Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss

8/14/2019 Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss

1/8

william duff Page 1 12/30/2008

IN THE 7TH JUDICI AL CI RCUI T COURT OF M I SSOURI1COUNTY OF CLAY - DIV I SI ON 22

3

William Duff, ) CASE NO. 07CY-CV061254Plaintiff, )5

) ACTI ON6v. ) FOR TRESPASS, AND7

) TRESPASSON THE CASE8OFFICER WILLI AM FRAZIER, (SERI AL 3092) )9

AND )10OFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL # 4090) ) VERIFIED11

Defendants. )1213

SUGGESTI ONSFOR MOTI ON TO DENY DEFENDANT M OTI ONSFOR DI SM I SSAL -14

Filed after 8-16-071516

BACKGROUND1718

Plaintiff, not waiving his right to default judgment in this case, if any is forthcoming, recognizes the19

need for the premises of this controversy to be clear and understandable and that it is long overdue for20

the Missouri Attorney Generals office to provide a substantive and complete and competent opinion21

regarding the nature of the freedom of the people and specifically Plaintiff, within Missouri, takes up22

the issues presented by the learned Assistant Attorney General and her motions to dismiss and invites23

same to show by what authority the City and State profess to act respecting the controversy now before24

this court respecting Plaintiffs Right of Action emanating from his own private domain vs. The25

City/States Right to enforce regulations emanating from its public domain.26

27

Plaintiff contends and has adequately represented in the documents filed in this case; identifying the28

Law, the Principals of Freedom and Self Governance and the attending Rights of Action associated29

with his Life, his Liberty and his Property, all being solely within his own private domain, and that30

same are superior to statutory rights of governments respecting the attending premise and are at the31

heart of this controversy, to wit;32

33

Plaintiffs Affidavit of Citizenship Status (exhibit D filed in this action and entered here as if written in34

full) fairly describes, and supports with Law and Principles of this society, the bright line boundary35

existing around his own private domain, within which he possesses sole Dominion, and across which36

the public domain of the State, city, and county or their agents may not intrude upon without Plaintiffs37

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/


2/8


CONSENT or evidence of his injury to another's person or property (bad act). To do so would be an38

injury to plaintiff. As such, there exists no Lawful authority for the State/City or its agents to trespass39

into plaintiffs own private domain against his will or without his bad act that could activate a public40

domain interest, even if it appears to some that such trespass might well be a GOOD I DEA.41

42

ANALOGY; The one Law of this Society no one is excused not to know is; We have agreed43

not to harm (injure) one another. In comprehension of that law, Plaintiffs neighbor has no44

lawful authority to trespass upon plaintiffs own private domain without injuring plaintiff. Nor45

does plaintiffs neighbor enhance his lawful authority or lawful capacity to act in this regard by46

combining his lawful authority with others in this society through the democratic process, in47that all those other neighbors also dont possess the lawful authority to injure Plaintiff. If an48

individual could not compel plaintiff to comply with his will without injuring plaintiff, under49

no circumstances could a collection of his equals (peers) do so without injuring Plaintiff. And50

further, that collective could not lawfully hire an agent to take that action on their behalf51

without injuring Plaintiff. Since the state/city acquire all of its power and public domain from52

the collective people themselves (as hired agents), through the democratic elements of our53

society, The State/City also could not possibly have lawful authority to trespass upon Plaintiffs54

own private domain without injuring Plaintiff, in that the collective people did not have that55

power to grant to its agent as a lawful form of action where the action injures one of the people56

the State was instituted to secure the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property of the people57

themselves, not even if the collective believed that grant to be a GOOD IDEA. This58

principle operates in the same way and for the very same reasons respecting a state/citys59

attempted trespass upon the public Domain of the Federal Government. Federal Supreme60

Court decisions are replete with cases denying the state such trespass. (see in-depth reasoning61

of private vs. public domain at www.williamduff.com ) The State cannot claim it doesnt62

understand this principle and at the same time expect to be taken seriously.63

64

Obviously, Plaintiff does not consent respecting defendants charges and actions, nor have defendants65

asserted that plaintiff has injured anyone or thing. Those facts are material to this controversy and66

made unassailable by defendants own admissions. The offices held by defendants possessed of no67

lawful authority to exceed its Lawful bounds, and no capacity to do so, save the choices of action made68

http://www.williamduff.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.williamduff.com/


3/8


by the holder of that office; the defendants. It is manifest to plaintiff that defendants had to have69

vacated their offices in order to perform the acts complained of here.70

71

Plaintiff claims to possess Sovereign Immunity from the charges by defendants respecting the actions72

defendants complain of, and plaintiff so stated and noticed these facts to defendants prior to defendants73

bad acts (see Exhibit A of Plaintiffs action) and to the muni court in which defendants sought remedy74

for the charges they made (see plaintiffs answer to the charges) and in plaintiffs Notice and Demand,75

also filed as exhibit in this action. As such, defendants acts must clearly be willful and wanton if in76

fact the actions complained of by defendants are actually rights of action belonging to plaintiff as77

plaintiff contends.7879

Plaintiffs action sits to determine that very question. A mere claim of a statutory authority by the80

State is not sufficient evidence that the State actually possesses the authority claimed. When a81

reasonable challenge by one of the people is made to the States/Cities authority that challenge82

necessarily implicates an action in the nature of a Writ of Quo Warranto; Show by what authority83

does the State/City acts. A statutory claim, would not meet that duty. A statute is a claim by the State84

of authority. It is not proof of the authority itself.85

86

Should defendants wish to claim they were compelled in their bad acts by other office holders, this87

Plaintiff will accept affidavits from each defendant naming those office holders and plaintiff will88

gladly add them as defendants in this action seeking trespass on the case or vicarious liability.89

90

REBUTTAL91

92

Plaintiff invites this court to take cognizance of the facts and law applicable to this case as contained93

herein and in all the documents heretofore filed in this action by plaintiff and that filed as Answer to94

charges brought by defendants in the Muni Court of Kansas City, Mo. and all are entered here as if95

written in full.96

97

Defendants Motion to dismiss (1) fails to comprehend the nature of this action and (2) wrongly98

presumes the muni court to have jurisdiction of the person of this Plaintiff and the subject matter,99



4/8


excepting, of course, by unlawful usurpation attended by force of arms. As such, the sufficiency of100

defendants pleading is wanting, to wit;101

102

(1) This action seeks damages for injuries done by defendants in that the injurious acts exceeded103

the authority of the office of trust they held and were therefore a colorable assertion of104

authority. This action also seeks, in the nature of Quo Warranto, a clear statement of; By what105

Lawful Authority defendants claim to have acted? That element alone would stay the muni106

proceedings until that question is explored and adjudicated.107

(2) This action seeks to assert Plaintiffs Right of Action as is referenced above and in the108

documents filed in this case. This action makes no attempt to diminish the Municipal Courts109lawful jurisdiction but only to determine the Rights of Plaintiff. The Municipal Court does not110

have the will, means, or authority to do so in its limited and inferior nature. The Rights of111

action being adjudicated in this court of record must first be decided before it can be assumed112

that the city possesses lawful authority to proceed in said Municipal Action. The State of113

Missouris Judiciary has never adequately explored the premise presented here, though the114

judiciary claims to have settled the issue. If plaintiff is wrong I invite proof to the contrary.115

Defendants motion for dismissal fails to comprehend these unassailable facts.116

(3) In rebuttal of defendants factual background, defendants assertions, and all of them are in117

error and obviously only serves as an attempt to obscure Plaintiffs bright line boundary118

guarding his domain so that persons holding an office of trust have a plausible but wholly119

unlawful cover story for entering into Plaintiffs domain for the purpose of diminishing his120

dominion thereof, to wit: plaintiff denies that he resides in Kansas City when that term is121

legalese for him being a United States citizen residing anywhere. He is not and therefore122

does not, He exists within his own private property at all times relevant to this action as has123

been carefully described throughout the documents filed in this case. Defendants and their124

superiors have never provided any competent evidence to the contrary. Cities, counties and125

State office holders merely make the claim of authority, as defendants have done here, without126

any competent proof whatsoever that the claim is actually within their grant of power, and127

typically whatever court is hearing the matter accepts the claim on its face as evidence without128

proof. This act alone injures plaintiff especially when he provides unassailable, competent129

evidence of the facts he provides. Defendants facts are merely claims with nothing to support130



5/8


6/8


As an anecdote, Plaintiff recognizes defendants demur and is grateful for the admissions to all facts162alleged herein.163

164

COGNIZANCE REQUESTED:165166

Defendants, by and through their attorney and their first motion to dismiss have provided admission to167

all the facts alleged by Plaintiff in this action. Further, it appears that the law is the only remaining168

issue. Plaintiff also invites this court to take cognizance of the fact that defendants have provided no169

law in this case that would or even could assail the law provided by Plaintiff in that, all cases cited by170

defendants emanate from a democratic process supporting a statutory jurisdiction that fails to171

comprehend, let alone, rebut the subject matter at issue.172

173

Defendants, by and through their attorney and their motion to dismiss replevin, have again asserted174

authorities applicable only to people operating according to State license and all the cases cited reflect175

that fact. Plaintiff has demonstrated he does not operate his domain according to State license.176

Defendants also fail to show an ownership interest in Plaintiffs 1996 Buick, by the State, that could177

alter Plaintiffs right to own all; right, title and interest, in said property nor that the person who178

claimed to own all right title and interest therein and who passed same to Plaintiff either did not so179

own. Defendants have failed to provide any competent evidence that Plaintiff operates or is compelled180to operate according to State license respecting his use of his Rights to Liberty and property or that181

plaintiff has no right to contract with others respecting his property. Defendants make claims but182

provide no substantial proof in support.183

184

AND THERE I S THE I SSUE AT CONTROVERSY; By What authority. Not Claim of185

authority (statute, decisional law upon statutes). But By what authority does the state claim to186

determine, compel or prohibit Plaintiffs choice of use of Plaintiffs private property that exists solely187

within plaintiffs domain within which only Plaintiff owns and possesses sole dominion, and where188

plaintiff has caused injury to no other. When the Attorney Generals office provides competent189

evidence that comprehends and answers this simple question in favor of the State, Plaintiff will cease190

being a legal burden on this society and seek a society that actually comprehends and respects the191

principles of freedom and protection of Rights to Life, Liberty and Property this society was founded192

on.193

194



7/8


IN SUMMARY;195

196

Defendants, twice now, have declared plaintiffs action fails to state a claim upon which relief could197

be granted, and twice now, have supported their arguments with court decisions whos subject matter198

represents people acting in accordance with State License or permission to do something. Even though199

the documents, evidence and assertions filed in this action scream; BY WHAT AUTHORITY200

SHOULD A FREE MAN (specifically plaintiff) BE COMPELLED TO GET STATE LICENSE FOR201

ACTS PERFORMED WITHIN HIS OWN PRIVATE DOMAN THAT INJURE NO ONE?.202

Defendants continue to cite rules and rulings that comprehend only what one can do in accordance203

with State License. Defendant makes no attempt to answer the central question posed in this action.204Further, defendants consistently use evidences this court could not take cognizance of ,even if it were205

inclined to do so, in that all comprehend a statutory jurisdiction, foreign to the jurisdiction of this court206

and which fail to comprehend protected common law rights of plaintiff.1

Defendants have failed or207

refused to address this subject matter, from its outset. Defendants imply that a State interest exists in208

the property and rights being adjudicated here but finish short of defining exactly what that interest is.209

Conversely, plaintiff has carefully outlined and defined each interest in detail, which by their premise210

fully support plaintiffs claim of Dominion over his private domain. As such it is defendant who fails211

to state a defense this court could provide remedy for, not plaintiff. If fraud is to be found in actions of212

the parties, it is defendants who embrace it, not plaintiff.213

214WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this court to deny Defendants Motions to Dismiss for good cause215shown and for all other consideration this court can and should provide.216

217218

219

1 Article 34 of the Magna Carta (Great Charter of freedom that was made the law of this land

by the Framers of our Constitution and is therefore part of the birthright of every American)34. Henceforth the writ which is called Pr aecipe shall not be ser ved on any one for any holdi ngso as to cause a fr ee man to l ose his cour t.("Praecipe" = order to show cause againstproperty. "Rights" are property. A freeman (i.e. nobleman) hashisown land and people(slaves). The king may not forcea nobleman into the kings court in such a way that thenobleman would bedeprived of hisown court.) Assuch, failure to state a claim isnotavailable in a court of record proceeding according to the common law in thiscasebecause theentire subject matter is contained within plaintiffsdomain.



8/8


____________________ Date _______220William Duff221

Plaintiff222223

Cc: William Duff to: [email protected],224William Frazier and Alan Roth to: 1001 NW Barry Rd. Place225Kansas City, Missouri C/O KCMO Police Department North Division226

EMILY A. DODGE Assistant Attorney General at; [email protected] and227

[email protected]


Documents

Rebuttal to Def Mot to Dismiss