Judge Prezeau has ruled today on a case of "paper terrorism". yes you heard it right. Apparently prosecutors can label your actions, and your conduct as a threat to them, for asserting your rights protected by the constitutions to defend yourself in court.
They can label you anything they deem necessary to win, of course not to pursue the truth, without giving you a definition of it. So basically saying that if I am a member of the executive branch, the law enforcement branch, and I think that you are doing something illegal, but then if you don't want to do that illegal act and ask me what it is so you can refrain from performing this act, then I don't have to tell you. I can just call you whatever I want, and its up to me to decide what is illegal or not, and not the legislature.
The Molester Judge Prezeau agrees, and has issued an order. The ruling, is because the Molesting County Attorney's Boris and Cassidy are immune because they were acting in thier official scope and duties as prosecuters. Yes you heard that right as well, they are molesters. Also, Apparently The Montana Constitution article 2 section 9 says that you don't have a right to know.
In any case, Judge Prezeau's ruling is reciprocal. If prosecutors can call you anything they deem to be a threat, without telling you what it is, while acting in their official scope and duties as a prosecutor. Therefore WE can say anything we want that deems a threat, without telling them what WE mean, while in the scope and duties of Defending ourselves in an action the state has brought against us. I would imagine it can go beyond just in legal proceedings. Why not just say anything we want to someone.
But for the upside of this ruling, I still never received the definition of "Paper terrorism" and my actions were not illegal, and WE as a people, can file as many pleadings as we want in a case to defend ourselves.
Further, that definition is still my property, I have a right to know what it is, and I will claim it. Oh and by the way, according to Molester Judge Prezeau your rights are not your property, regardless of the definition of property and Montana code Annotated 70-1-104(5),and therefore I or we do not have a
right to know.
MCA 70-1-104(5) In what things
property interests may exist. There may be ownership of: (5)
rights created or granted by statute.
Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any , person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an
aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Blacks Law 6th Ed
So apperantly your Prezeau Government will not protect your rights. Wow Imagine that!!!
Here is the lawsuite in Full, the name is withheld, for privacy purposes, yet it is a public record.
19th Judicial District Court,
STATE OF MONTANA
Joe LunchBucket,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Bernard Cassidy,
Marcia Boris,
and all marital communities enjoined
thereto, . Defendants. )
)
/ Case No.: DV-10 254
COMPLAINT for Money Damages for Conversion and Unlawful Detainer of Personal Property.
Personal Property
I FACTS, JUISDICTION, COMPLIANT, RELIEF
1.1 COMES NOW, Joe Lunchbucket, one of the people of Montana, hereafter Plaintiff, seeking money damages from the Defendants for unlawful detainer of property and conversion of Personal property belonging to Plaintiff. Defendants’ acts occurred in Lincoln County, and each Defendant has a Lincoln County business address of; 512 California Ave, Libby Montana 59923. Plaintiff is domiciled in Lincoln County, state of Montana. Any and all emphasis may be construed to have been added.
1.2 This action does not rise above the monetary damages above 7,000.00 Dollars, venue is proper and this court has jurisdiction.
1.3 Under the defendant BERNARD CASSIDY’s (an Elected County Attorney) instructions, policy and custom, Defendant MARCIA BORIS (Lincoln County, Assistant County Attorney) applied to the plaintiff a discriminatory and adverse classification, stereotyping Plaintiff by labeling his actions as “Paper Terrorism”.
1.4 On or about the night of October 20th, 2009 on Riverside Drive just south of Eureka Montana about 10:00 pm, Plaintiff was harassed by a Lincoln County deputy Officer, subsequently arrested and THE STATE OF MONTANA commenced prosecution against plaintiff by matters of threat and duress.
1.5 Plaintiff, in asserting his rights, has filed various pleading in the Justice Court #2 of Lincoln County, in the state of Montana, Case # TK-2009-0000-544.
1.6 Defendant BORIS was assigned by Defendant CASSIDY as the acting County Attorney in said case against Plaintiff.
1.7 Some of the Pleadings that Plaintiff filed in Case # TK-2009-0000-544 are in part, Notice and Demand for Abatement and Memorandum, Notice of Default, Writ of Praecipe, Writ of Mandamus, Petition for Summary Judgment, Interrogatories and Discovery, Petition to Compel/Sanction, Request for Admissions, etc..
1.8 It was at this point that Defendant BORIS felt threatened. In fact Plaintiff’s exercise of said right to access the court and defend in person, was deemed such an indication of imminent danger by Defendant BORIS that she wrote in her pleadings, on the public record that Plaintiff is “embarking on a campaign of paper terrorism”.
1.9 In retaliation against the Plaintiff for filing too much paper and asserting his rights too extensively, Defendant BORIS threatened and labeled Plaintiff as being involved or somehow affiliated with some sort of terrorist group, possibly known as the “papers”.
1.10 Manifest in the Defendants’ behavior and treatment of the Plaintiff, is that this brand of “paper terrorism” assigned by the Defendants to the Plaintiff was greatly to his detriment. This degree of detriment experienced within a process where civil rights are most at peril is the fuel for an atmosphere hostile to the Due Process rights of the Plaintiff.
1.11 Plaintiff seeks to
clarify and rectify the wrongs in his conduct and association(s) so as to avoid further and unprovoked confrontations with Defendants. Since Plaintiff is held to be a threat by the County Attorney’s office, he has every right to know the basis for such so that he may alter his behavior, and so that he may obtain the due process to which he is entitled.
Notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamental to due process of law. We would reverse these cases out of hand if they were suits of a civil nature to establish a claim against petitioners. Notice and opportunity to be heard are indispensable to a fair trial whether the case be criminal or civil. See Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 413, 237 U. S. 424; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 302 U. S. 327; In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 333 U. S. 273. The gravity of the present charges is proof enough of the need for notice and hearing before the United States officially brands these organizations as "subversive." No more critical governmental ruling can be made against an organization these days. It condemns without trial. It destroys without opportunity to be heard. The condemnation may in each case be wholly justified.
But government in this country cannot, by edict, condemn or place beyond the pale. The rudiments of justice, as we know it, call for notice and hearing -- an opportunity to appear and to rebut the charge. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. Mcgrath 341 U.S. 123, 178, 71 S.Ct. 624, 652 (1950)
1.12 WHEREFORE, and in the interest of staying in the good graces of such abusive public servants as Defendants, Plaintiff prays that this court will see fit to award damages as outlined below.
1.13 Plaintiff is entitled to a full description and definition of the term “paper terrorism”. Answers to the specific request below constitute property to which the Plaintiff has a natural right, and should satisfy the Plaintiff in his right to know.
a. Please define the legal term “paper terrorism” as it appears in paperwork relating to the Plaintiff and Document filed by Defendant BORIS (Exhibit A hereto).
b. Please cite any and all authorities relied upon in the formulation of the definition of the term “paper terrorism” as assigned to the plaintiff.
c. Please describe the threat(s) or obstruction(s) to the duties of Defendant BORIS posed by the Plaintiff’s assertion of God given Rights protected by the state and federal constitutions, or by his study of the laws and pleading procedure and filing in the courts of Montana.
d. Are the Defendants on a “campaign of paper terrorism” by acting as County Attorneys’ and filing paper work to represent one client, also known as the state of Montana?
e. Has the Defendants, CASSIDY and BORIS filed reams of paperwork in the performance of their official duties while representing said state?
f. How is Plaintiff wrong about his claim that he may request proof of authority as his rights protected by the Constitutions?
g. Is it alright with Defendant BORIS, and under State law, if Plaintiff associates with others deemed by Prosecutors to be a threat, such as individuals and groups that study the supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America? (See; United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2.)
h. Is Plaintiff acting outside of his lawful rights by extensive study of the law and writing them into briefs and filing into the court when his study and assertion of his right take use of paper that exceeds a certain amount, not codified in law or to the likings of BORIS?
i. What is this certain amount of paperwork that Defendant BORIS deems is the lawful amount?
j. Did Plaintiff site anything other than law in his pleadings?
1.14 IN THE ALTERNATIVE to constructive receipt of the above requested property, and because Plaintiff has a natural right to such, if the Defendants cannot satisfy the above requests under Paragraph 1.13, supra, by the 21st of July, 2010:
1.15 Plaintiff demands Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00 U.S) as lease on the above requested property for the week beginning May 25th and ending June 1st, 2010, the allowed time to answer the brief wherein Plaintiff asked for the definition of “paper terrorism”.
1.16 Plaintiff has a real interest in avoiding the oppression visited upon him at the hands of the Defendants (deprivation to appear in person and the right to be heard). Plaintiff stands to lose his life, liberty, and his property if he cannot revise his circle of friends and better understand his rights protected by the U.S and Montana Constitutions, so as to stay in the good graces of the Defendants, especially Defendant BORIS.
Dated:_____________
Presented by;
________________________
II. VERIFICATION.
2.2 The above affirmation was subscribed and duly sworn to before me this _____ day of ______________, 2010, by _______.
2.3 I, _________________________, am a Notary under license from the State of Montana whose Commission expires ___________, and be it known by my hand and my Seal as follows:
___________________________
Notary signature
I would invite all to this new ruling, and lets name as many public servants as we can, anything we want. I am pretty sure from my good source close to Judge Prezeau, that he is a pedophile, and there are pictures of him with children in his basement, naked and with his privates out. These pictures will be revealed soon. Pedophile Judge Prezeau knows that he likse children, and to all of you good men and women of Lincoln County,
DO NOT LET PREZEAU NEAR THE CHILDREN!!!Investigative Blogger
"the Media"
