1 Your name
2 Your address
[City, ST ZIP Code]
3
5 [COURT NAME]
6
7
[PLAINTIFF'S NAME], Case No.: [Number]
8
Plaintiff,
9
NOTICE TO COURT
10 vs.
OBJECTION
11 DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION
[DEFENDANT'S NAME],
OF EVIDENCE THE
12
Defendant RESPONDENT WILLFULLY
13 VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT
14
PETITIONER’S STANDING TO
ALLOW THIS COURT’S
15 CONTINUAL SUMMARY
16 DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS
WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL
17
CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
18 THE COURT RELIED UPON
PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD
19
STANDING IN COURT
20 DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL
21
UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
22 CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF
23 MUST BE GRANTED
24
25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT
WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 1
1 NOTICE TO COURT OBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF
2
EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO
3
4 SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
5
CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT
6
7
PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE COURT
8 RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
9
COURT
10
11 DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)
12
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE
13
14
GRANTED
15
16
1. THIS OBJECTION IS IN RESPONSE TO A RECENT DISMISSAL BY
17
18 COURT WITHOUT CLARIFYING IN WRITING THE EVIDENCE THE
19
COURT HAS COME TO RELY UPON TO PROSECUTE THE
20
UNDERSIGNED.
21
22 2. THE UNDERSIGNED IS OBJECTING TO THE FACT THE DISMISSAL
23
OF THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL WAS CLEARLY
24
25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT
WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 2
1 WITHOUT CLARIFICATION OF REQUIRED EVIDENCE TO
2
SUPPORT CLAIM BY SHOWING AN INJURY IN FACT WAS
3
4 SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER.
5 3. A JUDGE WHO FAILS TO CLARIFY EVIDENCE IN WRITING IS
6
PROOF OF AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACT AND NOT A
7
8 NON-DISCRETIONARY MINISTERIAL ACT BY RELYING UPON
9 FACTS AND EVIDENCE, AND IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
10
INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
11
12 TO PROSECUTE AND MUST DISMISS UNDER FEDERAL RULE
13 12(b)(6).
14
4. A JUDGE WHO ORDERS THE DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY BY
15
16 SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE ABLE TO CLARIFY IN WRITING
17 THE EVIDENCE HE OR SHE CAME TO RELY UPON TO SUPPORT
18
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
19
20 5. THE OBJECTION IS IN RESPONSE TO A DECISION THAT FAILED
21 TO GIVE A PROPER CLARIFICATION OF THE EVIDENCE THE
22
RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS OR PROOF THE
23
24 RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATED A DEBT AGREEMENT.
25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT
WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 3
1 6. THE COURT MUST CLARIFY IN WRITING THE RESPONDENT
2
WILLFULLY CAUSED THE PETITIONER AN INJURY IN FACT, AND
3
4 FURTHERMORE THE COURT MUST CLARIFY THE DATE THE
5 EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT TOOK PLACE AND DATE THE
6
EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE COURT BY THE
7
8 PETITIONER.
9 7. CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT IS
10
REQUIRED FOR THE PETITIONER TO HAVE STANDING AND
11
12 REQUIRED FOR THE COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO
13 PROSECUTE THE UNDERSIGNED.
14
8. THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT THE OPINIONS OF THE
15
16 UNDERSIGNED, BUT ARE ADJUDICATED FACTS BY THE SCOTUS
17 IN MATTER LUJAN V DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555
18
(1992) AND THEREFORE LAW THIS COURT INFERIOR TO THE
19
20 SUPREME COURT MUST COMPLY IT.
21 9. TO DENY THIS OBJECTION THIS COURT MUST CITE THE
22
EVIDENCE AND CITE THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION INTO THE
23
24 COURT.
25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT
WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 4
1 10. WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT INTRODUCED BY
2
THE PETITIONER, THEN THE PETITIONER IS WITHOUT STANDING
3
4 AND THE COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DISMISS THE
5 EFFORTS BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO REDRESS AND REMEDY THE
6
FALSE CLAIMS MADE BY PETITIONER.
7
8 11.THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR SCOTUS, IS
9 THE HIGHEST COURT ON THE LAND AND ITS OPINIONS MUST BE
10
HONORED BY ALL STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.
11
12 12. THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 4 SECTION 1 FULL FAITH AND
13 CREDIT CLAUSE IS REQUIRED TO HONOR THE PRECEDENCE SET
14
BY THE SCOTUS OR IT IS ACTING FOREIGN TO THE UNITED
15
16 STATES CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY ARTICLE 6 SECTION 2.
17 13. THE SCOTUS HELD IN MATTER LUJAN V DEFENDERS OF
18
WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992) THAT THERE IS A
19
20 CONSTITUTIONAL MINIMUM STANDARD A COURT MUST
21 COMPLY WITH TO PROPERLY REDRESS AND REMEDY A CLAIM
22
BROUGHT BY A PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER/CLAIMANT. THE COURT
23
24 MUST REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT
WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 5
1 SHOWING AN INJURY IN FACT OR THE PETITIONER LACKS
2
STANDING AND COURT IS UNLIKELY TO SUCCESSFULLY
3
4 REDRESS AND REMEDY THE CLAIM MADE BY PETITIONER.
5 14. FOR EVERY RIGHT DEPRIVED OR DENIED THERE IS A REMEDY.
6
WHEREBY, THIS COURT MUST COMPLY WITH THE SUPREME
7
8 COURT’S OPINION IN MATTER LUJAN V DEFENDERS OF
9 WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992 THAT COURTS MUST ENSURE
10
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MINIMUM STANDARD REQUIRING THE
11
12 PETITIONER TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE SHOWING AN INJURY IN
13 FACT CAUSED BY SOME CONDUCT OF THE UNDERSIGNED
14
RESPONDENT. ) [“Over the years, our cases have established that the
15
16 irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.
17 First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" Second, there must
18
be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—
19
20 the injury has to be "fairly. . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the
21 defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third
22
party not before the court." Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely
23
24 "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable
25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT
WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 6
1 decision.",LUJAN V DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555
2
(1992 ]
3
4 15. WHEREBY, WITHOUT CLARIFYING EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN
5 FACT IN WRITING, THIS COURT IS CLEARLY WITHOUT
6
JURISDICTION TO DENY THE UNDERSIGNED RESPONDENT’S
7
8 DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL AND IS WILLFULLY VIOLATING THE
9 RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT THAT ARE SECURED BY THE BILL
10
OF RIGHTS.
11
12
13
14 Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].
15
16
17 Your NAME
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT
WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 7
