IN THE COURT OF

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CASE(S): ##13-CR-00392CMA(01) X/C DATE: April 8, 2015

PLAINTIFF:FICTITIOUS FOREIGN STATE(s)/TRUST(s)“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT;” a.k.a. “INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,” a.k.a. “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, INC.”DISTRICT OF DENVER, COLORADO

Vs

GEORGE THOMAS BROKAW;“FICTITIOUS “DEFENDANTS”

Petitioner: Private Patent & eState of George Thomas Brokaw; Authorized Agent/CourtAdministrator for the “NAME,” “GEORGE THOMAS BROKAW;”

SUBJECT: COURT ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE; Fiat Justitia Ruat CaelumDenique Ultimatum Revereor Verum

Notice of Fraud

And

Intent to Commit Fraud

Via Any and All Means, Third Party Interloping

Etc et al

By Omission and/or Commission

_________________________________________________________________

1. Now comes Petitioner; a.k.a. “Authorized Agent/Court Administrator,” George Thomas Brokaw, being a non-corporate entity with a COURT ADMINISTRATIVE DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL & REMEDY BASED ON NULLITY OF FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS IMPEDING COMMERCE;

2. Be now advised, that you are being duly noted by your actions and intentions either through sheer ignorance of the Universal laws or by a willful act to be in dishonour with the aforementioned Universal and Natural laws all living beings shall stand under.

1

3. Whereas; ALL creation matters, free will-Consent and Agreements, therein, are paramount upon all where the trespass upon such is a high crime and;

4. Whereas; all things “legal” are, in Fact, NOT law-ful, and are purely of a “juris-fictional” realm created by those who would control the free will-Consent via Force, Coercion, Intimidation, Trickery, Magic, and/or Ignorance. Ignorance of the True laws is NOT a defence from those laws, wherein, Truth is paramount and mandatory and;

5. Whereas, and in direct contradiction to CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO’s fictitious & fraudulent assertions & asservations; “A judge is not the court.” People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

6. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, that, "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

7. Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

8. Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) What is the penalty for treason? Please reply in particularity & specificity.

9. Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.

10. Whenever any officer [CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO & MATTHEW T. KIRSH] of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court." In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated, "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself.”

2

11. It is where the “court,” or a member, is corrupted, influenced, is attempted, or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."12. It is also clear [IN THIS CASE], and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court vitiates the entire proceeding.” The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934);13. "The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions." Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929);14. "The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters...," In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962);15. "It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything." Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); 16. Thomas Stasel v. The Federal law, states; “when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court," the orders and judgment of [THIS, OR] that court are void, of no legal force or effect.”

17. Whereas; an AGREEMENT created [BY CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO & MATTHEW T. KIRSH] with intent of one and/or more parties to commit fraud and/or other crimes, also be it known, that by virtue of your own ROMAN MAXIMS that a “fraud revealed” is NULL & VOID nunc pro tunc and;

18. Whereas; any intent/attempt to commit fraud Knowingly and/or Willingly and/or by [CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO & MATTHEW T. KIRSH] your own ignorance via commission/omission of that Knowledge, and/or Ignorance, you are, in Fact, and in, and under Natural Law, Guilty of the crimes with that Intent and/or Ignorance and;

19. Whereas; any and all intents/attempts to engage in such actions as to deceive, Knowingly or un-Knowingly, it is the duty of [CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO & MATTHEW T. KIRSH] that individual [and/or all aliases of same] or party to mend their criminal activities having this Knowledge brought into the light for all to see and the Trespass upon the free will-Consent of all others SHALL end, and;

20. Whereas; you [CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO & MATTHEW T. KIRSH] are now given the Truth of all matters via this ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE & DEMAND as follows, it is

3

NOW, and furthermore, incumbent upon you to be in full accordance & compliance with YOUR laws, Natural/Universal and Creator laws, with your Knowledge and Ignorance’s and;

21. Whereas; your ROMAN MAXIM of “those who create the laws, shall obey the laws,” and with your own oaths, allegiances, vows, promises, etc, et al; you [CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO & MATTHEW T. KIRSH] have freely Consented by surrendering your own free will-Choice to another master, you are obligated, by that free will-Choice to be in accordance & compliance with those that you have chosen to rule over you, until such a time where all previous oaths, vows, allegiances, promises, etc, et al; are NULLIFIED by your own Choice and you may do so freely, since you, also, were deceived where fraudulent Intent and Ignor-ance is concerned, or continue now in the Knowledge of the frauds you commit under commission, where your omission has been vanquished and;

22. Whereas; any and all Assumptions and Presumptions of the “legal juris-fiction” are all based in fraudulent Intent and/or Ignor-ance of these Assumptions and Presumptions, where free will-Consent, and all man made and Universal Contracts and Agreements are concerned, and are, hereby, NULLIFIED & VOID ab inito, ad infinitum, nunc pro tunc, you [CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO & MATTHEW T. KIRSH] and those who are your masters are Guilty, by commission and/or your omission of Universal fraud.

BILL OF PARTICULARS:

23. Having FAILED to HONORABLY respond, argue, protest, or rebut this “man’s” earlier interrogatories, point-by-point, as contractually required under Natural Universal Laws governing the commerce between men, both [CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO], a.k.a. “Christine M. Arguello,” “ESQUIRE,” and [MATTHEW T. KIRSH], a.k.a. “Matthew T. Kirsh,” “ESQUIRE,” “are found to be in DISHONOUR, and in COMMERCIAL DEFAULT, and;

24). Each [CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO & MATTHEW T. KIRSH] has/have, by their acquiescence, omissions, and commissions, ADMITTED, ACCEPTED, and AGREED, to earlier charges & allegations as material FACT(S) presented in Law, and as the TRUTH in Natural Universal Law, along with having AGREED to, and having ACCEPTED the Terms & Conditions of their Punishments & Penalties, as prescribed under Law;

25). As so AGREED, ALIAS- “Ms. Christine M. Arguello,” and ALIAS- “Mr. Matthew T. Kirsh,” and having been recognized in all their CORPORATE & Private personnas & aliases,

4

are, in FACT, and in Law, defined as “OFFICERS of a Foreign, For-Profit, CORPORATION,” whose CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS are located in the “CITY OF LONDON, ENGLAND,” and;

26). Ms. Arguello, and Mr. Kirsh, are, in FACT, and in Law, “FOREIGNERS [Foreigners],” and card-carrying Union members of the COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION, a.k.a. “NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD,” a.k.a. “AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,” a.k.a. “INNS OF THE COURT,” a FOREIGN political party with their Origins in the COMMUNIST PARTY, and whose agenda includes the “overthrow of the government of the uNited States of America,” pursuant 28 USC ℇ 636(2)(1), Article III, Section 3, and the Original/Organic XIII Amendment, and that;

27). Ms. Arguello, and Mr. Kirsh, have, with specific Knowledge & Criminal Intent, conspired & confederated to deprive the Petititoner of his rights under the Color of Law, Pursuant to 22 USC, Subchapter II ℇ 611, and that;

28). Ms. Arguello, and Mr. Kirsh, with the aiding & abetting of “private contractors,” for the Triad known as “C.R.I.S.,” conspired & confederated to serve the Petititioner with falsified, and fictitionalized writs & papers, Knowing the Petititoner, without first having his free will-Consent to ACCEPT these “Presumptions to CONTRACT,” but rather, by their TRESPASS, in forcing, coercing, threatening, assaulting, and intimidating, them to accept said contract(s), pursuant 28 USC ℇ 631(1)(b), and; A. Ms. Arguello, Mr. Kirsh, in conspiracy with other “private contractors,” are in violation of I.R.C., §7701(a)(5), wherein; Service of process of, and by, a foreign corporation is governed by the Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. See also Corporation. TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration, CHAPTER 79 – DEFINITIONS Sec. 7701, and the remedies for these violations are executable & enforceable under;

B. USC 18 §241; CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS, which states; “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both,” and;

C. USC 18 §242; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, which states; “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,

5

willfully subjects any person in any State the deprivation of any rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;”;

29). "No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril." Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

30). "The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owens v. City of Independence, 100 S. Ct 1398 (1980)

31). Ms. Arguello, Mr. Kirsh, et al, and these “private contractors,” each Knowing Ms. Arguello, nor Mr. Kirsh, nor these “private contractors,” had ANY Lawful jurisdiction, power, or authority, to assist in this process, and Knowing they had NO Lawful “Oaths of Office” to design, construct, execute, or serve as a “government agents,” or “public officers,” pursuant 18

USC § 1016; 18 USC § 1018; 42 USC § 3795a; Colo. Const. Art. XII, Section 8; Colo. Const. Art. XXIX, Section 2; C.R.S. #30-10-111, which required them, first, to be “government officers,” and/or “public officers,” and to secure both Oaths of Office, and their bonds; each, then, having conspired to commit fraud upon the Petitioner, his family, and his community, without lawful jurisdiction, authority, or power, and;

32). Ms. Arguello, Mr. Kirsh, et al, and these “private C.R.I.S. contractors,” through their omissions & acquiescence, ADMIT(S), ACCEPT(S), and AGREE(S), to their “PERJURIES” of having alleged, that the I.R.S., et al, was a “government agency and thus immune,” when, in FACT, and in Law, the I.R.S., et al, is, and has been a “private, for-profit, corporation,” as recorded by the US SECRETARY OF STATE, and has established an elaborate “Ponzi Scheme,” “Pyramid Scheme,” “Shell Game,” and a “VIRTUAL MONOPOLY” over other Colorado & US Counties, utilizing “elected government officials” to act as “gatekeepers,” “BOARD OF DIRECTORS,” and other “facilitators” to misappropriate & embezzle public taxpayer funds & secured treasuries, under the guise of providing government services to the People’s “elected government body.” This criminal activity has been well documented & exposed for over several decades, and not a single individual, or person, has argued, protested, or rebutted the pertinent Laws, and the material FACTS of the matter, wherein, Colorado State’s Rights supercedes & trumps Federal Rights & Law, pursuant among numerous other infractions, Colo. Const. Art. XXIX, Section 6 (2012); Section 6. Penalty, which states;

6

“Any public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official or government employee who breaches the public trust for private gain and any person or entity inducing such breach shall be liable to the state or local jurisdiction for double the amount of the financial equivalent of any benefits obtained by such actions. The manner of recovery and additional penalties may be provided by law. Gifts from Lobbyists. A professional lobbyists (AMERICAN & COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATIONS) may not give gifts or things of value to government officials or employees at all, in any amount.” Independent Ethics Commission Position Statement 09-01, And;

33). Ms Arguello, Mr. Kirsh, et al, and the “C.R.I.S. private contractors,” and others, then, have acted in confederacy & conspiracy to protect, aid, and abet the racketeering, money laundering, embezzlement, and other private & unjust enrichment schemes of C.R.I.S., et al, and has obstructed justice, and obstructed international commerce, obstructed Lawful investigation & prosecution for these crimes against the Petitioner, his family, and against the community at large, and;

34). Ms. Arguello, and Mr. Kirsh, et al, as fellow members of the B.A.R., and the NATIONAL LAWYER’S GUILD, continue to hide, conceal, and cloak their true identities as “foreign agents & propagandists for a foreign principle,” defined & described under 22 USC #636, all the while committing fraud upon this “Court,” in direct violation & disobedience of the US Supreme Court, and the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION’S’s Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule #8, and;

35). Ms. Arguello, and Mr. Kirsh, et al, and others, continue to conspire, collude, and to scheme, to keep from the Public certain material FACTS, regarding their unLawful, and “illegal” “Conflicts of Self Interest,” wherein, both protect, aid, and abet, the other, Knowing that both, and the other, are members of judiciary, and are NOT “government agents,” or “goverment officers,” pursuant to INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & CONTRACTS, and the Colorado & US Constitutions, as earlier described & defined, and;

36). Ms. Arguello, and Mr. Kirsh, et al, Knowing, full well, that they are “members of the judiciary,” and are NOT “government agents,” draw their salaries & commissions from the Federal Treasury, as if they were “government employees,” and “public trustees,” and;

7

37). The “C.R.I.S. agents,” Knowing that they operate as a “private contractors” for Ms. Arguello, and Mr. Kirsh, et al, and visa versa, continue to draw their salaries & commissions from the Federal Treasury, as if they were “Federal Employees,” and “Public Servants,” and;

38). Ms. Arguello, Mr. Kirsh, et al, the “C.R.I.S. agents,” with assistance of others, are acting in concert, confederacy, and conspiracy, with “elected,” “genuine,” and “actual” government public officials, to oppress, enslave, profit, and to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of, and from the labors of others, including the inhabitants of Colorado, and all those on American soil;

SUPPORTING CASE LAW:

39). As evidenced under previous FACTS and Law submitted, and which have gone unrebutted, and by their bona fide ACCEPTANCE & AGREEMENT, through omissions by Ms. Arguello, Mr. Kirsh, et al, the “C.R.I.S. agents,” and others, the following stand as the material FACTS-in-Law to the matter;

40). “Attorneys can’t testify; statements of counsel in brief or in oral argument are not facts before the court.” – Unites States v. Lovable 4 U.S. 783,97 S. 2004, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752 and Gonzales v. Buist 224 U.S. 126. 56 L.. 693. 32. Ct. 463.S.

41). “An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness,” and, “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court.” – Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C. Pa (1964), 229 F. Supp. 647

42). “All codes, rule and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process.” – Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)

43). To Ms. Arguello, Mr. Kirsh, and “C.R.I.S.” agents,” ET AL;

8

Your deceptions and frauds are now laid bare before the altar of the Universe where all shall be seen in their own lightness or darkness, by and of YOUR own free will-Choice, which is the re-spawns-ability of the self and no other. Your measure of worth is that which you have taken in lieu of truth, peace, love and honour absolute upon which, no price can be levied or even postulated. Justice be served though the heavens may fall, so mote it be ab initio, ad infinitum. You stand NOW in ABSOLUTE DISHONOUR.

By Omission or Commission,You are

Guilty as Charged;

44). By your [CRISTINE M. ARGUELLO’s & MATTHEW T. KIRSH’S] commissions/omissions listed & itemized, HEREIN, of attempting to re-create this fraud via deceptios attempts of joinder of the living flesh and soul to an inanimate NAME that is owned by you only by theft, fabrication & contemplation, and these commissions constitute criminal acts of trespass, piracy, and plunder, as in provacative military acts of war, be it duly noted that all attempts, thus far, have been duly noted and will be forwarded as evidence of your criminal activities and intentions to your own authorities, both civil & military, to which you owe your sworn allegiance, and where I have none but to myself and the source creator.

45). RIGHTS TO CHALLENGE LACK OF JURISDICTION & CONSENT:

A. “Mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished” – Owens v. The City of Independence (1980)

B. “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments or orders are regarded as nullities; they are voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” - WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945. 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).

C. “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action.” – Melo v. U.S., 505 F 2d 1026

9

D. “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” – Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

E. “The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” – Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416

F. “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” – Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150

G. “The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

H. “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.

I. “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

J. “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v. Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

K. “The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v Lavine 415 U.S. 533.

L. “Where rights are secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491.

10

M. Corpus Juris Secundum: "The Body of Law" or Legal encyclopedia, Volume 7, Section 4: as quoted: "Attorney & client: An Attorney's "first" duty is to the Courts (1st) and the public (2nd) and not to the client (3rd), and wherever the duties to an attorney's client "conflict" with those interests that he/she owes his allegiance to, as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter." N. "No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril." Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

O. " ...If one individual does not possess such a right over the conduct of another [Good and Lawful Christian Man], no number of individuals [in a deliberative body] can possess such a right. All combinations, therefore, to effect such an object, are injurious, not only to the individuals particularly oppressed, but to the public at large". People v. Fisher, 14Wend.(N.Y.) 9, 28 Am.Dec. 501

46). COURT DEMANDS RELIEF & REMEDY:

A. "The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owens v. City of Independence, 100 S.Ct 1398 (1980).

47). This “Injured Man” understands, as well, that this Lawful COURT ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE & DEMAND, its components & exhibits, and all similar complaints and suits against your CORPORATION, fall under the FSIA and the DEPT OF STATE OFFICES in Washington D.C., which now MUST be notified pursuant to 22 CFR 93.1 -93.2. A copy of the FSIA MUST be filed to the PUBLIC RECORD, with the complaint to the defendant’s CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER of that CORPORATION, the CLERK OF THE COUNTY, and the DISTRICT GOVERNOR, remembering, that, “NOTICE TO AGENT, IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE,” and “NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE, IS NOTICE TO AGENT!”

48). Therefore; and as to the DEMAND, this matter, and any other of similar Nature, must be DISMISSED, IMMEDIATELY, for lack of political, personam, or subject matter jurisdiction, or venue, and under the 11th Amendment of the “Organic Consitution” of the uNited States of America. Ms. Arguello, and Mr. Kirsh, et al, have Three (3) Calendar Days from receipt of this COURT ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE, with which to notify this “individual,” in-writing, of the formal DISMISSAL, WITH PREJUDICE, of this case, the withdrawal of previous, present, and future Orders for any further hearings on this matter, along with renditions of these ORDERS denying & rejecting any future filings, pleas, or motions, set forth by Mr. Kirsh, et al and;

11

49). Ms. Arguello will, along with all others of similar OFFICE, rank, file, and corporate personna, recuse herself, and themselves, from reviewing, adjudicating, or ruling, over this case, and return all monies earned of salary, commission, and/or compensation, to the Federal Treasuries. Forthwith, and;

A. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held, that; "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

B. That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972). The Court stated, that; "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

C. "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse himself/herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

D. “None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996); "The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."

E. Should [CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO] a “judge” issue any order after he/she has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce." The “judge” has acted in the “judge's personal capacity” and not in the “judge's judicial capacity.” It has been said that this “judge,” acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor, provided that he is not a judge. However some “judges” may not follow the law.

50). Ms. CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, ESQUIRE, and/or all aliases; YOU HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED BY LAW;

12

A. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution.

B. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggests that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

C. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

D. "When the office is vacated by non-compliance with the law, there can be no claim of “jurisdiction.” Second, absolute immunity does not apply when a judge acts "in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman, 349,435 U.S. at 356 U.S. Supreme Court CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 76-1750. March 28, 1978, When immunity is at issue, the scope of a judge's jurisdiction "must be construed broadly. ... A judge will be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority." Id."

51). Mr. MATTHEW T. KIRSH, Esquire, and all aliases, SHALL Cease & Desist with all further “Frauds upon the Court,” as in all fictitious & fraudulent submissions, motions, pleas, requests, and responses, to this Court, as he, by his criminal misrepresentation, has demonstrated, that, the I.R.S., ET AL, is wholly “incompetent,” “mentally-challenged,” and a “fictional,” “un-deserving” “Ward of the State,” and as such, is NOT in “Good Standing” with the Secretary of State of the uNited States of America, and the Secretary, along with Congress Assembled, has the jurisdiction, power, and authority to DISSOLVE this “INCORPORATION,” and;

52). The CORPORATION known as the “I.R.S.,” ET AL, as exposed & proven by the overwhelming material evidence of Fact, and by Law, is now “on-the-Record,” to be “incompetent,” “mentally-challenged,” and with its criminal intent & actions exposed, SHALL Cease, Desist, and Dissolve itself, all of its racketeering enterprise(s) imposed upon the State of Colorado, and all other states of America;

53). Mr. Matthew Kirsh, alias “UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,” SHALL, without pause, or hesitation, tender his resignation from his ‘alleged’ “Public Office,” and expatriate himself as a “Private Contractor” for Ms. Arguello, and the “C.R.I.S. Triad,” and WILL return all monies, earned of salary, commission, and/or compensation (7X’s), to the Federal Treasury, Forthwith, and;

54). Full Relief, Remedy, and Compensation MUST be provided to the Petitioner, his Patents, and his eStates, under Law, including, but NOT limited to, and for; each offense, each ocurrence, and each “person,” or “PERSONS,” involved with these “Infringments,” and “Invasions,”

13

Pursuant 15 U.S. Code § 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty; which states;

“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby

declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be

punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person,

$1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the

discretion of the (this) court.”

55). AND; 15 U.S. Code § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty, which states;

“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the

several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction

thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other

person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in

the discretion of the (this) court.”

56). The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a

landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law (or "competition

law") passed by Congress in 1890. It prohibits certain business activities that federal

government regulators deem to be anti-competitive, and requires the federal

government to investigate and pursue trusts. It has since, more broadly, been used to

oppose the combination of entities that could potentially harm competition, such as

monopolies or cartels.

57). Definitions:

A. Foreign: The term "foreign" when applied to a corporation or partnership means a corporation or partnership which is not domestic.

14

B. Foreign service of process: Service of process for the acquisition of jurisdiction by a court in the United States upon a person in a foreign country is prescribed by Fed R. Civ. P. 4 (i) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1608. Service of process of, and on, a foreign corporation is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (3).

C. Profiteering: Taking advantage of unusual or exceptional circumstance to make excessive profit; e.g. selling of scarce or essential goods at inflated price during time of emergency or war.

D. Person: In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person) though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representative, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations act, §2(1). A corporation is a “person,” and/or “PERSON,” within the meaning of equal protection and due process provisions of the United States Constitution.

58). ATTESTMENT OF OATH & AFFIRMATION:

As a “Witness,” an “Injured Party,” and as a “unique living individual being,” an “unincorporable, non-military, non-bankrupt, and non-combatant man & woman on the Land,” and NOT born of, or inhabiting the Sea, along with my “Digital Signature” below, is my Oath, my Affirmation, my Bond, my Honor, to expose & present the Truth, the whole Truth, and NOTHING but the Truth, so help me GOD!

As “unincorporable, non-combatant, and non-bankrupt man & woman of the Land,” NO CORPORATE SIGNATURE OR SEAL is, then, necessary, or REQUIRED, under Universal & Natural Law. All Rights & Protections Reserved © 2015 - Status quo ante bellum.

X George Thomas Brokaw, Date: April 8, 2015 Authorized Agent/Petitioner/Court Administrator

X _________________________________________ Date:______/______/______ Assigned Authorized Agent/Court Administrator (“Friend of the Court”)

Cc: ALLEGED PLAINTIFF(S)

Cc: GOVERNOR, STATE OF COLORADO

Cc: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CLERK

Cc: AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

15

Cc: UNITED STATES POSTMASTER GENERAL

Cc: VATICAN BANK OF SETTLEMENTS

PROOF OF SERVICE

Now comes George Thomas Brokaw, John J. Pawelsi, Mimi M. Vigil, and their “Friend of the Court,” with a COURT ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE OF FRAUD; IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF ERROR, CORAM NOBIS, AND A DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL OR STATE THE PROPER JURISDICTION, along with DEMANDS FOR REMEDIES, to be placed before the CLERK of the COURT of the FEDERAL SUPREME COURT, and the DISTRICT OF COLORADO GOVERNOR, on this, the 31st day of March, in the year 2015 AD.

X _________________________________________ Date:______/______/______ Assigned Authorized Agent/Court Administrator (“Friend of the Court”)

USPS CERTIFED MAIL #______ ______ ______ ______ ______

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL!

16