Notice for Withdrawal and Removal of UDDA

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

I, __________________, one of the People (as seen in the 50 State Constitutions) Sui Juris in this Court of Record, am serving you this Notice with Affidavit attached so that you and your agents may provide immediate due care and carefully act to cease and desist from all interference with the rights of the People;

Please Notice: Honoring the individual rights of each one of the People is a supreme, God-ordained right. This right comes from God, and is given to all those under God, all of mankind. The Unified Law Commission (ULC) as an entity may be found warring against these most basic of rights.

Please indicate by what constitutional authority you, the Unified Law Commission have been given permission to arbitrarily recommend the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and by what permission you now discuss expanding rather than repealing this unconstitutional recommendation;

Maxim of Law 51p. The main object of government is the protection and preservation of personal rights, private property, and public liberties, and upholding the law of God. A n d American Maxim.

Maxim of Law 51i. Individual liberties are antecedent to all government. C.L.M.* Please Notice: the ULC recommendations for the diagnosis of "Brain Death" given while there is still a heart contraction and still blood circulating, amounts to a sentence to death of someone who is still alive. It is a fiction of law;

Maxim of Law 45g. Fiction of law is wrongful if it works loss or injury to anyone. 2 Coke, 35; Broom, Max. 3d Land. ed. 122.*

Maxim of Law 45h. Fiction is a poor ground for changing substantial rights. C.L.M.*

Black's Law 4th Edition Fiction. An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. New Hampshire Strafford Bank v. Cornell, 2 N.H. 324; Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547, 4 P. 473, 56 Am. Rep. 726; Murphy v. Murphy, 190 Iowa 874, 179 N.W. 530, 533. An assumption, for purposes of justice, of fact that does not or may not exist. Dodo v. Stocker, 74 Colo. 95, 219 P. 222, 223. A rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible. Best, Ev.419.

Black's Law 4th Edition Fiction of Law. Something known to be false is assumed to be true. Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 130 N.J.Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621.

Please Notice: I, one of the People, require you to immediately remove recommendations for further expanding the UDDA definition. Rather, I, one of the People, require you to strongly suggest to each of the states that they immediately remove the present UDDA definition from their statutes;

We the People have assembled and realize we have all political power. As such we are obligated to remove unconstitutional and harmful statutes from all the states. It is my will, order, and demand that you correct and remove unconstitutional encroachment on the People's rights to life, liberty and happiness.

The People will peacefully and lawfully assemble to correct all issues and prosecute all wrongs.

See attached constitutional Affidavit:

From: Deborah Boehm

Affidavitmommas2021@gmail.com

Affidavit for Withdrawal and Removal of UDDA

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Comes now Affiant, Deborah Boehm, one of the People (as seen in the 50 State Constitutions) Sui Juris in this Court of Record, am serving you this Affidavit so that you and your agents may provide immediate due care and carefully act to cease and desist from all interference with the rights of the People;

Afflant States: From the inception of the State and United States Constitutions, honoring the individual rights of each one of the People was considered to be a supreme, God-ordained right. This God-ordained right devolves from God, to all those under God, all of humankind. Any entity found warring against these most basic of rights, is found to be warring against God's intention for all humankind. A brief study of each of the 50 State Constitutions and the United States Constitution reveals each one of them ordains the constitution under the authority of and by the providence of Almighty God. Maxim of Law 51p. The main object of government is the protection and preservation of personal rights, private property, and public liberties, and upholding the law of God. American Maxim.*

Maxim of Law 51i. Individual liberties are antecedent to all government. C.L.M.*

Delaware Constitution Preamble-Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.

Maxim of Law 49f. That is the highest law which favors religion. 10 Mod. 117, 119; Broom, Max. 19.°

Maxim of Law 49g. That consideration is strongest which determines in favor of religion. Co. Litt. 341a; 5 Coke, 14b; Dig. 11, 7,43.*

Maxim of Law 49i. The Christian religion is a part of the common law. Lofft. 327.*

Maxim of Law 491. That which is against Divine Law is repugnant to society and is void. C.L.M.*

Affiant States: The United States is founded upon religion in its many forms. Any law formulated and passed that violates the most fundamental of rights of the People to life, liberty, happiness or due process is a repugnant law which on its face is null and void. Legal form is required for all law.

Maxim of Law 46b. Legal form is essential form. 10 Coke, 100.* Maxim of Law 46c. Where form is not observed, a nullity of the act is inferred or follows. 12 Coke, 7.* 

Maxim of Law 46d. Where the law prescribes a form, the nonobservance of it is fatal to the proceeding, and the whole becomes a nullity. Best; Ev. Introd. s. 59.*

Afflant States: Any attempt to interfere with the death of one of the People, automatically interferes with the rights of the People. Definitions, formulated to falsely declare death prior to, are fallacious and abrogate liberty and freedom. False definitions, without respecting the constitutional rights of each individual person, even if put forth as a means to help another person, are unlawful and tend toward slavery and are a harmful fiction of law;

Maxim of Law 47h. Natural liberty is the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. 1 Bl. Comm. 125.*

Maxim of Law 47i. It is a wretched state of slavery which subsists where the law is vague or uncertain.4 Inst. 245, 246; Broom, Max. 150; Yates v. Lansing, 9 Johns. (N.Y 427.*

Maxim of Law 45g. Fiction of law is wrongful if it works loss or injury to anyone. 2 Coke, 35; Broom, Max. 3d Land. ed. 122.*

Maxim of Law 45h. Fiction is a poor ground for changing substantial rights. C.L.M.*

Black's Law 4th Edition Fiction. An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. New Hampshire Strafford Bank v. Cornell, 2 N.H. 324; Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547, 4 P. 473, 56 Am. Rep. 726; Murphy v. Murphy, 190 Iowa 874, 179 N.W. 530, 533. An assumption, for purposes of justice, of fact that does not or may not exist. Dodo v. Stocker, 74 Colo. 95, 219 P. 222, 223. A rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible. Best, Ev. 419.

Black's Law 4th Edition Fiction of Law. Something known to be false is assumed to be true. Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 130 N.J.Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621.

Affiant States: The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that true death has not occurred, and is not considered, when a declaration of "brain death" is concluded using "brain death"/death by neurological criteria (BD/DNC Many of the biological functions related to life are still present. The determination of death should be based only on biological criteria that protect a living person from being declared dead. Therefore, no one shall be declared dead unless respiratory, circulatory and nervous systems have been destroyed. Such destruction shall be determined in accord with universally accepted medical standards.

Afflant States: Any intervention, upon any one of the People, prior to true death, to produce death is tantamount to murder. What is the extreme hurry? There is no benefit to hurry for the patient. Therefore, hurry may only benefit transplant stakeholders. Family members/surrogates are given the "diagnosis" with the expectation that there will be no further questions and the "brain dead" patient will be prematurely removed from all life-support. The family/surrogate is not told that the patient, frequently without the informed consent of the family/surrogate, has already been subjected to the procedure of the Apnea Test. This test is a well-documented torture for the patient who is removed from life supporting ventilator for up to ten minutes, creating additional stress on the brain and other vital organs. The Apnea Test is done to justify the diagnosis of "brain death" while there is a beating heart, circulation, respiration meaning gas exchange in the lungs, tissues, and cells, salt and water balance, hypothalamicpituitary function despite the fact that the hypothalamus and the (posterior) pituitary are part of the brain, internal control of body temperature, digestion of food, urine production, and more. Why should true death be rushed? Any attempt to speed death is suspect of criminal design and malice found within the definition of "murder."

Black's Law 4th Edition Murder. The unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either express or implied. State v. Hutter, 145 Neb. 798, 18 203, 206. The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally "insane") kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time 1170 MUST of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. with malice aforethought, express or implied, that is, with a deliberate purpose or a design or determination distinctly formed in the mind before the commission of the act, provided generally that death results from the injury inflicted within one year and a day after its infliction. Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 Pa. 198; Hotema v. U.S., 186 U.S. 413, 22 S.Ct. 895, 46 Ed. 1225; Clarke State, 117 Ala. 1, 23 So. 671, 67 Am.St.Rep. 157. The term implies a felonious homicide, while the word "kill" does not necessarily mean any more than to deprive of life, as a man may kill another by accident, or in, and in many other ways, without the imputation of crime. Pilcher v. State, 16 Ala.App. 237, 77 So. 75, 76

Maxim of Law 99s. Where the death of a human being is concerned, [in a matter of life and death,] no delay is [considered] long. Co. Litt. 134.*

Afflant states: Each of the People has an inherent right to life, liberty, and due process of law. The patient requiring respiratory support does not forfeit his rights because he/she is a patient.

Black's Law 5th Edition. Inherent right, One which abides in a person and is not given from something or someone outside itself. A right which a person has because he is a person.

Affiant States: Each one of the People has the inalienable and inherent right to exercise their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral choices as they see fit. These rights are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights or by those standing in for one incapable of representing himself/herself.

Maxim of Law 51r. As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another has a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. Locke, Treat. 2, 18, 199.*

Affiant States: Within the 50 State Constitutions, there are no provisions for removal of these very basic rights of "We, the People." Depriving one of the People of life, liberty, or property without due process of law includes ignoring the wishes and sincerely held religious and moral beliefs of entire families. Any person or corporation found violating these sincerely held religious and moral beliefs is unlawfully denying due process rights.

Black's Law 5th Edition Due process rights, All rights which are of such fundamental importance as to require compliance with due process standards of fairness and justice.

Florida State Constitution Article 1 Section 9. Due Process

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

Afflant States: The 50 States and the United States Constitutions indicate that the only correct action is a firm adherence to preserving life, not taking life for utilitarian purposes. In addition, simply because a "right" is not enumerated is insufficient reason to impinge upon the rights of the most vulnerable People, those whose health and wellbeing is compromised by illness or injury.

West Virginia Constitution Article 3 Section 20: Preservation of Free Government Free government and the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people only by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

United States Constitution Amendment IX: Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Afflant States: Depriving one of the People of life, liberty, or property without due process of law includes ignoring the wishes and sincerely held religious and moral beliefs of entire families. Any person or corporation found violating these sincerely held religious beliefs is unlawfully denying due process rights. Correct and required action is to provide all possible life-saving treatments to protect and preserve life until "true death" as opposed to artificially speeding the process by unlawful removal of medical treatment, to impose death.

Maxim of Law 86m. No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear or unquestionable authority of law. Union Pac. Ry. v. Botsford, 141*

Maxim of Law 86j. The right of blood and kindred cannot be destroyed by any civil law. Dig. 50, 17, 9; Bacon, Max. reg. 11; Broom, Max. 533; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen (Mass 562.*

Affiant States: No corporation or other entity may predetermine when true death may occur. Any corporation or other entity interfering with these due process rights will be found to be committing unlawful discrimination against someone in a vulnerable position, one who is dependent upon his/her family or surrogate to speak for one of the People.

Black's Law 5th Edition Discrimination, - Unfair treatment or denial of normal privileges to persons because of their race, age, nationality, or religion. A failure to treat all persons equally where no reasonable distinction canbe found between those favored and those not favored. Baker v. California Land Title Co. D.C.Cal.,349 F.Supp. 235, 238, 239.

Affiant States: In compliance with constitutional authority, you, as an organization, must follow the United States and State Constitutions and accept the exercise of religious freedom and moral choice without discrimination This includes any one of the People's rights, or the family's or surrogate's rights, to choose continued medical treatment over interrupted medical treatment for any reason.

Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 12 Liberty of Conscience. "The liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of this constitution shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

Afflant States: Licentious behavior must not occur on the part of any person, agent, trust indentured servant, or organization. Therefore, avoiding licentious behavior would apply to any person, as an agent of any State, who attempts to inflict an unlawful medical action on one of the People of the State. Licentious behavior may be construed to mean acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others. Affiant States: The right to exercise religion and moral choice is not limited to a certain time or place; but, is not only allowed, but protected, under all situations and circumstances and is to not be limited by any agency, trust indentured, elected official, physician, hospital, or any other influence outside that of the individual one of the People. Equal protection of law describes equal rights and privileges of law and therefore makes null and void any of attempt to cause harm personally or financially to any one of the People. As the unlawful medical determination "brain dead" disallows basic rights of the People and violates equal protection of laws, it must be immediately withdrawn and removed from any possibility of further harm to one of *We, the People."

Affiant States: The suggested "medical treatment" of removing life support disallows the People's inalienable and indefeasible rights to choose religious accommodation, based on strong religious convictions. It is without merit and forms an unlawful precedent for further overreach. It is an attempt to disenfranchise and diminish the status of "We, the People" to accomplish an arbitrary end of questionable merit. It is licentious in nature, acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others. I, acting on my Constitutional authority as the progeny of the creators and sustainers of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arizona, do hereby require immediate relief from all such medical interventions and restrictions on the liberty interests and rights of "We the People." No agency, elected trustee, or entity has or will have authority to direct the private decisions of the People. Affiant desires are to settle this matter in a calm and harmonious atmosphere of mutual respect. However, no further infringement on the People's rights will be tolerated. Please see to it that this matter is resolved properly and expeditiously. Should you desire to respond to this affidavit, your response must be in the form of an Affidavit, under penalty of perjury, answering point by point the statements contained herein; and, it must be received no more than 5 days from the receipt of this Affidavit. This Affidavit stands as evidence and may not be reheard ina court of law. Lack of response to this Affidavit indicates that those addressed acquiesce that all statements are true and may not be challenged in court of law.

*Charles A. Weisman, Maxims of Law, Weisman Publications, Burnsville, Minnesota, 1990.

Black's Law Dictionary 2 Edition. MAXIM, An established principle or proposition.A principle of law universally amitted, as being a correct statement of the law, or as agreeable to natural reason. Coke defines a maxim to be "conclusion of reason," and says that is so called "quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, et quod maxine omnibus probetur" Co. Litt.11a. He says in another place: "A maxime is a proposition to be of all men confessed and granted without profe, argument, or discourse." Id. 67a.

"Maxims of Law, like any other fundamental laws, always hold true and yield the same results under the same coditions."

Jurat removed for privacy