Demand a Showing of Cause, Writ (Dkt. 67, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

A 13-page filing headed "Demand a Showing of Cause, Writ of Coram Non Judice and Evidentiary Hearing!" was entered 05/11/2022 as Document 67 in Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA (S.D. Fla.), naming the parties as Joseph Timothy Grenon, et al v. The People of the United States of America. Written by "a man on behalf of the named DEFENDANT," it objects to the court's jurisdiction, demands that a warrant, affidavit and contract be produced, and says no plea will be entered. It also lists cases 1:20-cv-21601, 1:20-mj-03050 and 8:20-mj-01657. A series of numbered "PROOF OF CLAIM" paragraphs follows, and the recipient is given 10 calendar days from receipt to rebut each one. It is signed "joseph-timothy:grenon" on 1 day of March 2022, with "POA By: candi:lee".

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 1 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim: [illegible]
FILE ON DEMAND!!!!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA , THE STATE OF FLORIDA., THE STATE OF District of Columbia LEGISLATURE, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF Florida.,THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE...
Case Number:1:21-cr-20242,1:20-cv-21601 1:20-mj-03050,8:20-mj-01657
DEMAND A SHOWING OF CAUSE, WRIT OF CORAM NON JUDICE AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING!
Parties:
JOSEPH TIMOTHY GRENON , et al
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FILED BY ____ D.C.
MAY 09 2022
ANGELA E. NOBLE
CLERK U.S. DIST. CT.
S. D. OF FLA. - MIAMI

ACCEPTANCE OF THE CORPORATE OFFER TO CONTRACT WITH FULL IMMUNITY AND WITHOUT RECOURSE.
1. There is some confusion as to authority and identity of a party in this matter. I believe someone is attempting to simulate a lawful process. It appears that there is a claim that some man was under presumed contract, and that somehow the contract was breached, and that somehow this civil agreement could equate to a criminal liability. i; a man on behalf of the named DEFENDANT, object without recourse, and demand proof be made to appear on the record as to such validity of this erroneous presumption.
2. i, acting on behalf of the defendant hereby object to the Court's presumed jurisdiction which is our right. See: U.S. Supreme Court Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 12 Pet. 657 (1838) Rhode Island v. Massachusetts U.S. (12 Pet.) 657 Syllabus
3. “... Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine
the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit -- to adjudicate or exercise any judicial
power over them. An objection to jurisdiction on the ground of exemption from the process of
the court in which the suit is brought or the manner in which a defendant is brought into it is
waived by appearance and pleading to issue, but when the objection goes to the power of the
. court over the parties or the subject matter, the defendant need not, for he cannot give the
| plaintiff a better writ, or bill,
_. . Its action (the court) must be confined to the particular cases, controversies, and parties over
which the Constitution and laws have authorized it to act; any proceeding without the limits
prescribed is CORAM NON JUDICE, and it’s action a nullity.
4. And whether the want or excess of power is objected by a party or is apparent to the
Court, it must surcease its action or proceed extrajudicially.
5. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy
between parties to a suit, to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them; the question
is, whether on the case before a court, their action is judicial or extrajudicial; with or without the
authority of law, to render a judgement or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties, if the law
confers the power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction; what shall be
adjudged or decreed between the parties, and with which is the right of the case, is judicial
action, by hearing and determining it. 6 Peters, 709; 4 Russell, 415; 3 Peters, 203-7” Cited by
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 37 U.S. 657, 718 (1838)
6. From the beginning this party has said, as stated, has objected to the Court’s jurisdiction,
documenting the unwillingness of the defendant to submit to the Court’s jurisdiction leaving the
court and the so-called prosecution in want of writ and/ or bill. An objection to jurisdiction on
the ground of exemption from the process of the court I which the suit is brought or the
manner in which a defendant is brought into it ... but when the objection goes to the power
of the court over the parties or the subject matter, (as was the case and is the case at
present) the defendant need not, for he canot give the plantiff a better writ, or bill”
rendering the proceedings and any orders, decrees, judgments, warrants, decisions any
‘ proceeding without the limits prescribed is CORAM NON JUDICE, and its action a
nullity!’ “Where a Court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in i se
the cause; and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is ¥
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 2 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
regarded as binding in every other Court. But, if it acts without authority, its judgments and
orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a
recovery sought, even prior to a reversal, in opposition to them. They constitute no justification;
and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as
trespassers.” Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828)
WRIT OF CORAM NON JUDICE
7. In presence of a person not a judge. When a suit is brought and determined in a court
which has no jurisdiction in the matter, then it is said to be CORAM NON JUDICE, and the
judgment is void.
OBJECTION
8. The act of a party who objects to some matter or proceeding in the course of a trial, or an
argument or reason urged by him in support of his contention that the matter or proceeding
objected to is improper or illegal. Used to call the court’s attention to improper evidence or
procedure.
9. We, accept your offer to contract under the following terms and conditions and this
shall be construed as a counter offer, done with full immunity and without recourse with
respects the undersigned and his avatar; I shall be deemed to have obtained the age of
majority retroactively, and to have disaffirmed any and all contracts made in infancy! I shall be
deemed and it shall be held and adjudicated that I am a competent, natural Man, a natural person,
that my words are never to be construed liberally, but contextually. That the only law that shall
apply to my person is the principles of the “Golden rule” otherwise known as The Common Law.
Acceptance of your offer is contingent on the aforementioned and your rebutting each and every
one of the proof of claim herein, point by point with facts and conclusions of the law of the land,
original jurisdiction, common law, and that I and my property and my Interest are to be
considered and held fully indemnified against any and all consequences as this agreement
entered into is without recourse on my behalf and interest.
10. It is believed that you are a commercial entity, conducting commercial business, an
entity that files COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS inclusive of
references, notes, ledgers, term definitions and by this conduct you document that you do
not represent the sovereign order a private organization, engaging in private contracts to
offer and subscription and/or application.
11. i, acting on my own behalf and on behalf of the defendant, choose not to enter or engage
in contract unless it’s under my terms. My terms are spelled out within the body of this
instrument, if you should except those/these terms in their entirety without exception and/or
amendment and or augmentation, then we shall proceed. If you choose not to accept the terms of
this contract, then you have subjected my person, my interests, my estate, my assets, my property
to involuntary servitude, which is illegal in all venues within the borders of the United States of
America, a crime for which it is punishable by imprisonment and a fine, and restitution for
damage done. This shall serve as notice upon yourself and upon the agents acting in agreement
and in conspiracy with you to accomplish the ends for which you presume justify the means.
You are held liable under the terms of arbitration specified herein, arbitration is an
administrative remedy that has not been exhausted as yet, a remedy that remains available to my
person, to my interests, to my estate, with reference my property.
12. I would therefore demand that there be a showing of cause, that a warrant, affidavit,
and the contract be made to appear on the record immediately which would somehow under
some felonious circumstances purport to grant the court jurisdiction.
13. So that we have a clear understanding, I believe that someone held a hearing ex parte
by which they sought to obtain a warrant, however, it must be known that no warrant shall issue
unless upon probable cause, in accord with due process of law, The due process of law that is
guarantee is every person in America be they legal person, Physical person, juristic person,
and/or natural person, living person, and or artificial person, is that of common-law. Common
law was the law in operation at the time and reference when the due process clause was
introduced. The so-called courts are not courts of original jurisdiction, under the constitution as
that is reserved for the Supreme Court. Therefore, since it is an absolute necessity that a party
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 3 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
be notified before being subjected to any significant deprivation of rights, and that the
hearing not be fixed in form, I will need such to be produced on the record where
notification was sent to the alleged defendant and/or his party representative, and I must
demand that information be made to appear immediately!
A continuing and running challenge to jurisdiction is now on the record.
14. This informed man is aware they have the right to challenge jurisdiction, and that one can
challenge jurisdiction at any time, and that once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven by
the accuser. i, acting on behalf of the alleged defendant does not enter a plea (or I withdraw that
plea if in error), and i do not permit anyone to enter a plea, shall never enter a plea. I have not, do
not and shall not be forced and or compelled to enter your jurisdiction and or an involuntary plea.
If a plea was entered without these matters fully disclosed and there being a meeting of the
minds. Those presumed contracts are now rescinded and revoked for want of jurisdiction; unless
clearly addressed by answering all the following proof of claims point by point:
15. PROOF OF CLAIM, whereas the issue of a trial or hearing exists when the plaintiff and
defendant arrive at some specific or matter in which one affirms and the others denies [See:
Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., West Publishing, 1910, p.657], a court does not create the issue
by asking the “named” defendant how they dispute the “so-called” charges.
16. PROOF OF CLAIM, if there is a statute/law within and upon the face of a charging
document/instrument which alleges/charges a violation of an unconstitutional statute/law, or is
from another State, or legal entity, or even a “un/non-constitutional legislative entity,” such as
those statutes/laws cited from the United States Code and specifically THE ACT OF MARCH
9TH, 1933 Proclamation 2038, 2039, 2040 AND Titles 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 28, 31 and 42
USC; C.F.R., THE FEDERAL REGISTRY, thereof within and upon the face of the warrant of
arrest, charging document/instrument (Indictment), and affidavits in support thereof within the
above referenced alleged Criminal Case/Cause, a defendant; and specifically the “named”
defendant within the above referenced alleged Criminal Case/Cause, in the act of entering a plea
or verdict thereto; and therein, does not thereby; and therein, admit to the geniuses of said
“charging document/instrument (Indictment); and, does not admit to the validity of the
statute(s)/law(s) cited therein; and, does not thereby form the issue for trial which would exist
even without a plea, and without which there would be anything before the court or jury for
trial. [See: Frisbe v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 165; 39 L. Ed. 657 (U.S. La. 1895), which
States: “The very act of pleading to it [an indictment] admits its geniuses as a record.”;
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 4 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
Koscielski v. State, 158 N.E. 902, 903 (Ind. 1927), which States: “The plea forms the issue to be
tried, without which there is nothing before the court or jury for trial.“; cf. Andrews v. State, 146
N.E. 817, 196 Ind. 12 (1925); State v. Acton, 160 A. 217, 218 (N.J. 1932); United States v.
Aurandt, 107 P. 1064, 1065 (N.M. 1910)]
17. PROOF OF CLAIM- The right to not enter a plea - entering a plea is only one step in
granting the Court jurisdiction to hear a matter: “It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea
to the jurisdiction is the first (step) in the order of pleading, and that any (other or additional)
plea which refers to the Court any (additional proof and or acknowledgment) other question, is a
tacit admission that the Court has the right (jurisdiction) to judge in the cause (i.e. subject matter
jurisdiction), and is a waiver of all exceptions (i.e. acquiescence, whereby no challenges can be
allowed respecting) to the jurisdiction.” Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush Ky. 8
18. PROOF OF CLAIM- “Whenever it appears upon the record that the Court has no
jurisdiction (i.e. “in want of jurisdiction”), nothing which the parties may do or omit to do
will give it (that is, jurisdiction to the Court); but where want of jurisdiction may exist
consistently with the record (fingerprints, presumptions, assumptions, photographs, affidavits,
documents, Statements); a plea to the action (either entered by the Court or by counsel/attorney
or by a party) is a waiver of any exception to the jurisdiction (i.e. the party waived his rights and
submits to the jurisdiction of the Court).” Lawrence v. Bassett, 5 Allan 140
19. PROOF OF CLAIM, it appears within and upon the face of the record of the alleged
court of record in the above referenced alleged Criminal Case/Cause, the nature of the
statute(s)/law(s) cited within and upon the face of the warrant of arrest, charging
document/instrument (Indictment), and affidavits in support thereof, as relied upon by said court
to assume its jurisdiction in the case/cause and over and upon the parties therein; and, the
consequences of entering a plea; as established supra at Proof of Claim were disclosed to
the “named defendant” within the above referenced alleged Criminal Case/Cause, and the
Undersigned by ANY “officer” of said court and/ or United States; and, was not rather
actively concealed and hidden from the “named” defendant and the Undersigned by said
“officers”; and, such concealment does not operate to constitute/establish acts of fraud upon and
against the “named” defendant and the Undersigned within the above referenced alleged
Criminal Case/Cause.
20. PROOF OF CLAIM, the proceedings in which the “named” defendant and the
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 5 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
Undersigned were subjected to within the above referenced alleged Criminal Case/Cause, were
not in equity/chancery; and, the conflict was not with a “un/non-constitutional” source of
authority for the existence of the statute(s)/law(s) alleged/charged as violated within and upon
the face of the warrant of arrest, charging document/instrument (Indictment), and affidavits in
support thereof.
21. PROOF OF CLAIM, courts and the legal system today; and specifically the alleged court
of record within the above referenced alleged Criminal Case/Cause, can and do recognize and
proceed upon common-law crimes/offense, and therefore acts, which are made crimes/offenses,
are not made so by presumed color of law statute, or rather “Code.”
22. PROOF OF CLAIM, that all so called crimes are not actually commercial in nature.
[See: Constitution of/for the United States of America (1789, as amended 1791) Art. I, § 8, cl. 3
and 18; accord specifically THE ACT OF MARCH 9TH, 1933 Proclamation 2038, 2039, 2040
AND Titles 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 28, 31 and 42 USC; C.F.R., THE FEDERAL REGISTRY,
USC; See Title 27 CFR § 72.11; and United States v. Volungus, 595 F.3d 1. 4-5 (1st Cir. 2010);
United States v. Pierson, 139 F.3d 501, 503 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 US 896, 142 L Ed 2d
181, 119 S Ct 220, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 5985 (1998).]
23. PROOF OF CLAIM, the lack/want of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot stop a court;
and specifically the alleged court of record within the above referenced alleged Criminal
Case/Cause, from proceeding; and, does not void ALL orders, decisions, judgments, and the like
of said court as it cannot be waived. This may be asserted at anytime, even after trial for the first
time. This does not affect by NOR negate the act of entering a plea, not even a guilty plea, as
such would confess nothing; and, this lack/want of subject-matter jurisdiction, whether ensuing
from a fatally defective warrant of arrest or charging document/instrument; e.g., an Indictment as
in the above referenced alleged Criminal Case/Cause, for employing/using and citing
“unconstitutional statute(s)/law(s); or, “un/non-constitutional” statute(s)/law(s)/Code(s) without
nexus (relationship); e.g., contract or otherwise, established and existing between the parties,
does not effectuate the same result; i.e., the indictment and/or judgment is VOID and a
complete nullity ab initio, unenforceable, and without binding force and effect, even before
reversal.
24. PROOF OF CLAIM, whereas other State Supreme Courts have held these so-called
“Revised Codes,” or however termed/styled, not to be the law of their respective States, the
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 6 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
United States Code is any different from these other so-called “Revised Codes”; and, is the law
of the United States of America. [See: In re Self v. Rhay, 61 Wash.2d 261, 264, 265, 377 P.2d
885 (1963); cf. Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 N.Y. 547, 568; Village of Ridgefield Park v. Bergen Co.
Bd. of Tax, 162 A.2d 132, 134, 135, 65 N.J.Super. 133 (1960), citing: State v. Burrow, 104 S.W.
526, 527, 119 Tenn. 376 (1907)]
25. PROOF OF CLAIM, all jurisdiction with; and of the United States/UNITED STATES is
not by “contract”; and thus said contractual constraints are not binding upon ANY and ALL
courts within said juridical constructs and the jurisdiction exercised therein.
26. PROOF OF CLAIM, the “Executive Power”; i.e., the administrative branch of
Government; State and federal/national, as created, ordained, and established within the written
document/instrument for its existence, is not limited and guided by the “law of the land.”
27. PROOF OF CLAIM, the “law of the land” and “due process of law” do not have the
same meaning: and, the law intended by the Constitution; State and federal/national, is not the
common-law, [See: State v. Doherty, 60 Maine 504, 509 (1872), which States: “The expressions
‘due process of law’ and ‘law of the land’ have the same meaning... The ‘law’ intended by the
constitution is the common law that was handed down to us from our forefathers, as it existed
and was understood and administered when that instrument was framed and adopted.”]
28. PROOF OF CLAIM, the “due process of law’ clause as expressly written within the
Constitution for the United States of America, does not make and establish the common-law the
“law of the land.” [See: U.S. Const. 4th Amendment; Walter Anderson, A Treatise on the Law of
Sheriffs, Coroners, and Constables, vol. I, § 166, p. 160 (1941), which States: “Heed should ever
be paid to the voice of common law as it has echoed down through the ages, loudly proclaiming
in the interests of the rights of the citizen, that it must not be forgotten that there can be no arrests
without due process of law...”]
29. PROOF OF CLAIM, the common-law is not the foundation of “due process of law.”
[See: 6 R.C.L., § 434, which States: “...it is clear that the common law is the foundation of which
is designated as due process of law.’]
30. PROOF OF CLAIM, “due process of law” and “the law of the land” does not declare
that, a Private American, cannot be deprived of his liberty or property, unless by the
judgment of his peers or the law of the land. [See: Constitution of/for the United States of
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 7 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
America (1789, as amended 1791) article in amendment V; Thomas Cooley, Constitutional
Limitations, 364 and notes].
31. PROOF OF CLAIM, “due process of law” and what constitutes same is determined by
the “Legislative Power” of Government; State and/or federal/national, and specifically that as
exercised by the General Assembly of the present existing Government of the United States
within and/or through its Statutes; and, is not a restraint upon the legislative as well as
executive and judicial powers of Government. [See: Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Imp. Co., 18
How (U.S.) 272, 276 (1855), which States: “It is manifest it was not left to the legislative power
to enact any process which might be devised. The [due process] article is a restraint on the
legislative as well as executive and judicial powers of Government, and cannot be so construed
as to leave Congress free to make any process ‘due process,’ by its mere will.”; State ex rel. v.
Billings, 55 Minn. 466, 474 (1893)]
32. PROOF OF CLAIM, whereas the Congress of the federal Government is not free to make
any process it deems fit as constituting “due process of law,” the General Assembly of the
United States is free to make any process it deems fit as constituting due process of law.
33. PROOF OF CLAIM, what constitutes “due process of law” is not to be ascertained by an
examination of the settled usages and modes of proceeding in the common and statute laws of
England before the immigration of The People to this land and adoption of any Constitution.
[See: Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 100 (1908)].
34. You as the party bringing the claim understand that I realized the onus is not on myself,
it’s not my responsibility to prove you have no jurisdiction, it’s your responsibility to prove
you have jurisdiction. In times past the ministerial clerk’s otherwise known as judges for the
administrative courts, have sidestepped, ignored, have avoided responding directly to challenges.
You as the party bringing the claim do not get to do that, not in this instance, and therefore will
prove your standing, you will prove your capacity, you will prove your jurisdiction, you will
prove your authority, you will prove that you represent the sovereign people, vs a private entity’s
interests.
35. I know my estate shall never consent to involuntary servitude, and yes all of your actions
or actions of involuntary servitude unless you can show that there is a contract, a subscription to
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 8 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
license, that was entered into knowingly, willingly, intentionally, deliberately, with full
knowledge and awareness at the time of its engagement.
You will prove that this party has not attained the age of majority.
You will prove that this party does not have the right to be at liberty.
You will prove that your so-called defendant is a natural person.
You will prove that the captioned name any you are complaint represented by all capital
letters is a natural person, and not a legal person and/or legal name.
36. What is meant by “you will prove”, is that your presumption of Law is hereby
challenged, there is no foundational principle and presumption of Law. There is a foundational
principle in an unrebutted affidavit, that there is no foundational principle for an unrebutted
assumption, presumption. Just because you raise a point does it mean that another party is
obligated to counter your point, if you raise a point it must be supported by facts and conclusions
of law in the first instance or is construed in law as an invalid point. There must be validity to
your claims, and yet you produce documents that are neither certified, backed by the full faith
and credit, which are facsimiles, copies, not evidence. And then you allow your so-called officers
of your so-called courts to testify, to introduce evidence, and this contrary to the very same
decisions handed down by your very same courts. For instance, an attorney, cannot “testify”,
nor can an attorney introduce evidence into a case, you cannot do it on his behalf, and or
on behalf of another. Either he is an attorney, or he is a witness, but he cannot be both. If
he offers testimony, the net testimony can be impeached, if he introduces evidence, that so-called
evidence must be supported by facts and conclusions of law, not by so-called rules of evidence.
The courts don’t get to create a rule, they are servants, can’t create a rule that governs the people,
there is no delegation of authority, and if there is please provide such with specificity, these rules
that are completely spelled out within the framework of the Constitution and the Northwest
ordinance of 1879. Therefore, I bring forth this my running objection to anyone claiming that
they have introduced any evidence, especially if they’re claiming to introduce things such as
fingerprints, photos, documentation, and or testimony of any kind. The information produced
must be supported by an affidavit, sworn testimony under penalty, by an individual having
firsthand knowledge of facts, not firsthand knowledge of presumptions.
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 9 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
37. The only thing that a party can do is to make objection the following:
Your presumed jurisdiction comes from the entering of a plea by a defendant, and/or the
subscription and/or license to the contract! I nor my property shall, will, ever consent to such a
subscription, to such a license, to such a contract quasi-or otherwise, under any circumstances
whereby the benefit does not equate to a requirement. Your contracts and/or your agreements,
require servitude, which is in violation of my right to not be subject to such. Your contract of
involuntary servitude is interfering with my contract of involuntary servitude to my God. Your
practices interfere with my right to practice my religion as I choose and as directed by my God.
You cannot impair my contract with my God, you cannot interfere and or attempt to negate the
obligations of my voluntary contract with my God. This is how I know that there is no possible
way you could have a contract with myself under a presumed fictional title of named defendant,
whereby I would have volunteered to be in servitude, because I am prohibited by my God from
serving another or another God.
38. A show cause hearing is demanded and the following attached proof of claims by
way of government must be responded to a claim by claim for which you are making with facts,
conclusions of law, specificity, without conjecture, without Statements unsupported by facts or
conclusions of law. Please keep in mind only Congress in the United States has the authority to
make law, so the courts and their so-called case law is inadmissible in every court, because case
law has never been the law, and a ruling by a judge is not a ruling by a common-law jury, for
the Constitution only recognizes the decisions of a common-law jury as being on rebuttable, so
once again I place my running objection to the aforementioned arguments, standing capacity, and
lawful application. Your courts are debt collectors, and therefore the United States is deemed in
law to be a debt collector, these proceedings take place under an act which identifies the
procedures for collecting a debt (28 USC 3002).
39. The law grants myself, my person the right to offset, the alleged damage that has been
suffered, the void judgment that has not been corrected, despite the fact that this Court in the
appeals court had an obligation to correct the void judgment. The denial of due process, the
denial of the right to an evidentiary hearing, the denial of the right to subpoenas, the denial of the
right to medical treatment, the denial of the right to bail, the denial of the right to access the
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 10 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
Court, the denial of the right to access the mails, the denial of the right to practice a religion of
choice, the denial of the right to be at liberty, the denial of the right to contract, the denial of the
right to speak, the denial of the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, the
denial of the right to not be subjected to the invasive examination of one’s capacity, the denial of
the right to challenge the jurisdiction of your courts and every other complaint associated with
this matter presented to this body by this person.
40. Your Standing Order and Oath - You and this Court and the other officers of this court
have taken an oath, you are under oath while sitting in the capacity of your office, anything you
say can and will be used against you under that oath of office, and it is under that oath that I will
bring forth my claim against you, and we will continue my claim by introducing this into your
courts and proceeding with an administrative remedy known as arbitration.
Take notice: You will have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this
communication to respond, 10 calendar days whereby you will have to rebut each and
every one of the accompanying governing “proof of claims” and/or provide facts and
conclusions of law supporting your position. Your failure to do so will be construed as a
violation of your oath of office, acting in bad faith, and such would be construed as bad
‘behavior during the commission of your duty of care of office.
41 ...We said in Western Lawrence County Road Improvement District v. Friedman-D'Oench Bond Co., 162 Ark. 362, 258 S.W. 378, 382: ‘At section 537 of Page on Contracts (2d
Ed.), it is said: ‘One who has entered into a contract which (he or she) might avoid because of
personal incapacity, such as an infant, an insane person, a drunkard, and the like, has the election
to affirm such contract, or to disaffirm it, and when (he or she) has exercised (his or her)
election, with full knowledge of the facts, such election is final...An infant's contracts relating to
personal rights or personality may be disaffirmed by him while (he or she) is still an infant.. ‘The
general rule, ... is that the disaffirmance of a contract made by an infant nullifies it and renders it
void ab initio, ... and an infant may disaffirm contract during (his or her) minority or within a
reasonable time after reaching (his or her) majority. The general rule, ... is that the disaffirmance
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 11 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
of a contract made by an infant nullifies it and renders it void ab initio, and that the rights
of the parties are to be determined as though the contract had not been made, the parties
being restored to the status quo * * ... In 27 Am. Jur. Infants, § 11, p. 753; ...43 C.J.S.
Infants § 76 c, at page 183; In 43 C.J.S. Infants § 75 b, at p. 171; 43 C.J.S. Infants §
75f, p. 176, Executors and Administrators, § 189; In 43 C.J.S. Infants § 75, p. 176, 43
C.J.S., Infants, § 78, pp. 190, 192...
42. i further attest, affirm, DECLARE, as well as certify that i have firsthand actual
knowledge of all of the events described herein. That the legal document, certificate of title,
security instrument, known as the accusing indictment cases # 1:21-cr-20242,1:20-cv-21601,
1:20-mj-03050, 8:20-mj-01657 and indicated above carries information referring to my name, as
well as other credentials similar to my name . That name and all derivatives created from it are
therefore my property. My given name and derivatives from it are my property, being used for
profit by others. Be advised i am resigned as registered agent for the agency associated with this
instrument/indictment and do so by sending proper notification of this resignation to Responsive
Parties listed. That i hereby withdraw any and all permissions extended to any party now or at
any time in the past to oversee or administer my properties, with reference to this instrument,
my securities, and/or my interest, i am the true holder in due course of my property. i disaffirm
any and all invalid or unverified contracts to the contrary. those presumed contracts are void ab
initio.
43.i do hereby attest, declare, and affirm i am making this notice of estoppel and notice of
constitutional challenge on the record, and into the record of Case# 1:21-cr-20242,1:20-cv-
21601, 1:20-mj-03050, 8:20-mj-01657. As indicated on the enclosed certificate, with all given
natural rights reserved, and born on earth a Natural man on August 22 ,1987 on the land of
Massachusetts and as indicated on the enclosed certificate of live birth:i have attained the age
of majority, i am competent, and capable of handling my own affairs and require/request
that this be reflected in all records associated thereto/hereto immediately! i; a man an
American State National of the soil and land juris(Right Law) Diction(words- Language). i
hereby of my own accord and in compliance with the Age of Majority Act and the
associated local act[s] assume, commandeer, seize control of any and all accounts, assets,
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 12 of 13
Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract no. ThemanjosephRF127714578US :copy-right/copy-claim:
affairs associated with the minor account[s] and any and all primary account[s], heretofore,
forthwith, retroactively, and perpetually.
44. The record shall reflect the attaining of the age of majority/adulthood, binding upon all
jurisdictions, that i am a Native American, born in North America on the date indicated on the
certificate of live birth, and this is my will, and i place this information as a Memorial of my will,
and do so attesting under the organic Constitution of the United States of America, that the
aforementioned information is accurate AND i DO HEREBY ATTEST, DECLARE AS WELL
AS AFFIRM THAT i HAVE NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL AND STIPULATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE.
45. This affidavit is completed with my hand sign, which shall serve as a self-authenticating notary i.e. evidence.
All Rights Reserved
By: joseph-timothy:grenon
This 1 day of March 2022
All Rights Reserved, without prejudice
POA By: candi:lee
All Rights Reserved
Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2022 Page 13 of 13
candi:lee
c/o: 7115 N Division B-307
Spokane, Washington
zip exempt
CERTIFIED MAIL
7021 0350 0001 5689 8319
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
$8.56
R2305M147214-01
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
Clerk of Court
400 N Miami Ave RM 8N09
Miami, Florida 33128


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.591476.67.0.pdf

Size

1,453,421 bytes

SHA-256

d0118655d32bac14e431ec7f652490fe4d44c8285055fe104efca7633979ca5f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.591476.67.0.pdf

Original

archive.org