To: US Southern District Court of Illinois Chief Judge Rosenstengel, via Clerk of Court Monica Stump
Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General
David Harris, Director of Illinois Dept of Revenue
Debbie Gillette, Kendall County Clerk/Recorder
Jill Ferko, Kendall County Treasurer
Cc: All Illinois County Clerk/Recorders and County Treasurers not named above
Justice’s Gorsuch, Thomas, and Coney Barrett via Clerk of Court Scott Harris
Illinois Supreme Court via Clerk of Court Cynthia Grant
Notice of Clarity for Property Tax Enforcement
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
I, one of the People (as seen in the Illinois State Constitution), Sui Juris, do serve you, by necessity, this notice so that you may provide immediate due care;
Please take notice, the people are aware of a case [No: 3:25-cv-01122-DWD] filed in the United States Southern District Court of Illinois, wherein Plaintiffs, which are statutory creations, appear to openly admit collusion, by contracting with government to profit from the people’s private property, “under the color of law”. These Plaintiffs hold “tax certificates” purchased at county public auctions, paying delinquent taxes in exchange for the “right” to obtain “tax deeds” if properties are not redeemed, thereby acquiring full ownership including all surplus equity without compensation to owners. This is all done using statutory law and procedures. The Plaintiffs now claim these certificates are "toxic", forcing them to either forfeit investments, pay surplus equity, or violate owners' rights [third parties], and seek rescission, declarations they are not state actors, and relief from the statutory scheme. In addition, it is also noted that the Plaintiffs are suing the Defendants in their “official capacity”, thereby all remedy would be publicly funded. The people are aware that “There is no immunity for unofficial acts” (see Trump v United States, July 1, 2024), and that using statutory schemes that bypass constitutional mandates are considered private acts, not official acts.
Please take notice, the people granted power to government to raise revenue with a mandatory protection of “judicial proceedings” when “sold for the nonpayment of taxes”. This article of the Illinois Constitution must be viewed by and through the reservation of rights in the Bill of Rights (Article I) (see evidence below) [highlights throughout this document have been added for emphasis]
Illinois (1970) Constitution Article IV Section 8 (a)
“Real property shall not be sold for the nonpayment of taxes or special assessments without judicial proceedings.”
Maxim: That which is granted or reserved in a certain specified form must be taken as it is granted, and will not be permitted to be made the subject of any adjustment or compensation on the part of the grantee. Ex. parte Miller, 2 Hill (NY) 423; Bacon, Max. 26, reg. 4.
Please take notice, the people, assembled (Ill Const. Art I, Sec. 5) and recurring to fundamental principles (Ill Cons. Art I, Sec. 23), recognize legislators and county officers, on advice from attorneys, created statutory schemes, non-judicial processes and tribunals, with no historical basis in common law violating fundamental rights and liberty interests. The taking of private property without correct form of due process of law is void. The People's due process of law, synonymous with the law of the land, requires judicial proceedings with a trial by jury, an independent judge, and following common law and settled maxims. Where do constitutions grant power to create statutory processes (novel methods) simulating due process of law, absent such judicial proceedings, to impose fines/penalties? (see evidence below)
Maxim: Void things are as no things. People v. Shall, 9 Cow. (N.Y.) 784.
Maxim: No freeman shall be deprived of life, liberty or property but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land—that is by the common law. C.L.M.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW. “Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of 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….[due process of law] refer to certain fundamental rights, which that system of jurisprudence, of which ours is a derivative, has always recognized…”Law of the land,” “due course of law,” and “due process of law” are synonymous.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, Page 590
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 606 U.S. (2025)
“...the mere existence of a legislative enactment was insufficient on its own to satisfy due process under the Fifth Amendment. Despite acknowledging that “[t]he words, ‘due process of law,’ were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning as the words, ‘by the law of the land,’ in Magna Charta,” the Court concluded that the Due Process Clause “is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government.” Id., at 276. The Court famously declared that due process must comport with “those settled usages and modes of proceeding existing in the common and statute law of England, before the emigration of our ancestors... These requirements generally include an independent judge, “regular allegations, opportunity to answer, and a trial according to some settled course of judicial proceedings.” Id., at 280. The Court’s decision in Murray’s Lessee “opened the door to a dramatic reinvention of the Due Process of Law Clause as a check on the statutory enactment of novel methods of procedure.” M. Crema & L. Solum, The Original Meaning of “Due Process of Law” in the Fifth Amendment, 108 Va. L. Rev. 447, 519 (2022).”
Court of Record Black’s Law 4th Edition Page 426:
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.
Please take notice, the People secured their inherent right to acquire, possess, and protect private property in the constitutions. We recognize our God given inherent rights differ from statutory privileges, often called “civil rights,” of “persons”. We granted power to deprive property only through common law, judicial proceedings using trial by jury”, never statutory procedures or non-judicial tribunals with hearing officers. Where do constitutions grant power to override the people’s inherent property rights by creating statutory schemes? (see evidence below)
Illinois Constitution (1848) Article XXIII §1
“That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, and of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.”
Illinois Constitution (1970) Article I Section 1
“All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Illinois Constitution (1970) Article I Section 2
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
Illinois Constitution (1848) Article XXIII §8
“That no freeman [people] shall be imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.”
Illinois Constitution (1970) Article I Section 6
“The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means.”
Illinois Constitution Article I Section 13
“The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.”
Maxim: The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual. 1 Bl. Comm. 138; 2 Bl. Comm. 2, 5.
Maxim: The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the private rights to the land. Keilw. 191.
Common-law action. Action governed by common law, rather than statutory, equitable, or civil law. (Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition, Pg 251)
Please take notice, the people recognize common law predates constitutions, excludes state statutes, and cannot be abrogated by rulemaking or legislation. Statutory rules and procedures, or “doctrines” are derivative powers and must be in pursuance to the constitutions. County officers are vested with dual duties, powers, and functions, sometimes working administratively by applying statutes and procedures to “persons”, and other times by common law as it relates to the people (Illinois Constitution Article VII Sec. 4d). Where do constitutions grant power for rulemaking or legislation to abrogate people's fundamental common law rights? (see evidence below)
Common Law Blacks Law 5th 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 judgements and decrees of courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs... People v. Rehman, 253 C.A.2d 119, 61 Cal.Rptr. 65, 85. “Common Law” consists of those principles, usages, and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of legislature. Bishop v. U.S., D.C.Tex., 334 F. Supp. 415, 418 [This is an excerpt from the definition]
Constitutional Right Blacks Law 5th Edition:
Constitutional Right, A right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.
Maxim: An affirmative statute does not take from the common law. Jenk. Cent. 24.
Please take notice, plaintiffs, driven by profit, seek special privileges and immunities to contract with states/counties, despite lacking ownership or exclusive interest in the property involved, via a statutory scheme that pulls people's private property into the public domain for gain to Plaintiffs and/or Defendants. The people have reserved privacy and property rights from public scrutiny without warrant, restricting government takings to judicial proceedings only. Where in the Illinois Constitution does the government derive power to usurp officials' common law duties to the people by partnering with statutory entities to publicly offer private property for public sale without warrant or jury, while granting immunity? Is it lawful for trustees to harm beneficiaries for gain? Where did trustees/servants acquire authority to contract with adverse parties of the people (beneficiaries)? How can trustees contract the people's private property, in which they hold no interest or ownership, with third parties without trust benefit or beneficiary loss? (See evidence below.)
PRIVACY, RIGHT OF. The right to be let alone, the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity. (Black’s Law 4th Edition, Page 1358)
Illinois Constitution Article I Section 15
“Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation as provided by law. Such compensation shall be determined by a jury as provided by law.”
Illinois Constitution Article I Section 16
“No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.”
Illinois Constitution (1848) Article XXIII §17
“No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be made; and no conviction shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate.”
Maxim: No one can profit by what is contrary to law. Halk. 108
Please take notice, the People have the right to instruct our servants by directing, enjoining, commanding, advising, or giving notice. Their rights are not limited to those enumerated in the 1970 Illinois Constitution, as they retain unenumerated reserved rights. Where do constitutions grant power to override the people's right to instruct servants and retain unenumerated rights? (see evidence below)
Illinois Constitution (1848) Article XXIII §21
“That the people have a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the general assembly for redress of grievances.”
Maxim: An amendment [to the original instrument] is not a repeal. [Fundamental principles are not annulled by amendment.]. Mass. Bond & Ins. Co. v. U.S., 352 U.S. 128, 139.
Illinois Constitution (1970) Article I Section 24
“The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual citizens of the State.”
Maxim: Rights never die. Bouv. 156.
Please take notice, neither “Plaintiffs” nor “Defendants” can improve their condition by their own wrong. Government cannot lawfully contract with entities using People’s private property as collateral or security. With no exclusive ownership interest the government forcing transfer or conveyance of the People’s property without fundamental due process is maladministration, a common law crime. How can government be trustees for the people, sworn to protect their rights and property, and create a contract with another statutory entity that attacks the people? (see evidence below)
Maxim: No one can improve his condition by his own wrong. Dig. 50, 17, 134, 1.
Maxim: A contract cannot arise out of an act radically wrong and illegal. 1 Term, 734; 3 Term, 422; Broom, Max. 734.
Maxim: There is no doubt that the rights of others [third parties] cannot be prejudiced by private agreements. Dig. 2, 15, 3, pr.; Broom, Max. 697.
Please take notice, the people do not share ownership or interest in their private property with the government. How could government, being trustees, grant, convey, or transfer it to contracted persons without people's (beneficiaries) expressed permission or due process of law as described above? ¬Are the Illinois Circuit Courts [unlawfully] working with County Officers, in their administrative capacity, using administrative processes to take people’s property using statutes, without trial by jury (court not of record)? Or are County Officers and attorneys simulating judicial processes, using administratively created boards (courts not of record), thereby confusing the Illinois Circuit Courts with the illusion of common law proceedings, then turning a blind eye to the lack of a jury and use of statutes? (see evidence below)
Court of Record Black’s Law 4th Edition Page 426:
Courts may be at the same time of record for some purposes and not of record for others. Lester v. Redmond, 6 Hill, N.Y., 590; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc., Mass., 168.
Maxim: No one can grant or convey what he does not own. Seymour v. Canandaigua & N.F.R. Co., 25 Barb. (N.Y.) 284, 301. Fassett v. Smith, 23 N.Y. 252.
Maxim: Two cannot possess or own one thing in entirety. Co. Litt. 368; Dig. 13,6,5,15; Bract. fol. 28b.
Please take notice, in a Republican Form of government, which the people are guaranteed (US Constitution Art 4, Sec 4), all government officers are servants and trustees for the people and constitutional bill of rights provisions are self-executing, prohibiting government conduct and give rise to causes of action, from the moment of trespass. A judge’s duty is to declare the law, not to enact it. Where in the Constitutions is the grant of power that undoes the constraint that government officers are servants and trustees, or allows judges to enact law rather than declare it? (see evidence below)
Wilson v. Hawaii 604 U.S. (2024)
Constitutional rights are “self-executing prohibitions on governmental action.” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997). A constitutional violation accrues the moment the government undertakes an unconstitutional act. Americans need not engage in empty formalities before they can invoke their constitutional rights.
Maxim: It is the duty of a judge to declare [enunciate] the law, not to enact the law or make it. Lofft, 42; Tray. Leg. Max. 283; Lofft. App. 42.
Maxim: Jurisdiction is a power introduced for the public good, on account of the necessity of dispensing justice. 10 Coke, 73a
Maxim: A court can only declare what the law is, and whether consistent with the law of God, and the fundamental or constitutional law of society. The State v. Post, 20 N.J.L. 368, 370 (1845).
Please take final notice, the US Southern District Court’s Judges are trustees and servants for the people, vested with jurisdiction as the power to declare the law, having immediate cause of action to take this case to enforce the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions, pursuant to self-executing provisions of the bill of rights. The law will not intend a wrong, and no right can arise from a wrong; thus, the plaintiffs admitted contracts with government to profit from the taking people’s private property, without their express permission or constitutional due process of law, and without judicial process, constitute a constitutional trespass and a fiction of law that works injury. People’s right of property, a sole and despotic dominion excluding all others, cannot be conveyed or transferred by government, absent judicial process, to statutory creations. Actions not following the due course of law, are nullities, as where form is not observed, a nullity follows. The old way of common law, the safe way, must prevail, as judges are not favorable to recent schemes against it. If the State and/or Counties cannot provide constitutional grants of power to bypass the constitutional due process of law and show exclusive ownership of the people’s property and prove use of judicial tribunals moving by the course of common law, all taken property must be returned immediately, and this statutory scheme must cease. Further, no immunity can be provided to statutory entities or government agents that have worked in league with county and state officers to consummate joint trespass. (see evidence below)
Maxim: A right cannot arise from a wrong. 4 Bingh. 639; Bouv. 134.
Maxim: Fiction of law is wrongful if it works loss or injury to any one. 2 Coke, 35; Broom, Max. 3d Lond. ed. 122.
Maxim: Where form is not observed, a nullity of the act is inferred or follows. 12 Coke, 7.
Maxim: The old way is the safe way. Ex parte Crane, 5 Peters (30 U.S.) 223.
Maxim: Judges are by no means favorable to things raised recently and subtly against the common law. Halk. Max. 73.
It is therefore my wish, order and demand that you immediately, by necessity, take this case up and openly declare the law by expressing that property taken from people unlawfully shall be immediately restored to the rightful owner and government has no grant of power to provide immunity for statutory entities that have worked with government to take people’s private property absent due process of law. As a trustee of the people and to have clean hands, it is imperative that you do all in your power to correct these wrongs and provide remedy. The people are aware that you are now aware of this unlawful practice. Therefore, if you believe that government has been granted power to create and use novel methods to take private property from people without constitutional due process, please show the constitutional grants of authority within 10 days, by sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, or you agree that this practice is completely unlawful as applied to the people’s private property and that failure to protect the people by openly expressing the same is done with full intent and malice.
Maxim: To commit [an act,] and not to prohibit one when in your power, is the same thing; and he who does not prohibit or forbid when he can prevent it is in fault, or does the same as ordering it to be done. 2 Inst. 146, 308; 3 Inst. 158.
Maxim: It is the part of a good judge to enlarge (or use liberally) his remedial authority or jurisdiction. Bouv. 119; Dwight v. Pomeroy, 17 Mass, 303, 310.
Maxim: Things derogatory to the common law are not to be drawn into precedent. Branch, Princ.
Maxim: Justice is neither to be denied nor delayed. Jenk. Cent. 76, 93.
Maxim: Ignorance of law excuses no one (for all are bound to know the law). 4 Bouv. Inst. no. 3828; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. s. 111; 2 Coke, 36; Rankin v. Mortimere, 7 Watts (Penn.) 374; 2 Kent, Comm. 491.
This notice is sent to you in the peace and love of Christ, that you might stand for justice and expedient correction in bringing remedy to these wrongs that have been exposed as well as awareness of the people of their protected, guaranteed rights.
Maxim: Judicial notice is a form of evidence. Mann v. Mann, 172 P.2d 369, 375, 76 Ca].App.2d 32.