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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
/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.