From the 'Lectric Law Library's Stacks
992-93 Nichol's Documents Submitted As Evidence By Gov't 7/96 Re Suppression Of Evidence Issues
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR SANILAC COUNTY
FIRST DEPOSIT NATIONAL BANK a N.B. ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff
TERRY L. NICHOLS, Non-lawyer (Alleged) Defendant
Case No. 92-021334-CK
HON. DONALD A. TEEPLE
1. ALLEGED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE FOLLOWING PLAINTIFF'S PRAECIPE, NOTICE OF HEARING, SUMMARY DISPOSITION, SANCTIONS, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
2. ALLEGED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DEMAND PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS TO ANSWER (FULLY AND COMPLETELY) INTERROGATORIES SUBMITTED IN ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM
3. ALLEGED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INCLUDE OTHER PERSONS1 IN COUNTERCLAIM
4. ALLEGED DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT
COMES NOW, Alleged Defendant, Terry L. Nichols, and moves the Court as follows:
1. To strike Plaintiff's Praecipe, Notice of Hearing, Summary Disposition, Sanctions. and Brief In Support of Motion for ignoring and not answering interrogatories presented by Terry L. Nichols' Counterclaim and not proving the Court has jurisdiction.
2. To demand Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Attorneys to completely and fully answer each and every interrogatory outlined in Nichols' Counterclaim.
3. To add to Nichols' Counterclaim other persons that assist Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's Attorneys in this case.
4. To dismiss Plaintiff's Motion Praecipe in trying to proceed without Due Process of law.
5. To Award Terry L. Nichols Relief and Damages as stated in Counterclaim for reason of not answering Interrogatories.
6. Above Motions are supported by accompanying Brief.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF (ALLEGED) DEFENDANT'S ABOVE MOTIONS
Terry L. Nichols comes as a "Non-lawyer (Alleged) Defendant" not Pro Se as Plaintiff's attorney is alleging and presuming. I am with capable, sound mind and body defending self against a very strong political law system that runs over the average Individual without a care for Truth, Honesty and Justice.
There has not been one piece of evidence brought forward that Nichols' is under the Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff must prove the Court has jurisdiction.
Who is handling this case for the Plaintiff, Richard Roosen or Jack Gibson, Jr. of Kahn, Kahn and Gibson, P.C.. And who is Jack Gibson, Jr. associated with as a practicing Attorney, Kahn, Kahn and Givson, P.C. or Kemp, Klien, Umprey & Endelman.
I can see the 'Play on words', 'Smoke screening', 'Denying', 'Ignoring', and 'Twisting' that lawyers (attorneys) use of the Laws.
Example # 1: Jack Gibson, Jr. states on pages 7 and 11 of his Supporting Brief dated 27 July 1992 That U.C.C. 3-303:7 and 3-303:1 are "non- existent sections/cites", apparently this professional has never heard of ANDERSON ON THE U.C.C. - see EXHIBIT # 1 and # 2 (highlighted). Also attached is EXHIBIT # 3, U.C.C. 3-303:21, 'EXTENSION OF CREDIT', which is a major part of the Counterclaim along with "Constructive Fraud".
Example # 2: Further evidence that Jack Gibson, Jr. twists words, phrases, and sentences (as lawyers love doing) is the statement in Gibson's Brief on page 6, last paragraph -- "are acting under color of money", which is only part of Nichols' statement on Nichols' Counterclaim, page 1, first paragraph, which by Gibson's manipulation takes Nichols' meaning out of context.
These are just two of numerous items that Gibson tries to bend and mold to his client's advantage.
Jack Gibson, Jr. also stated on page 7 that Article 3 applies to "Negotiable Instruments"2 what is a negotiable instrument, Jack.
By providing Nichols with the answers to the Interrogatories that was attached to the Counterclaim that Nichols filed on 06 July 1992 as exhibit # 3, I can prove my claims. But, Jack Gibson, Jr., his law firm, and the Plaintiffs have chose to ignore these. Where is the Justice!!
As for U.C.C. 3-505 "Rights of the Party to Whom Presentment is Made", again by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Attorneys fully and completely answering the Interrogatories Nichols can prove and show evidence as to Nichols Counterclaim. I have been denied Justice. Nichols can tie these and other U.C.C. Sections in to show my cause of actions.
My writings and communications are no more confusing and garbled then Jack Gibson, Jr's. writings and communications. No average Individual can understand the laws, rules, codes, and garbage language that all lawyers use. The lawyers are the ones that make the laws confusing, they don't want the average Individual to understand the laws. If all these Bloodsucking Parasites (lawyers) disappeared, this whole world would be better off. Most lawyers don't even understand or know the law themselves. It boils down to who can throw up the most garbage and see what sticks. THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD WHY ANY CODE, RULE, OR LAW SHOULD BE WRITTEN SO THAT THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL CAN NOT EASILY UNDERSTAND THEM. THEREFORE NO NEED FOR LAWYERS, PERIOD. But no, they love to complicate the hell out of anything. Proof of this is Jack Gibson, Jr's. ignorance of the U.C.C. Sections that he stated are non- existent and inapplicable as stated earlier.
The Fraud and Misrepresentation that Nichols claims in his Counterclaim apparently needs clarifying.
CAVEAT/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO ALL
Plaintiff is guilty of Fraud and Usury by "Constructive Fraud without Scienter" (38 Cal. Rplr. 148, 157) "No Scienter (Intent) is required; thus, party who makes misrepresentation need not know it is false" (437 S.W. 2d 20, 28).
Plaintiff's deceptive practices created, loaned and charged me, Terry L. Nichols, interest on "created-credit' all contrary to several Court Decisions: "Banks canNOT loan Credit" (First Natl. Bank v. Monroe, 69 S.E. 1123; St. Louis Savings Bank v. Parmalee, 95 U.S. 557; American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 181 Wis. 172).
I refuse to partake of "Constructive Fraud Without Scienter" and do hereby withdraw from said account, and will make NO PAYMENTS obtained by "Constructive Fraud Without Scienter" (437 S.W. 2d 20,28).
Plaintiff's Attorney will find himself violating 7 C.J.S. Section 4 Lawyers Code of Ethics, and Co-Plaintiff with Client/Lender as an Accessory to Collusion and Conspiracy in Client/Lender's "Bad-Check- of- Bank-Credit"; lacking, "Lawful Consideration for Contract/Note to exist" (Wingate v. Wingate, 11 Tex. 430); thus, Before the Court "Without Clean Hands"..."Without Claim for Relief"... "Without Subject Matter Jurisdiction", and "Without Cause of Action to Complain".
Take Judicial Notice (187 N.W. 2d 845, 847), of Caveat/Constructive Notice, herein; and Govern Yourself Accordingly.
Once again I state that Nichols' Counterclaims are valid and I stand firm on them.
In reference to Gibson's statement in his Brief on page 3, paragraph numbered 8 and the comment following, if the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's Attorneys do not understand what colorable3 means then they are more of a functional illiterate then I am and should definitely NOT be in business.
As for my Counterclaim for monetary damages in "the sum certaim of 50,000 dollars or 14,200 ounces of Silver"; I am stating that I want tangible value.
Again, all of Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's Attorneys Motions, Notices, Summaries, Sanctions, Briefs, Praecipe, and any other matter should be striker for the reason that they are attempting to steamroll over Nichols and the Court is willing to allow this Injustice to occur, unless the Court orders the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Attorneys to fully and completely answer the Interrogatories that were attached to Nichols' Counterclaim. Again, the Interrogatories will prove and show evidence that what I claim is true and fact. WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE!!
I am sure that Plaintiff's Attorney and the Court fully understands what a "Non-resident Alein[sic], Non-forgeiner[sic], Stranger" to the current State of the Forum is. Should he not, then I suggest he had better go back to studying his law books or obtain some better law books that will explain it.
As for the Motion to Include Other Persons in Counterclaim. The Court, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's Attorneys are hereby put on Notice that any person assisting4 Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's Attorneys shall be liable, accountable, and subject to the same resitutions[sic] as stated in Nichols' Counterclaim against Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Attorneys.
Boiling it all down into a nutshell, plain English, Terry L. Nichols is entitled to a Default Judgement[sic] from Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Attorneys for having failed to do the following --
1. Prove court's Jurisdiction
2. State a claim upon which relief can be granted
3. Show standing for their claim
4. Answer Interrogatories in Counterclaim.
Dated: 10 August 1992
Respectfully submitted, Explicitly reserving all rights Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207
/s/ Terry L. Nichols Non-lawyer Alleged Defendant
11 JUNE 1993
SANILAC COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 80 WEST SANILAC SANDUSKY, MICH 48471/TDC
COURT CLERK/MR. TEEPLE:
NOTICE OF OBJECTION
I ABSOLUTELY OBJECT TO THE CHANGE OF HEARING FROM 15 JUNE '93 TO 14 JUNE '93. I RECEIVED THIS CHANGE ON 10 JUNE '93. THE "ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" ITSELF STATES I SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 7 (SEVEN) DAYS NOTICE BEFORE THE HEARING. SHOULD ANY CHANGES BE MADE I STILL HAVE THAT RIGHT TO 7 (SEVEN) DAYS NOTICE BEFORE A HEARING. IT'S NOT MY FAULT THAT THE COURT MADE A MISTAKE OR DECIDED TO CHANGE DATES. THE COURT SHALL FOLLOW PROCEDURE THEREFORE I DEMAND THIS COURT TO SET A NEW HEARING DATE ALLOWING AT LEAST 7 (SEVEN) DAYS NOTICE. THIS NOTICE SHALL BE READ INTO THIS COURT RECORDS AND BECOME PART OF THE COURT RECORDS.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207
/s/ TERRY L. NICHOLS C/O 3616 N. VAN DYKE RD. DECKER, MICH. 48426/TDC
174A--OC-561200C # 95110203
TEEPLE: Donald A. Teeple (Circuit Judge)
NICHOLS: Terry Lynn Nichols
KERSH: Ellen S. Kersh (Attorney)
(SC): Simultaneous Conversation
TEEPLE: (Clears throat) First National Bank...and so on versus Terry Nichols...file ninety two twenty one thousand three three four C K. Mister Nichols. (Pause) Pardon. Not you. Okay. Mister Nichols.
NICHOLS: Couple a questions.
TEEPLE: Well, step up to the microphone then.
NICHOLS: I don't wanna (U).
TEEPLE: Well, we have to record everything you say, sir. So you have to step up to the microphone so I can record what you're saying.
NICHOLS: I can speak louder.
TEEPLE: If you don't wanna step to the microphone...then you're not going to say anything.
NICHOLS: I don't wanna enter your jurisdiction. If I pass this desk here, I'll have to enter your jurisdiction. (SC)
TEEPLE: If you don't wanna step up to the microphone, sir, I don't listen to anything you say. Because it all has to be recorded.
NICHOLS: I'll speak louder. (U) record, can it?
TEEPLE: Sit down in the back.
NICHOLS: I wanna know if I'm entering your juris (SC)...
TEEPLE: Sit down in back of the courtroom now.
NICHOLS: Am I entering your jurisdiction...
TEEPLE: Sit down in the back of the courtroom now.
NICHOLS: Can I ask (U) be here then?
TEEPLE: Sit down in the back of the courtroom...now.
(Voice in background)
NICHOLS: So I can't ask any questions?
TEEPLE: Sit down. Now.
(Voices in background)
TEEPLE: That's what you can do now. If you decide you wanna speak...and the microphone's where you're supposed to be, then you can speak. Otherwise you're gonna sit there and wait.
NICHOLS: I'm not going to (U) your jurisdiction ends (U).
TEEPLE: We'll wait a few moments. If he doesn't, uh...appear properly, counsel, I'll sign the order to show cause. (Clears throat)
(Break in conversation)
TEEPLE: (U) First Deposit National Bank...versus Terry Nichols, file ninety two twenty one thousand three three four C K. That the time set for a discovery hearing.
(Pause, coughing in background)
TEEPLE: Mister Nichols.
TEEPLE: Alright. You're here Mister Nichols in response to a subpoena, is that correct?
NICHOLS: (U) On the record?
TEEPLE: We're on the record.
NICHOLS: I'd say that...(Clears throat)..I'm here...in proper person especially appearing to sway jurists..not real safe. (Clears throat) Now, layman, natural person, (U) common law citizen and under threat to duress in the challenge of the jurisdiction of this court.
TEEPLE: Alright. On what basis do you challenge the jurisdiction of the court?
NICHOLS: I must give personal jurisdiction to this court. And I refuse to do that. I...especially reserve all my rights...(U).
TEEPLE: Alright. On what basis...do you challenge the jurisdiction of the court?
NICHOLS: Well, for one matter...uh...I see now there are four officers in here. That's...threatening me...I feel.
TEEPLE: The officers aren't going to do anything except make sure there's order in the courtroom.
NICHOLS: (Clears throat) I have not done anything wrong...because I have not been given...the information that I requested earlier. (Clears throat)
TEEPLE: Well, this is a subpoena today to appear for a discovery hearing. Wherein the plaintiff's counsel is entitled to ask you questions about your assets and income and so on...to determine the availability of collection of procedures on the judgement[sic] they have against you. Do you understand that?
NICHOLS: No, I don't.
TEEPLE: Well, they're entitled to ask you questions about your assets and liabilities and income.
NICHOLS: I... simply do not understand that.
TEEPLE: What is it that you don't understand about that?
NICHOLS: All of it. How can you proceed...without jurisdiction...over me?
TEEPLE: Well, I've already decided that, so if I'm wrong, I've been wrong in the past.
NICHOLS: Then how did you get jurisdiction over me?
TEEPLE: That's already been decided. There's a judgement[sic] against you. The question today is...you are being asked to answer questions in regard to your assets and liabilities and income and so on...in terms of, in terms of collecting the judgement[sic].
NICHOLS: Before I give anything...I want to see the original genuine document that I signed..the true document that's signed...that shows that I'm liable for anything. I've not seen that.
TEEPLE: You've never got..
NICHOLS: I don't want copies. Copies, I can get a copy from anyone with (U) signature on anything...make it look good and I can put an affidavit with it and it'll look good.
(Pause, shuffling noise)
NICHOLS: (U) that.
TEEPLE: Show that. I'm showing you the...order of judgement[sic] in the court file, the original's in the court file.
NICHOLS: I'm talking about the documents I signed, that they said, I signed.
TEEPLE: Do, do you see that document?
NICHOLS: I see the document.
TEEPLE: Alright. Anything else you wanna look at in that document?
NICHOLS: I want to see the document they said I signed...that shows that I'm liable.
TEEPLE: Right now all you have to worry about is that this document says you owe them...thirteen thousand, six hundred ninety one dollars and sixty three cents...
NICHOLS: I object to it.
TEEPLE: ...plus interest in the amount of two hundred and seventy eight dollars and seventy two cents and attorney's fees in the amount of five hundred dollars.
NICHOLS: I object to it.
TEEPLE: I know. You've already done that. But...the judgement's[sic] entered. The judgement[sic] was entered on September twenty first of nineteen ninety two. This is a discovery hearing. Which...
NICHOLS: I, I already paid one of those off.
TEEPLE: You paid this off?
NICHOLS: The one. (U) money.
TEEPLE: Yes, we've been through that before too.
NICHOLS: Something wrong with that?
TEEPLE: We've been through that before. me only question today is are you willing...
NICHOLS: Well, then what species...
NICHOLS: ...do you want me to pay in?
TEEPLE: Just a minute. me only question today is whether you are willing to answer questions in regard to, uhm...your assets, liabilities, and income and so on.
NICHOLS: What specie would you like me to pay in?
TEEPLE: mat's not the question, sir. Are you willing to answer questions in regard to your assets, expenses, liabilities and so on?
NICHOLS: (Clears throat)
TEEPLE: You're ordered to appear...
NICHOLS: I, I will not give, I don't have anything.
NICHOLS: I, (U) I don't have nothing.
TEEPLE: Alright. Well, why don't you please raise your right hand to be sworn.
NICHOLS: I reserve the rights at all time, I will not do that.
TEEPLE: You're not going to be sworn to testify.
NICHOLS: I'm gonna reserve my rights.
TEEPLE: Are you going to raise...
NICHOLS: Under common law.
TEEPLE: Ar[sic], are you going to be sworn to testify or not?
NICHOLS: I refuse.
TEEPLE: Alright. Order to show cause May issue. You'll have to appear again at the order of show cause. (Pause)
It's ordered that you appear on June fifteen, nineteen ninety three at ten A M to show cause to why you should not be found guilty of contempt of court for failure to appear and to, uh, answer questions and take the oath, uh, answer questions directed to you.
NICHOLS: I object. (Pause) (Clear throat) That's on (U) and duress of me...with the people.
TEEPLE: Alright. That's all for today, sir.
(Pause, shuffling noise, banging noise)
TEEPLE: Benjamin Ancona versus Dennin La...
(END OF CONVERSATION)
02 April 1992
Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Mich. 48809
Dear Sgt. John Wynalda:
RE: Notice of Revocation of Signature and Power of Attorney
This letter is to clarify the above referenced document that was not sent back to me as stated in your letter you sent to me on 27 March 1992.
I am stating that I no longer am a citizen of the corrupt political corporate State of Michigan and the United States of America. (The current state of the forum). I am a "Non Resident Alien" to the State of Michigan and the United States of America. I am a natural born human being born in the area you call Michigan not the corporate State of Michigan. Not being part of the corporate system of the State of Michigan I do not need to obtain any of the State's privileges (licenses). Therefore, I am not under the jurisdiction of the corporate State of Michigan. I follow the Common Laws, not the Uniform Commercial Codes, Michigan Statutes, etc., that are all colorable laws.
Therefore, I want the "Notice of Revocation of Signature and Power of Attorney" document made as a permanent part of your records so when and if a DNR Officer stops me he can check with your office and know that I'm not within your jurisdiction. Or your department can send me a document stating such so that I can present it to any DNR Officer at any time.
Should you have any further questions you may want to check with a good knowledge honest attorney or judge.
Explicitly reserving all of my rights without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207
/s/ Terry Nichols
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF SIGNATURE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN:
I, __Terry L. Nichols__, an inhabitant located in __Sanilac__ County, __Michigan__, State, but not the corporate body politic of either and a natural human being of the American Republic, do hereby revoke, and make void per U.C.C. section 2-608 ab initio, all signatures on any instruments and any Express or implied Power of Attorney therewith, in fact or assumption, signed either by me or anyone acting as my agent, or unsigned, as it pertains to a __hunting, fishing__, __game license__, and any and all certificates issued by __Dept. of Natural Resources__, governmental/quasi governmental entities, due to the use of various elements of fraud and misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy as per U.C.C. section 1-103, by said agencies/entities. I hereby cancel, repudiate and refuse to accept any benefit, franchises and or privileges attached to the above mentioned items.
I, __Terry L. Nichols__, do hereby revoke, cancel, annul, repeal, dismiss, discharge, extract, withdraw, abrogate, recant, negate, obliterate, delete, nullify, efface, erase, expunge, excise, delete, strike, cancel, repudiate, wipe out, disavow, recall, and renounce, destroy, abjure, blot, disclaim, disown, reject, give up, abandon, surrender, and relinquish all signatures and powers of attorney, in fact or assumption, with or without my consent and or knowledge, obtained in the past, present or future. I am the sole and absolute possessor/owner and possess absolute unqualified full right allodial title to any and all such property as a member of the American Republic with No effective connected trade or business within the United States or the state of __Michigan__.
This instrument replaces, cancels, and repudiates the prior instrument that I filed with the __Dept. of Natural Resources__ Office and any and all other governmental entities anywhere which may execute on said prior instrument(s). All such instruments are without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207 to me and Non Assumpsit to you. This instrument shall be a permanent part of the record of the __Dept. of Natural Resources Department.
EXPLICITLY reserving all of my rights without prejudice U.C.C. section 1-207
/s/ Terry L. Nichols
DATED: 16 March 1992
1. /s/ Micheal Jones 2. /s/ William Jones 3. /s/ Richard Nicholas
I, __James Nichols__, have personally mailed this letter on 16 March 1992 by first class mail.
/s/ James Nichols
1/ Black's Law Dic. 6th Ed. Pg.1142, Person. "In general usage, a human being (i.e, natural person), though by statute term may include labor Organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or reseivers[sic].
2/ Black's Law Dic. 6th Ed. Pg. 1035-36, Negotiable Instrument. "A written and signed unconditional promise or order to pay a specified sum of money on demand or at a definite time payable to order or bearer. U.C.C. 3-104(1). To be negotiable within the meaning of U.C.C. Article 3, an instrument must meet the requirements set out in Section 3-104: (1) it must be a writing signed by the maker or drawer; it must contain an (2) unconditional (3) promise (example: note) or order (example: check) (4) to pay a sum certain in money; (5) it must be payable on demand or at a definite time; (6) it must be payable to the bearer or to order (examples of instruments payable to order are (a) "Pay to the order of Daniel Dealer," and (b) "Pay Daniel Dealer or order"); and (7) it must not contain any other promise, order, obligation, or power given by the maker or drawer except as authorized by Article 3.
3/ Black's Law Dic. 6th Ed. Pg 265, Colorable. That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the apearance[sic] of truth. Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146.
4/ Black's Law Dic. 6th Ed. Pg. 120 Assist. "To help; aid; succor; lend countenance or encouragement to; participate in as an auxiliary. To contribute effort in the complete accomplishment of an ultimate purpose intended to be effected by those engaged.
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.