Judicial Notice of Fundamental Law Errors and Wish for Dismissal in the Interest of Justice
To:
US Magistrate Talesha Saint-Marc
U.S. District Court
55 Pleasant Street, Room 11
Concord, NH 03301-3491
daniel_lynch@nhd.uscourts.gov
Attn:
United States District Court NH40
55 Pleasant Street
Concord NH 03301
CC:
Representative Jason Gerhard
Representative Thomas Massie
NH Office of Attorney General
Speaker of The House Sherman Packard
Supreme Court of the United States
From:
{typeA}
__________________________________________
This notice is not an amicus brief. It is not intended to be included inside of case number 1:24-po-00011-TSM and is not intended to trespass on the prosecution. The sender sends this notice by common right to instruct all government agents involved in the case and remind them of their duty to uphold the law.
__________________________________________
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent.
I, , one of the people (as seen in the New Hampshire Constitution Part 1, Articles 1, 8, 32, and 38), Sui Juris, do provide you this notice, that you and your agents may provide immediate due care;
Please take notice that the People do present you with the fundamental maxims of law that you may immediately provide due care in the interest of justice regarding defendant Jason Gerhard.
Please take notice that the New Hampshire State Constitution and Federal Constitution guarantee the right of the people to observe and regulate government servants (See evidence below):
.
New Hampshire Constitution Part 1 Article 8
All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted. The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government…(Highlight added for emphasis)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), 491 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Maxim: Things derogatory to the common law are not to be drawn into precedent. Branch. Princ.
.
Please take notice that the People have a guaranteed right to investigate, scrutinize, and make certain that the fundamental principles of the constitutions are administered in the manner prescribed by law. (See evidence below):
.
New Hampshire Constitution Part 1 Article 38
A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives, and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government. (Highlight added for emphasis)
Maxim: A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, virtue, and original law, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government. American Maxim.
Please take notice that the People have a right to consult together for the common good, monitor and instruct public servants, and receive assistance from others in America to better correct their servants. The officers and magistrates must show that they have carried out all legislative and judicial proceedings in the ways prescribed by the People. Otherwise, those proceedings become null and void. (See evidence below):
.
New Hampshire Constitution Part 1 Article 32
The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer. (Highlight added for emphasis)
Maxim: Where the law prescribes a form, the nonobservance of it is fatal to the proceeding, and the whole becomes a nullity.
Maxim: Where form is not observed, a nullity of the act is inferred or follows. 12 Coke
United States Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Highlight for emphasis)
.
Please take notice that due process of law (see attached definition from Black’s Law 5th Edition) speaks of settled maxims. This case is not based on the common law, with an independent tribunal as seen in Black’s Law 4th Edition. The People recognize that US Magistrate Talesha Saint-Marc has been allowed to misappropriate the People’s money in a way that is full of potential malfeasance and maladministration. Legal theories stating that government agents can criminalize the people’s behavior through statutory enactments are an attack on the fundamental rights of the People. They do not comport with the exact and constant observance of the fundamental principles in the execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government. This is not the adherence to justice prescribed by the People.
.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition
COURT. Courts of record and courts not of record. The former being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal. 225; Erwin v. U. S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231. A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc., Mass., 171, per Shaw, C. J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689. (Highlight added for emphasis)
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition
Common Law. As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. 1 Kent, Comm. 492. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 21 S.Ct. 561, 181 U.S. 92, 45 L.Ed. 765; Barry v. Port Jervis, 72 N.Y.S. 104, 64 App. Div. 268; U. S. v. Miller, D.C.Wash., 236 F. 798, 800. (Highlight added for emphasis)
John Locke in “Two Treatises of Government" Dissolution of Government Section 220”
220. In these, and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the society can never, by the fault of another, lose the native and original right it has to preserve itself, which can only be done by a settled legislative and a fair and impartial execution of the laws made by it….
Please take notice that any government rule-making that limits the people’s fundamental right to observe or record their public property, buildings, or anywhere else that concerns their business, is repugnant to the oath requiring they be amenable to the people. Public officials in New Hampshire swear by oath that they are to be amenable to the People at all times. Therefore, when one of the People has concerns with the process used in legislative or judicial proceedings, they have a right to investigate those proceedings in order to hold their servants accountable.
It is therefore my wish, as one of the People, that all take notice of the fundamental law and errors that are being exemplified in the case against the above-mentioned People and require that this case be immediately dismissed in the interest of justice.
.
{signature}
Autograph
{date}
Date
A T T A C H M E N T
Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition
Due process of law. Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs. A course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights. To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution-that is, by the law of its creation to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit; and, if that involves merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the state, or his voluntary appearance. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 733, 24 L.Ed. 565. Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or
otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.
An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259 N.E.2d 282, 290. Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing. Pettit v. Penn, La. App., 1 80 So.2d 66, 69. The concept of "due process of law" as it is embodied in Fifth Amendment demands that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and that the means selected shall have a reasonable and substantial relation to the object being sought. U. S. v. Smith, D.C.Iowa, 249 F.Supp. 5 1 5, 5 1 6. Fundamental requisite of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard, to be aware that a matter is pending, to make an informed choice whether to acquiesce or contest, and to assert before the appropriate decision-making body the reasons for such choice. Trinity Episcopal Corp. v. Romney, D.C.N.Y., 387 F.Supp. 1044, 1 084. Aside from all else, "due process" means fundamental fairness. Pinkerton v. Farr, W.Va., 220 S.E.2d 682, 687.
The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to be heard and to defend in orderly proceeding adapted to nature of case, and the guarantee of due process requires that every man have protection of day in court and benefit of general law. Di Maio v. Reid, 1 32 N.J.L. 1 7, 37 A.2d 829, 830. Daniel Webster defined this phrase to mean a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds on inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. Wichita Council No. 120 of Security Ben. Ass'n v. Security Ben. Assn., 138 Kan. 84 1, 28 P.2d 976, 980; J. B. Barnes Drilling Co. v. Phillips, 166 Okl. 1 54, 26 P.2d 766. This constitutional guaranty demands only that law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that means selected shall have real and substantial relation to object. Nebbia v. People of State of New York, N. Y., 29 1 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940; North American Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, C.C.A.2, 133 F.2d 148, 154.