Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
Transcript of Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
-
8/14/2019 Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
1/8
william duff Page 1 12/30/2008
IN THE 7TH JUDICI AL CI RCUI T COURT OF M I SSOURI1COUNTY OF CLAY - DIV I SI ON 22
3
William Duff, ) CASE NO. 07CY-CV061254Plaintiff, )5
) ACTI ON6v. ) FOR TRESPASS, AND7
) TRESPASSON THE CASE8OFFICER WILLI AM FRAZIER, (SERI AL 3092) )9
AND )10OFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL # 4090) ) VERIFIED11
Defendants. )1213
SUGGESTI ONSFOR MOTI ON TO DENY DEFENDANT M OTI ONSFOR DI SM I SSAL -14
Filed after 8-16-071516
BACKGROUND1718
Plaintiff, not waiving his right to default judgment in this case, if any is forthcoming, recognizes the19
need for the premises of this controversy to be clear and understandable and that it is long overdue for20
the Missouri Attorney Generals office to provide a substantive and complete and competent opinion21
regarding the nature of the freedom of the people and specifically Plaintiff, within Missouri, takes up22
the issues presented by the learned Assistant Attorney General and her motions to dismiss and invites23
same to show by what authority the City and State profess to act respecting the controversy now before24
this court respecting Plaintiffs Right of Action emanating from his own private domain vs. The25
City/States Right to enforce regulations emanating from its public domain.26
27
Plaintiff contends and has adequately represented in the documents filed in this case; identifying the28
Law, the Principals of Freedom and Self Governance and the attending Rights of Action associated29
with his Life, his Liberty and his Property, all being solely within his own private domain, and that30
same are superior to statutory rights of governments respecting the attending premise and are at the31
heart of this controversy, to wit;32
33
Plaintiffs Affidavit of Citizenship Status (exhibit D filed in this action and entered here as if written in34
full) fairly describes, and supports with Law and Principles of this society, the bright line boundary35
existing around his own private domain, within which he possesses sole Dominion, and across which36
the public domain of the State, city, and county or their agents may not intrude upon without Plaintiffs37
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/ -
8/14/2019 Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
2/8
william duff Page 2 12/30/2008
CONSENT or evidence of his injury to another's person or property (bad act). To do so would be an38
injury to plaintiff. As such, there exists no Lawful authority for the State/City or its agents to trespass39
into plaintiffs own private domain against his will or without his bad act that could activate a public40
domain interest, even if it appears to some that such trespass might well be a GOOD I DEA.41
42
ANALOGY; The one Law of this Society no one is excused not to know is; We have agreed43
not to harm (injure) one another. In comprehension of that law, Plaintiffs neighbor has no44
lawful authority to trespass upon plaintiffs own private domain without injuring plaintiff. Nor45
does plaintiffs neighbor enhance his lawful authority or lawful capacity to act in this regard by46
combining his lawful authority with others in this society through the democratic process, in47that all those other neighbors also dont possess the lawful authority to injure Plaintiff. If an48
individual could not compel plaintiff to comply with his will without injuring plaintiff, under49
no circumstances could a collection of his equals (peers) do so without injuring Plaintiff. And50
further, that collective could not lawfully hire an agent to take that action on their behalf51
without injuring Plaintiff. Since the state/city acquire all of its power and public domain from52
the collective people themselves (as hired agents), through the democratic elements of our53
society, The State/City also could not possibly have lawful authority to trespass upon Plaintiffs54
own private domain without injuring Plaintiff, in that the collective people did not have that55
power to grant to its agent as a lawful form of action where the action injures one of the people56
the State was instituted to secure the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property of the people57
themselves, not even if the collective believed that grant to be a GOOD IDEA. This58
principle operates in the same way and for the very same reasons respecting a state/citys59
attempted trespass upon the public Domain of the Federal Government. Federal Supreme60
Court decisions are replete with cases denying the state such trespass. (see in-depth reasoning61
of private vs. public domain at www.williamduff.com ) The State cannot claim it doesnt62
understand this principle and at the same time expect to be taken seriously.63
64
Obviously, Plaintiff does not consent respecting defendants charges and actions, nor have defendants65
asserted that plaintiff has injured anyone or thing. Those facts are material to this controversy and66
made unassailable by defendants own admissions. The offices held by defendants possessed of no67
lawful authority to exceed its Lawful bounds, and no capacity to do so, save the choices of action made68
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
http://www.williamduff.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.williamduff.com/ -
8/14/2019 Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
3/8
william duff Page 3 12/30/2008
by the holder of that office; the defendants. It is manifest to plaintiff that defendants had to have69
vacated their offices in order to perform the acts complained of here.70
71
Plaintiff claims to possess Sovereign Immunity from the charges by defendants respecting the actions72
defendants complain of, and plaintiff so stated and noticed these facts to defendants prior to defendants73
bad acts (see Exhibit A of Plaintiffs action) and to the muni court in which defendants sought remedy74
for the charges they made (see plaintiffs answer to the charges) and in plaintiffs Notice and Demand,75
also filed as exhibit in this action. As such, defendants acts must clearly be willful and wanton if in76
fact the actions complained of by defendants are actually rights of action belonging to plaintiff as77
plaintiff contends.7879
Plaintiffs action sits to determine that very question. A mere claim of a statutory authority by the80
State is not sufficient evidence that the State actually possesses the authority claimed. When a81
reasonable challenge by one of the people is made to the States/Cities authority that challenge82
necessarily implicates an action in the nature of a Writ of Quo Warranto; Show by what authority83
does the State/City acts. A statutory claim, would not meet that duty. A statute is a claim by the State84
of authority. It is not proof of the authority itself.85
86
Should defendants wish to claim they were compelled in their bad acts by other office holders, this87
Plaintiff will accept affidavits from each defendant naming those office holders and plaintiff will88
gladly add them as defendants in this action seeking trespass on the case or vicarious liability.89
90
REBUTTAL91
92
Plaintiff invites this court to take cognizance of the facts and law applicable to this case as contained93
herein and in all the documents heretofore filed in this action by plaintiff and that filed as Answer to94
charges brought by defendants in the Muni Court of Kansas City, Mo. and all are entered here as if95
written in full.96
97
Defendants Motion to dismiss (1) fails to comprehend the nature of this action and (2) wrongly98
presumes the muni court to have jurisdiction of the person of this Plaintiff and the subject matter,99
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/ -
8/14/2019 Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
4/8
william duff Page 4 12/30/2008
excepting, of course, by unlawful usurpation attended by force of arms. As such, the sufficiency of100
defendants pleading is wanting, to wit;101
102
(1) This action seeks damages for injuries done by defendants in that the injurious acts exceeded103
the authority of the office of trust they held and were therefore a colorable assertion of104
authority. This action also seeks, in the nature of Quo Warranto, a clear statement of; By what105
Lawful Authority defendants claim to have acted? That element alone would stay the muni106
proceedings until that question is explored and adjudicated.107
(2) This action seeks to assert Plaintiffs Right of Action as is referenced above and in the108
documents filed in this case. This action makes no attempt to diminish the Municipal Courts109lawful jurisdiction but only to determine the Rights of Plaintiff. The Municipal Court does not110
have the will, means, or authority to do so in its limited and inferior nature. The Rights of111
action being adjudicated in this court of record must first be decided before it can be assumed112
that the city possesses lawful authority to proceed in said Municipal Action. The State of113
Missouris Judiciary has never adequately explored the premise presented here, though the114
judiciary claims to have settled the issue. If plaintiff is wrong I invite proof to the contrary.115
Defendants motion for dismissal fails to comprehend these unassailable facts.116
(3) In rebuttal of defendants factual background, defendants assertions, and all of them are in117
error and obviously only serves as an attempt to obscure Plaintiffs bright line boundary118
guarding his domain so that persons holding an office of trust have a plausible but wholly119
unlawful cover story for entering into Plaintiffs domain for the purpose of diminishing his120
dominion thereof, to wit: plaintiff denies that he resides in Kansas City when that term is121
legalese for him being a United States citizen residing anywhere. He is not and therefore122
does not, He exists within his own private property at all times relevant to this action as has123
been carefully described throughout the documents filed in this case. Defendants and their124
superiors have never provided any competent evidence to the contrary. Cities, counties and125
State office holders merely make the claim of authority, as defendants have done here, without126
any competent proof whatsoever that the claim is actually within their grant of power, and127
typically whatever court is hearing the matter accepts the claim on its face as evidence without128
proof. This act alone injures plaintiff especially when he provides unassailable, competent129
evidence of the facts he provides. Defendants facts are merely claims with nothing to support130
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/ -
8/14/2019 Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
5/8
-
8/14/2019 Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
6/8
william duff Page 6 12/30/2008
As an anecdote, Plaintiff recognizes defendants demur and is grateful for the admissions to all facts162alleged herein.163
164
COGNIZANCE REQUESTED:165166
Defendants, by and through their attorney and their first motion to dismiss have provided admission to167
all the facts alleged by Plaintiff in this action. Further, it appears that the law is the only remaining168
issue. Plaintiff also invites this court to take cognizance of the fact that defendants have provided no169
law in this case that would or even could assail the law provided by Plaintiff in that, all cases cited by170
defendants emanate from a democratic process supporting a statutory jurisdiction that fails to171
comprehend, let alone, rebut the subject matter at issue.172
173
Defendants, by and through their attorney and their motion to dismiss replevin, have again asserted174
authorities applicable only to people operating according to State license and all the cases cited reflect175
that fact. Plaintiff has demonstrated he does not operate his domain according to State license.176
Defendants also fail to show an ownership interest in Plaintiffs 1996 Buick, by the State, that could177
alter Plaintiffs right to own all; right, title and interest, in said property nor that the person who178
claimed to own all right title and interest therein and who passed same to Plaintiff either did not so179
own. Defendants have failed to provide any competent evidence that Plaintiff operates or is compelled180to operate according to State license respecting his use of his Rights to Liberty and property or that181
plaintiff has no right to contract with others respecting his property. Defendants make claims but182
provide no substantial proof in support.183
184
AND THERE I S THE I SSUE AT CONTROVERSY; By What authority. Not Claim of185
authority (statute, decisional law upon statutes). But By what authority does the state claim to186
determine, compel or prohibit Plaintiffs choice of use of Plaintiffs private property that exists solely187
within plaintiffs domain within which only Plaintiff owns and possesses sole dominion, and where188
plaintiff has caused injury to no other. When the Attorney Generals office provides competent189
evidence that comprehends and answers this simple question in favor of the State, Plaintiff will cease190
being a legal burden on this society and seek a society that actually comprehends and respects the191
principles of freedom and protection of Rights to Life, Liberty and Property this society was founded192
on.193
194
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/ -
8/14/2019 Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
7/8
william duff Page 7 12/30/2008
IN SUMMARY;195
196
Defendants, twice now, have declared plaintiffs action fails to state a claim upon which relief could197
be granted, and twice now, have supported their arguments with court decisions whos subject matter198
represents people acting in accordance with State License or permission to do something. Even though199
the documents, evidence and assertions filed in this action scream; BY WHAT AUTHORITY200
SHOULD A FREE MAN (specifically plaintiff) BE COMPELLED TO GET STATE LICENSE FOR201
ACTS PERFORMED WITHIN HIS OWN PRIVATE DOMAN THAT INJURE NO ONE?.202
Defendants continue to cite rules and rulings that comprehend only what one can do in accordance203
with State License. Defendant makes no attempt to answer the central question posed in this action.204Further, defendants consistently use evidences this court could not take cognizance of ,even if it were205
inclined to do so, in that all comprehend a statutory jurisdiction, foreign to the jurisdiction of this court206
and which fail to comprehend protected common law rights of plaintiff.1
Defendants have failed or207
refused to address this subject matter, from its outset. Defendants imply that a State interest exists in208
the property and rights being adjudicated here but finish short of defining exactly what that interest is.209
Conversely, plaintiff has carefully outlined and defined each interest in detail, which by their premise210
fully support plaintiffs claim of Dominion over his private domain. As such it is defendant who fails211
to state a defense this court could provide remedy for, not plaintiff. If fraud is to be found in actions of212
the parties, it is defendants who embrace it, not plaintiff.213
214WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this court to deny Defendants Motions to Dismiss for good cause215shown and for all other consideration this court can and should provide.216
217218
219
1 Article 34 of the Magna Carta (Great Charter of freedom that was made the law of this land
by the Framers of our Constitution and is therefore part of the birthright of every American)34. Henceforth the writ which is called Pr aecipe shall not be ser ved on any one for any holdi ngso as to cause a fr ee man to l ose his cour t.("Praecipe" = order to show cause againstproperty. "Rights" are property. A freeman (i.e. nobleman) hashisown land and people(slaves). The king may not forcea nobleman into the kings court in such a way that thenobleman would bedeprived of hisown court.) Assuch, failure to state a claim isnotavailable in a court of record proceeding according to the common law in thiscasebecause theentire subject matter is contained within plaintiffsdomain.
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/ -
8/14/2019 Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss
8/8
william duff Page 8 12/30/2008
____________________ Date _______220William Duff221
Plaintiff222223
Cc: William Duff to: [email protected],224William Frazier and Alan Roth to: 1001 NW Barry Rd. Place225Kansas City, Missouri C/O KCMO Police Department North Division226
EMILY A. DODGE Assistant Attorney General at; [email protected] and227
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/