* i'lt;

2 F'ILE ON DEMAND; FILE

J FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
4
5
6 JLIDICIARY COLRTS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
7 cloing busines,s crs
8
I KING COTINTY SUPERIOR COURT
10
IN RE: DEPENDENCY OF: Case No.: 16-7-02468-6 SEA
11
12
Myi'Tia Shaunice Lomaine Mitchell
13
14
15 DECLAR{TION AND NOTICE OF VOID
16 .TUDGEMENT( SyORDER( S).
11
Living, Breathing, Little Girl and Child of God
I8
to
20 I. :David-Scott :Fields, proper person name pursuar"lt to 18 U.S. Code $ 1342, anatural born li
21
Man and inhabitant upon the land, with a Living Soul, make this special visitation on behalf of
22
!-) Principal and alleged Respondent in error, :Antia-Louise :Fields, proper name pursLtant to 18 U.S
24 Code $ 1342.Havtng been granted Durable Power of Attorney, I hereby state fbr the public
25
that I have never, and I will never knowingly. willingly, or voluntarily consent, or agree to
26
21 with the foreign, private, for-profit corporate entity known by most as STATE O
28 WASHINGTON: nor any other private, for-profit municipal government
instrumentality. subdivision" agency; and do hereby provide Notice of Void Judgment,
Declaration, as follows;

1. Whenever a Judge is dealing with a statute, like the Washington Adminiskative Code
(WAC), or the Revised Code of Washinglon (RCW), or the Washington Rules of Civil
Procedure, he becomes a Clerk working for the prosecutor
"..judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in
nature and otherwise), act as mere "clerks" of the involved agency..." K.C. Davis,
ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. Wesfs 1965 Ed.)

"It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well,
that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere
'extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes' as a
ministerial clerk for an agency..." 30 Cal 596;167 Cal762

""'When acting to enforce a statute and its sutrsequent amendments to the present
date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not
in a iudicial capacifyl courts administrating or enforcing statutes do not act
iudicially, but merely ministerially....but merely act as an extension as an agent for
the involved agency - trut only in a "ministerial" and not a "discretionary
PAGE I OF 12
 i'*ll;
I
capacity..." Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US 428; F.R.C
2
v. G.E.,281, U.S.464 femphasis added]
-)
4
5 When a Judge is operating as a Clerk masquerading as a Judge, he cannot do anything
6 judicial, and if he attempts to do anything judicial, it is a nullity - "Ministerial officers
l are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in
8
attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities" Bums v. Sup., Ct., SF,
9
l0 140 Cal. 1
ll
t2 Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven - "'Where a court failed to observe
IJ safeguards, it amounts to denial of due proeess of law, court is deprived of juris."
14
Merritt v. Hnnter, C.A. Kansas fiAF2d739
l5
t6
17 "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any timer" and "Jurisdiction, once challenged,
18 cannot be assumed and must be decided." Basso v. Utah Power &Light Co. 395 F 2d
19 906,910
20
2t
22 "Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time,
23 even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp.478 So. 2D,368
24 Fla a DCA 1985)
25
26
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck
21
28 v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 7 5I. 2ll PZd 289

"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474F2d215

"Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the

plaintift" Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 I11.App.3d 558,522 N.E.2d
841(1e88)

"the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it." Bindell v City
of Harvey, 212Il1.App.3d 1A42,571N.E.2d 1017(1st Dist. 1991)

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction
asserted." Lantanav. Hopper,l02F.2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F.Supp. 150

2. The aggrieved Respondent in error has previously served the prosecuting attorney, Assistant
Attomey General Helen L. Eastwood, several Affidavits of Presentment, demanding
certified copies of her Foreign Agents Regiskation Statemenf pursuant to the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1933. Failing in her fidurciary duty to promote good faith in
public of[rcials, Ms. Eastwood has told the aggrieved Respondent in error that she is not
required to respond to Affidavits and has no duty to provide any documents, unless court
ordered to do so. Ms. Eastwood was served and did receive a Notice of Final Fault from
Respondent in error, who in good faith allowed a generous amount of time to receive a
PAGE zOF 12
 *'*'ll I
I
response. Despite the default and dishonor incurred from this Administrative Process, Ms
2
-)
Eastwood has continued on in her daily affairs pertaining to this case.
4
5
PRWACY ACT STATEMENT.
6
1 "The filing of this document is required for the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as
8 amended, 22U.5. Code $ 611 et seq.,forthe purpose ofregistrationunderthe Act andpublic
9 disclosure. Provision ofthe information requested is mandatory, and failure to provide the
l0 information is subject to the penalty and enforcement provisions established in Section
1t
t2 I of the Act"
13
t4 TITLE18 U.S. CODE $ 219. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ACTING AS AGENTS
15
OT FOREIGN PRINCIPALS
l6
17 (a)
I8
Whoever, being a public official, is or acts as an agent of a foreign principal required to
l9
20
register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 or a lobbyist required to
21 register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in connection with the representation of
22 a foreign entity, as defined in section 3(6) of that Act shall be lined under this title or
23 imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
24 (b)
25
26
Nothing in this section shall apply to the employment of any agent of a foreign principal as
21 a special Government employee in any case in which the head of the employing agency
28 certifies that such employment is required inthe national interest. A copy of any certification
under this paragraph shall be forwarded by the head of such agency to the Attorney General
who shall cause the same to be filed with the registration statement and other documents
filed by such agent, and.made available for public inspection in accordance with section 6
of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
(c)
gpublic
For the purpose of this section official" means_Member of Congress, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, or an officer or employee
or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or
branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any olficial
function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of
Government.

3. A Verified Show Cause/ Denial of Jurisdiction was received by all parties on September
23rd,2019, including the Court Clerk and the presiding judge, one Judge Josephine Wiggs-
Martin. This challenge to jurisdiction, served by alleged Respondent in error, was apparently
under review by Judge Wiggs-Martin for 1 month; where on October 25th,2019, Respondent
in error received an email from Lati Culverson, Bailifffor Judge Wiggs-Martin, which stated
that the challenge to jurisdiction was granted, and the hearing date was December 4th,2019,
three months after receiving this challenge. Alleged Respondent in error then served all
parties to the matter a Notice of Acceptance of Constitutions and Oath of Office, whereby

PAGE 3 OF 12
 ;'r lll
1
she did accept the sworn Oaths of Office of each court and judicial officer, including Judge
2
3
Wiggs-Martin and her Bailiff Lati Culverson; whereby pursuant to the provisions of Offir
4 and Acceptqnce, each officer of the court has entered into a legally binding contract with
5
said respondent in error, and who then, and still now, have a duty to operate in their official
6
1 capacities, and uphold the integrity of these courts by honoring their sworn Oaths of Office
8 to support and uphold the Constitution for the united States of America and the Washington
9
t0 Constitution as well as apply their moral and ethical obligations to prevent or to defend
II
tt against any violations or wrongdoing toward a litigant, from any court or judicial officer.
l2 The other parties to this matter, as per the curent list of active parties at the time, where
13
14 Assistant Attorney General Helen L. Eastwood; Assistant Attorney General Katelynn C.
l5 Lohr, and Attorney for Guardian Ad-Litem Elizabeth Berris. Both Ms. Eastwood and Ms.
t6
Berris both excused themselves days before the Show Cause hearing, while Ms. Lohr,
t1
18 though clearly listed as party to this matter, has not been heard from by alleged Respondent
l9 in error, since her malicious prosecution of the matter, which awarded her and her co-
20
21
conspirators the unlawful Order of Dependency. At the Show Cause/Denial of Jurisdiction
22 hearing on December 4th, 2019, absolutely no Cause was Shown, proven, or even argued by
23
the Attomey for "Plaintiff'. Judge Wiggs-Martin, in a clear and unauthonzedactof defiance
24
25 to both Constitutions, denied the alleged respondents challenge to jurisdiction; and in
26 addition, this rogue Judge failed to answer the alleged Respondent multiple oral inquiries as
27
to whether the judge was acting on her Oath. The alleged Respondent in eror, in truth and
28
fact, called into question the subject of operating under Oath, and presented this question of
being on their Oath to the entire court; not one court offrcer present atthat hearing affirmed
that they were operating in a official capacity on their Oath. The alleged Respondent in error
stood W and declared the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction not being proven on the
record, for fraud, violations of Oath and Office which constitutes Capital High Treason and
an Act of War against the Constitutions of these united States of America.

In order to prove jurisdiction, there MUST be a contract - "@

iurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such as voluntary
subscription to license. All jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed
jurisdiction exists must appear on the record of the court." Pipe Line v Marathon. 102
S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22

4. King County Superior Court, Department of Children, Youth and Families, and even the
Attorney General's Office, are all private, for-profit, corporations, as evidenced on the
website Dun & Bradstreet; these corporations each have their own D-U-N-S Number, which
is an identifier for each business listed on this website. Pursuant to The Clearfield Doctrine,
which is still in afflect and is being operated under by these corporations,
"Goyernments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the
characteristics of a mere private citizen. (Where private corporate IFEDERAL RESERVE
PAGE 4 OF 12
 *'r lil I
1
NOTES] commercial paper and securities is concerned). For pu{poses of suit, such
2
corporations and individuals are regarded as entities separate from government." Bank
J
4 of US vs Planters Bank, 9 Weaton (22 US) 904 6L.8.D.24.
5
6 No corporation has standing to do anything in any court.
7
8 "My opinion is and long has been that the mayor and aldermen of a crty corporation,
9 or the president and directors of a bank, or the president and directors of a railroad
IO company and of other similar corporations, are the true parties that sue and are sued
11 as trustees and representatives of the constantly changing stockholders.... A
12
corporation. therefore, being not a natural person" but a mere creature of the mind.
l3
14
invisible and intangible, cannot be a citizen of a state, or of the United States, and
15 cannot fall within the terms or the power of the above mentioned article, and can
16 therefore neither plead nor be impleaded in the courts of the United States." Rundle v
17 Delaware & Raritan Canal Company 55 U.S. 80 (1852) [emphasis added]
18
t9
20 5. Judge Wiggs-Martin and AAG Helen L. Eastwood, along with the multitude of other "public
21 officials" that periodically appear and disappear from this case, were NOT and have NOT
22 been acting in their official capacity, but were all acting in their private capacity ONLY. -
./.J
24
"A judge ceases to set as a judicial officer because the governing principles of
25
administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their
26 evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the
21 agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for
28 that of the agency." AISI v US, 568 F2d284.

"An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the
government". Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284F. Supp. 94.

6. Judge Wiggs-Martin acting administratively and masquerading as a Judge committed

treason, and a seditious conspiracy withthe afore mentioned "officers of the court" pursuant
to your federal codes - "When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to
act,the judgeisengagedinanactoractsoftreason."USvWill,449 US200,216, 101 S
Ct, 471, 66 LBdZtd 392, 406 (1 980) Cohens V Virginia, 1 9 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5LEd
2s7 (t82r)

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords
no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though
it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County, 1 1 8 U. S. 425 , p. 442

"An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offence created hy it is not a

crime." Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371,376 (1880), quoted with approval in Fay v. Noia,
372U.5.391,408 (1963)

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce
it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, SectionlTT lateZnd, Section 256
PAGE 5 OF 12
 1
7. Where Judge Wiggs-Martin becomes a Clerk Masquerading as a Judge, she walks away
2
from any immunity she may enjoy, and becomes personally liable - "Judge loses his/her
-)

4 absolute immunity from damage actions only when he/she acts in clear absence of all
5 jurisdiction or performance of an act which is not judicial in nature." Schucker v.
6 Rockwood,846 F.2d 1202
l
8 *When enforcing mere statutes, judges of aII courts do not act judicially" and thus are
9
10 not protected by "qualified" or "limited immunityr" SEE: Owen v. Clty, 445 U.5.662;
il Bothke v. Terry, 713 Fzd 1404
l2
l3 8. The decision made by Judge Wiggs-Martin to deny the alleged respondent in error's motion
IA
t1
challenging jurisdiction in the Judge's kangaroo so-called court is brutum fulmen - "brutum
l5
l6 fulmen ".' "An empty noisel an empty threat. A judgment void upon its face which is
t1 in legal effect no judgment at all, and by which no rights are divested, and from which
r8 none can be obtained; and neither binds nor bars anyone. Dollert v. Pratt-Hewitt Oil
l9 Corporation, Tex.Civ.Appl, 179 S.W.2d346,348.AIso, see Corpus Juris Secundum,
20
21
'oJudgments" $$ 499, 512 546, 549. Black' s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.
22
IJ 9. Every finding, ruling, judgement, and order filed into this case by these conspirators against
24 the alleged Respondent in error, have been perpetrated under the color of their so-called law
25 - "Color" means "An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from
26
27
that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptiv€ 4.@, a
28 plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also
colorable." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, onpage 240.

"Colour, color. Signifies a probable plea, but which is in fact false..." Tomlin's Law
Dictionary 1835, Volume I

"Colorable" means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it
purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth." Windle v.
Flinn, 196 Or. 654,251 P.2d 136, 146.

'oColour of Law - Mere semblance of a legal right. An action done under colour of law
is one done with the apparent authority of law but actually in contravention of law."
Barron's Dictionary of Canadian Law, Sixth Edition, page 51,

"Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of

Iegal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only
'oMy opinion is and long has been that the mayor and aldermen of a city corporation,
or the president and directors of a bank, or the president and directors of a railroad
company and of other similar corporations, are the true parties that sue and are sued
as trustees and representatives of the constantly changing stockholders.... A
corporafion, therpfpre-being not a natural person, but a mere creaturqsfthg lnind,
invisihle and intaneible, cannot be a citizen of a state, or of the United States, and
cannot faII within the terms or the power of the above mentioned article, and can
PAGE 6OF 12
 *'t'll il
I
therefore neither plead nor be impleaded in the courts of the United States." Rundle
2
v Delaware & Raritan Canal Company 55 U.S. 80 (1852) [emphasis added] arrd Hudman
J
4 is their accomplice.
5
6 12. For all of the foregoing reasons? all of the ORDERs, Judgments, and decisions, in thir
7 case, are absolute nullities and void ab initio because wrongdoer is clothed with authorit5
8
9
of state is action taken under 'color of law."' Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F
10 Supp. 186, 188.
11
12 10. Wiggs-Martin, the Clerk masquerading as a Judge knows that it is my right of due process
13 to challenge jurisdiction, and frrther that jurisdiction had to be proven by demonstrating
t4
the Constitutional authority by which jurisdiction was obtained; that the Judge must now
l5
t6 seat on the law side as an impartial and detached judge, but instead chose to conspire with
17 the prosecutors for the "Plaintiff' and thereby participated in a fraud and a nullity.
l8 o(It is a fundamental right of a party to have a neutral and detached judge preside
l9 over the judicial proceedings." Ward v Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 6l-62,93
20
S.Ct 80, 83, 34 L.Ed. 2d 267 (1972); Tumey v Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 52A9, 47 S. Ct. 437,
21
22 440,7t L.Ed.749 (1927)
IJ
24 11. They conspiratorially and fraudulently assaulted the aggrieved Respondent in error with
25 their corporate codes and statutes, to which Respondent in error is not aparty, under the
26
false pretense these codes and statutes were law for the living Man and Woman, and have
2l
28 applied this false pretense to justi$r the trespass, illegal search and seizure, extortion, and
child kidnapping laws they are g"llty of perpetrating. All court and judicial officers me
presumed to know the law. Therefore in order to be successful in this wholly criminal
operation, all "public offrcials", including the 'Judicial offlcers" that have been party to this
case, and including the several CPS/DCYF caseworkers and their overseers, are
*responsible for initiating this fraudulent ordeal, had to do their part, or "act out thek role"
in order to accomplish their financial objectives, to the detriment, expense, and injury of
the alleged Respondent in error, her natural bom progeny daughter, and the family and
friends directly a.ffected by the actions of this criminal enterprise.

12. For all of the foregoing reasons, all of the ORDERs, Judgments, and decisions, inthis case,
are absolute nullities and void ab initio because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of
state is action taken under 'color of law."' Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp.
196, 188.

"Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing. Such

has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea, l0 Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher,
13 WaII335,351." Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.

,a

lesal elTect" Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F-Zd.645, 14
A.L.R. Fed.298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972). Hobbs v. U.S. Office ofPersonnel Management,4S5
F.Supp.456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).
PAGE 7 OF 12
 ;'t'lll
1 ,,
2
J
nullitv, its invaliditv may tre asserted try anv person whose rights are affected at any
4 time and at anv nlace and it need not be attacked directly trut may be attacked
5 collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed." City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510
6 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. - Beaumont 1973).
7
8
'oAvoid judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an atrsolute
9
r0 nullity" Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. - Waco 1951).
il
l1 "Void order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time,In re Estate
t-) of Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See also Steinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S.
l4
l5
809, (Il. 1994).
t6
t7 "A void iudgment is one which. from its inception. is and forever continues to tre
18 atrsolutely null. without legal efficacv. ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a
t9 rrfght, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any
20
manner or to anv desree." Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala.
2l
22 Civ. App. 1985).
23
24 "Not every action by any judge is in exercise of his judicial function. It is not a judicial
25 function for a Judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the
26
Courthouse, when a judge acts as a Trespasser of the Law, when a judge does not
27
28 follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and The Judge's orders are
void, of no legal force or effect"! Yates Vs. Village of Hoffrnan Estates, Illinois, 209
F.Supp. 7s7 C{.D. 111.1962)

13. and all such iudgments and ORDERs are brutum fulmen
"brutum fulmen".' "An empty noisel an empty threat. A judgment void upon its face
which is in legal effect no judgment at all, and by which no rights are divested, and
from which none can be obtained; and neither binds nor bars anyone. Dollert v.
Pratt-Hewitt OiI Corporation, Tex.Civ.Appl, 179 S.W.2d346,348.41so, see Corpus
Juris Secundum, uoJudgments" $$ 499, 512 546, 549. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th
Edition

14. Wiggs-Martin intended to be a bought and paid for Clerk masquerading as a Judge and
held a show-trial in her kangaroo court
"Kangaroo court. Term descriptive of a sham legal proceeding in which a person's
rights are totally disregarded and in which the result is a foresone conc.lupion because
of the bias of the court or other tribunal." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page
868,

15. Every.thing they have done, from the beginning, is a fraud

ooOnce a fraud, always a fraud." 13 Vin. Abr. 539.

PAGE 8 OF 12
 **;t;
I oThings invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent act." Trayner,
2
Max. 482. Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary th Edition, page 1862
)
4
5 "A thing void in the beginningdoes not become valid by lapse of time." 1 S. & R. 58.
6 Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary 9tr Edition, page 1866
1
8
Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin. Dig. 50, 17,29; Broom, Max. 178,
9
t0 Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary th Edition, page 1862,
il
12 "Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowperr 343; Broom's
t3 Max. 349." Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856,
t4
t5
l6 and any act by any government official, to conceal the fraud becomes anact of fraud;
17 "fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. I Vern. 270." Bouvier's
t8 Maxims of Law 1856
l9
20
and fraud is inexcusable and unpardonable;
21
22 "Fraus et dolus nemini pafrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man.
IJ 3 Co. 78." Bouvier's Maxims of Law 1856
24
25 and any fraud amounts to injustice;
26 6'Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant. Fraud and justice never dwell together."
27
Maxims
28 of Law, Black's Law Dictionary,ge Edition, page 1832

"Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vei fraudem petatur, malum et injustum
efficitur. What is otherwise good and just, if sought by force or fraud, becomes bad
and unjust.3 Co. 78." Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856

16. Wiggs-Martin did not answer to the question of whether she was acting on her Oath, despite
being asked several times by the alleged Respondent in error, and in fact attempted to avoid
the question and act as if the question had not been asked.
"X'raud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as
well as from speaking an untruth." Morrison v Acton, 198 P.2d 590, 68 Aiz.27 (1948)

"Fraud" may be committed by a failure to speakwhen the duty of speaking is imposed

as much as by speaking falsely." Batfy v Arizona State Dental Board, 112 P.2d 870, 57
An2.239. (1941).

17. The incomprehensible actions of these "public officials" are proof positive there are no
morals, ethics, or good conscious left in them; they are children of the devil
" , and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar. and the father of
it." John 8:44
PAGE 9 OF 12
 ;'*'l
1

2
J "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
4 whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the
5 Iake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Revelations
6 21:8
7
8
18. This Declaration is sealed pursuant to locus sigilli
9 oolocus sigilli - The place of the seal. Today this phrase is
10 alnost always abbreviated
ll "L.S." " Black's Law Dictionary fth Edition, page 1026.
12
t3 Signed and sealed in red ink on the land, under penalties with perjury.
14
1<
l-)

t6 I, :David-Scott; :Fields, Sui Juris, a natural Man of the republic, living in the republic, a
17 Man, does declare that I have scribed and read the foregoing facts, and in accordance with the
18 of my firsthand knowledge, such are true, correct, complete and not misleading, the truth,
l9 whole truth and nothing but the kuth, before God, Angels, and everybody who reads this
20
as witnesses, and pursuant to your rules of evidence.
21
22
1-', This Declaration is dated this Ci"\+",A\-.'
_____)-.. day of December in the year, two thousand
24 nineteen.
25
26
21
28

David-Scott; house of Fields,

a man, Inhabitant of the
With full responsibility for My
Appointed as Power of
Agent on Behalf of Antia-Louise; house of
under the Universal and Natural Laws of Our
With a postal address
Non-Domestic
CIO 2241Juniper Beny
Las Vegas,
ZIP CODE

PAGE 10 OF 12
 rr.;l;
I

2
J
4
5 SrArE: Nkfiingl(1
6
1 COLINTY:
8
9
r0 JURATi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
l1
12
13
ti
t+
On this l auv o@Aab, 201gAD, By David-Scott : Fields did personally appear
l5 before me. is known to be the person operating in the capacity for signature described herein.
16
11 who executed the foregoing. and acknowledged the contents thereof; and executed the same as
r8
l9 his free-will act and deed. Subscribed to before the undersigned
20
2t
22 Notary Name
1-)
24
25
Notary Signature: Date: l>r, " t{ zotgAD
26 Commission Expires:
27
28

NOTARY SEAL: NotaryPublic

State of Wabhington
Jazsmyne Deleon
Gommission No.207212
Commission Expires 0+1 S.a@g

PAGE 11OF 12
 i'i'l t;
1

2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
l5
l6
t1
l8
l9
20
21
22
23
1t
:+
25
26
27
28

PAGE I2OF 12