Page 1 of 6

STATE OF MICHIGAN

37TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF MICHIGAN

CITY OF WARREN,

BUILDING AND ZONING DIVISION

(EVERETT MURPHY)

Plaintiff,

VS.

JEFFERY DEAN SAXON,

(an obvious fictional person of the State created

by the STATE and not real party of interest

“Jeffery-Dean: Saxon”)

Trustee – Sui Juris

Defendant in error,

Case numbers: T003166W / T003167W

DATE: 10/13/2010

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS

OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS OF FACTS AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to MCR 2.517(A), et al.

Page 2 of 6

Comes now Defendant in error, Jeffery-Dean: Saxon, a sovereign free white man over 21

years old, who has the rights to which all free men are entitled, who is not under the power of

another, such as the implied jurisdiction of any Corporation or Government to move the court to

stay all fines or penalties in this matter and seeks relief of the same. I have the right to make

valid, or not, any contract, by my actions. In short, I am Sovereign. I live in honor and now

state for the record in affidavit form before this court.

JURISDICTION

It has been and remains the position of the defense that this court surrendered jurisdiction

through due process violations and structural errors. However, in order to seek the intended re-

lief, this court must hear this Motion, at arm’s length and by special appearance, by the Defen-

dant. Furthermore, the Defense does not wave, nor has it ever waved these violations or errors.

The Defense stands fast.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, appeared before Judge John M. Chmura on

September 29th, 2010.

2. Judge John M. Chmura dismissed Defendant's Petition to set aside and dismiss the

complaint and summons.

3. Judge John M. Chmura found in favor of the State, but did not provide an account for his

findings.

ARGUMENT

Page 3 of 6

The Charter for the City of Warren clearly states that municipal powers apply to

municipal property. The Defendant challenged subject matter jurisdiction and believed it was his

duty to challenge government officials performing acts of oppression.

No response was given to the petition by the city attorney. Judge John M. Chmura recklessly

and maliciously disregarded and failed to read the Defendant's petition. Even if the judge had

believed the court had jurisdiction, no refuting argument was placed on the record, and the court

could not proceed. Any order put forth would have been made in error and must be corrected.

The Defense also raised the issue of how the fines came to be. The citing official

admitted to breaking the law in order to obtain the evidence against the Defendant. This would

clearly disqualify that official from remaining credible.

Page 9 22‐                                                                                             Michigan Judicial Institute © 2009 August‐  2010 A. Bench Trial “In actions tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the  court  shall  find  the  facts  specially,  state  separately  itsCircuit Court Benchbook: Civil Proceedings—Revised Edition                                            Section 9.11 conclusions  of  law,  and  direct  entry  of  the  appropriate  judgment.” MCR 2.517(A)(1).  “Brief,  definite,  and  pertinent  findings  and  conclusions  on  the contested matters are sufficient, without overelaboration of detail or particularization  of  facts.”  MCR  2.517(A)(2).  Findings  of  fact  are sufficient  if  it  appears  that  the  trial  court  was  aware  of  the  issues  in the  case  and  correctly  applied  the  law.  Triple  E  Produce  Corp  v Mastronardi Produce, Ltd, 209 Mich App 165, 176 (1995). “The  court  may  state  the  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  record  or include them in a written opinion.” MCR 2.517(A)(3).  Committee  Tip:  Knowing  the  applicable  law  makes  finding  the relevant facts easier. Consider ordering counsel to provide proposed findings  of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law  before  the  trial.  Utilize  the jury instructions for the conclusions of law. 

Page 4 of 6

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Defendants moves this court for relief and to stay collection of any fines or

penalties until the outcome of appeal.

Affiant sayth not, All Rights Reserved, Jeffery-Dean: Saxon, “Sovereign”, “One of the People”

Jeffery-Dean: Saxon reserves the right to amend this petition at any time.

_____________________________

Jeffery-Dean: Saxon c/o

JEFFERY DEAN SAXON

ADDRESS

Warren Michigan [48089]

PHONE

Accused in Pro Per

At Arms Length

Restricted jurisdiction

By special visitation - “ special appearance”

To challenge jurisdiction of the Court

VERIFICATION

The foregoing statements are true, correct and complete to the best of my belief.

Dated 24th day of September 2010

___________________________________

Jeffery-Dean: Saxon – Trustee for:

JEFFERY DEAN SAXON©

Page 5 of 6

FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.

Principal, by Special Appearance, a living breathing, flesh and blood man, proceeding Sui Juris.

Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice.

My Hand and Mark as Subscriber

Date: _____________________ Common Law Seal: __________________________________

Michigan State Republic )

) Jurat

Macomb County )

On the ______ day of ____________, 20_____, Jeffery-Dean, family of Saxon personally

appeared before me and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person

whose name is subscribed hereto and acknowledged to me that he executed the same under

asservation, and accepts the facts thereof. Subscribed and affirmed before me this day. Witness

my hand and seal this ______ day of __________________, 20_____,

_______________________________________________________

Notary Signature

Page 6 of 6

My commission expires:

_______________________________________________________