   " STANDING", AS A REQUISITE TO SUE,  ensures that only those who have a substantial interest in the outcome of a LAWSUIT will be allowed to come into Court and Complain.
             Further see in support WHITE LAKE IMPROVEMENT ASS'N  vs. WHITEHALL, 22 Mich. App. 262, 177 NW 2nd 473 (a 1970 case ). Upon examination of these facts clearly THE PLAINTIFF(S) ARE NOT A PROPER PARTY, WITH STANDING, OR CAPACITY,  TO BRING SUIT IN ANY CAPACITY  BEFORE THIS COURT FOR THEY DO NOT EXIST IN LAW OR FACT,  AND ARE CLEARLY CIVILLY DEAD IN FACT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CAPACITY TO SUE OR BRING CLAIM AGAINST ANY PARTY IN THIS COURT OR ANY MICHIGAN COURT AS THEY ARE A BANKRUPT ENTITY SINCE 1933 AND IN FACT ARE IN RECEIVERSHIP AND ARE CIVILLY DEAD. SEE CLEARFIELD BANK AND TRUST vs. UNITED STATES, 462 F. Supp.  1193 , SEE THE CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE A STUDY IN JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS/ DIVERSITY.   OBVIOUSLY, PLAINTIFF(S) ARE A DEFACTO ENTITY , AND THEIR AGENTS ARE DEFACTO,  A FICTION OF LAW A MERE NULLITY OR NON-EXISTENT PERSON AND IN THIS CASE A FRAUD ON THIS COURT and this Alleged Defendant; THE PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR CAPACITY TO LAWFULLY BRING PLAINTIFF'S UNFOUNDED,  PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS, OR SPURIOUS COMPLAINTS BEFORE THIS COURT AND SUE. TO DO SO IS FRAUD, 100% FRAUD BY PLAINTIFF(S) OR THEIR AGENTS, ASSIGNS, ACTORS, CONTRACTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR COUNSELORS.
    I REQUEST IN WRITING THAT YOU SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE!
    THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!
NOW FRAUD IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS IN THIS FICTION CASE (11U080280)
YOU NEED A LITTLE REFRESHER COURSE ON THE SUBJECT.
FRAUD is defined in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 6th Edition on page 660
         " An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him  or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment.. of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by the suppression of truth, or by suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech of silence, word of mouth, or look, or gesture.  Delanty  v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa. Supra. 90, 464 A. 2nd 1243, 1251. A generic term, embracing all maltofarious means,.. “which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and UNFAIR  way by which another is cheated.  Johnson  v.  McDonald, 170 Okl. 117, 39 P.2nd 150 " BAD FAITH " and  " FRAUD " are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, unfairness, ect.”
          I wish to point out that this explanation applies fully to my alleged Fictional Case in Error (11U080280) to date. I further wish to express my serious and sincere CONSTRUCTIVE OBJECTIONS to the Arbitrary and Capricious manner in which my case has been handled to date by those who are sworn on SACRED  OATH(S) to protect me and my interests from such travesty of Justice. I am the beneficiary of " THE CONTRACT " between the Government and its great PEOPLE  as I am one of " THE PEOPLE ".  Please see BYARS vs. UNITED STATES 273 U.S. 28 and the 16th American Juris Prudence 2nd  § 97, which held the Constitution shall be liberally interpreted to include every word, phrase, and syllable, in favor of the Clearly intended and expressly designated " BENEFICIARY THE CITIZEN " for the protection of RIGHTS AND PROPERTY. MY PROPERTY (MY RIGHTS) HAS NOT BEEN PROTECTED, IT HAS BEEN STOLEN ON A TAKING BY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF A GOVERNMENT BODY POLITIC, WHO IS CLEARLY OUT OF CONTROL, ME AND MY LAWFULLY OWNED PROPERTY IN EVERY ASPECT.
         Now WE honestly feel that the PLAINTIFF(S) and the Michigan Courts have perpetrated a FRAUD IN FACT AND LAW upon me and my lawfully owned property to my great injury and then knowingly continue the FRAUD when WE seek redress in the MICHIGAN COURTS for this injury,  because WE dare to seek Justice and the protection of OUR Constitutional Rights against this FRAUDULENT OUT OF CONTROL PLAINTIFF(S),  who have repetitively sought to injure or DEFRAUD these citizen members of the PEOPLE IN FACT AND LAW on so many, many occasions that it is Criminal NEGLECT of their sworn DUTY.... RES ipsa loquitur, WITH EXCLUSIVE CONTROL and clearly these PROTECTORS knew or are knowledgeable of exactly what they are doing or they clearly should know and these Plaintiff(s) deliberately do the deed or injury ANY.....WAY AND TO HELL WITH THE LAW OR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!   THIS IS A STONE FACT!!! IT IS ABSOLUTE TREASON OR AN ATTEMPTED OVERTHROW OF OUR LAWFUL WE THE PEOPLE GOVERNMENT!  HOW COULD IT BE CATEGORIZED ANY OTHER WAY?
         Now WE give OUR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS to this arbitrary and capricious deliberate administrative abuse of process and also give OUR FORMAL NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS.  WE INTEND TO SUE FOR OUR INJURIES FOR, 500,000,000,00. Five Hundred MILLION DOLLARS, and name every swinging joker for their unlawful or criminal deeds to injure US. 
LET ALL PARTIES TAKE JUST NOTICE OF THIS FACT!!
         These so-called OFFICERS OF THE LAW, all long schooled in the art and practice of LAW, have willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and wantonly have clearly deliberately injured us and induced us to our injury or irreparable harm by a specie of misinformation, disinformation, or a SPECIE OF SILENCE, wherein they have used all manner of colorable officialdom to make false and FRAUDULENT CLAIMS AND ACTIONS against us, personally or against our Lawfully owned property, which is a totally violation of  LAW and these Plaintiff(s) damn well knew exactly what was done and by whom!!   Please see U.S. vs. Prudden 424 F2d 1021, and U.S. vs. TWEEL, 550 F2d 297 AT 299-300, WHICH CASE HELD "  silence can only be equated with FRAUD when there is a legal and moral duty to speak the TRUTH or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading to the injury of the parties."
         FURTHER,.. In Re: Dunahay  vs. Struik, 393 P 2d 930, (1964) 96 Arizona 246, which case held,...." FRAUD may be committed by a failure to speak when the DUTY, ( RES ipsa loquitur, with exclusive control), of speaking is imposed."
         FURTHER,.. In Re: Batty  vs. Arizona State Dental Board, 112 { 2d 870, 57 Arizona 239 (1941 case), which held,... " FRAUD may be committed by a failure to speak when the DUTY of speaking is imposed as much as by speaking falsely."
         FURTHER,..  In Re: State vs. Coddington, 662 P 2d 115, 113 Arizona 480, Arizona App. (1983 case) which case held,.... " WHEN one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false and FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION that what is disclosed is the whole truth and nothing but the truth." and one can go on and on,...." Suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose is equivalent to a false or FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION, thereby inducing me to my great injury, please see Leigh vs. Loyd , 224 P 2d 356, Arizona 84 (1954 case)  and further see " WHEN one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the holding back of other facts FRAUD OR DECEIT may arise from silence where the DUTY TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, as well as prohibition from speaking an UNTRUTH  existed under the LAW, ALSO FURTHER SEE Morrison vs. Acton, 198 P 2d 590, 68 Arizona 27 , (1948 case), which also supports Leigh  v. Loyd SUPRA.
         In short these cases go on, and on, and on, so ANY PARTY could be given sufficient NOTICE OR WARNING of activity which would or could be FRAUDULENT and books and books of considerable collections at LAW LIBRARIES speak volumes to this very SUBJECT!  Clearly the Plaintiff(s) knew or should have known what they were doing to injure me was wrong, FRAUDULENT, AND UNLAWFUL IN FACT. Now when such activities of misinformation or disinformation or a specie of silence, whose clear purpose is to miss-inform, or dis-inform a party in interest of real facts and Lawful Rights then FRAUD HAS CLEARLY BEEN DONE!   Especially if a party has relied in GOOD FAITH on such reliance's to their very great injury,  then clear UNLAWFUL,  INSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH HAS IN FACT OCCURRED AND THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY,  WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH ACTIVITY KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY IS IN BREACH OF THEIR ORIGINAL CIVIC PURPOSE TRUSTEESHIP  THEY WERE IN FACT CREATED TO PROTECT AGAINST!  THIS IS A BREACH OF FAITH SUBJECTING THE OFFENDING PARTY TO " QUO WARRANTO " OF THEIR INTENDED GOVERNMENTAL ENFRANCHISED POWER OR RIGHTS, which they were originally created under their Corporation CHARTER pursuant to Public Acts 230 & 231 of Public Acts,
HOME RULE, OR CHARTER, for ALL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES and that is just a fact.      
        WE CLAIM FRAUD AND WE TIMELY OBJECT TO ALL THE FRAUD IN THIS CASE (11U080280) AND FOREWARN THE PARTIES THAT LEGAL ACTION IS EMINENT AND WILL BE COMMENCED VERY SHORTLY IF THIS MATTER IS NOT TIMELY REPAIRED IN TOTAL TO MY COMPLETE SATISFACTION.  
FAIR WARNING IS FAIRLY GIVEN!