UCCPLEA.TXTTEXTMSWD%|%*/ FIRST DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI 324 W. GARDEN AVENUE, P.O. BOX 9000 COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 83816-9000 STATE OF IDAHO, ) CASE NO CR-95-02390 ) NOTICE AND DEMAND Plaintiff ) ) TO ABATE PROSECUTION vs. ) ) FOR LACK OF IN PERSONAM KENNETH B. DE VRIES ) 3505 BELMONT RD ) JURISDICTION COEUR D'ALENE, ID 83814 ) ) Defendant ) 1. Kenneth B. De Vries, hereby challenges the In Personam jurisdiction of this court on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to offer proof that this defendant is subject to the legislative equity jurisdiction in which this court intends to sit to hear and determine only the facts of the matter and not law, arising from a bill of pains and penalties. 2. It is well known that jurisdiction may be challenged at any time as an issue of law, because absent jurisdiction, all acts undertaken under color of statute or ordinance are null and void from their inception. 3. It is a well established principal of law that once challenged, the person asserting jurisdiction must prove that jurisdiction exists as a matter of law. Title 5 of the United States Codes 556(d) states as follows: "When jurisdiction is challenged, the burden of proof is on the government." 4. Because the Accused was compelled under threat of further damage and injury to enter this court to demand relief, this appearance is SPECIAL in nature and not general. 5. This argument is intended to serve as both a defense "At Law" in this Court, and as the basis of future actions should it become necessary to appeal the question presented to a higher authority. 6. This Court is placed on NOTICE, that if it fails to sit and hear this issue "at law" upon a timely request, then you may have violated the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Such an act will serve to place you and the other parties to this action outside the realm of judicial immunity and subject to future action by this Accused Citizen of Idaho. The Prosecutor in this action is specifically placed on NOTICE that he carries no shirttail immunity should he/she continue to prosecute in the absence of a determination "at law" of the question presented herein before trial. ARGUMENT 1. An employee of the of State of Idaho, namely a deputy sheriff, has submitted what amounts to a "Bill of Pains and Penalties" alleging that Kenneth B. De Vries has somewhat failed to perform to some agreement for specific performance. 2. By submitting this Bill of Pains and Penalties, the individual (officer) in question has accused Kenneth B. De Vries of failing to specifically perform to some legislative statute which is being presented as evidence of the law. Statutes are not laws, they are administrative regulations which are civil in nature, even when they carry sanctions of a criminal nature, unless there is an injured party brought forward as a corpus delicti. 3. The Accused, Kenneth B. De Vries, upon being served by said officer, signed the said bill of pains and penalties, under threat of further damage and duress, reserving all rights as stated under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) section 1-207 by signing such bill "without prejudice." 4 By signing such bill of pains and penalties "without prejudice", the Accused reserved all rights under Common Law and reserverd the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or comercial agreement that he did not knowingly, willingly and voluntarily enter into. Furthermore, he does not accept the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement. UCC 1-207 states: "A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not hereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice', 'under protest' or the like are sufficient." UCC 1-207.7 states: "The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel." [emphasis added] 5. The Uniform Comercial Code (UCC), the system of law under which this court intends to try the Accused is intended to be complimentary to the Common Law. UCC 1-103.6 states: "The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." Furthermore1-103.6 states: "the code cannot be used to preclude a common law action." [emphasis added] 6. Common Law requires that this court provide proof of an injured party (corpus delicti) who has filed a verified complaint. Absence of an injured party negates any jurisdiction over the person and property of the Accused. The Accused has excercised the proper remedy in a sufficient, timely and explicit manner under the UCC to reserve his Common Law rights. The court must now construe the statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, the court must come forth with the injured party. 7. Any attempt to try the facts of the case without establishing jurisdiction or providing proof of an injured party would be based on a legal determination on the part of the court that the two sections of the Uniform Comercial Code mentioned above are not valid law before this court. 8. The court is hereby placed on NOTICE that any legal determination of this court that the Uniform Comercial Code is not applicable in this case will be appealed and that any and all officers of this court can be sued under the Common Law for violating the rights of the Accused under the UCC. CONCLUSION 1. Should the prosecution fail to bring forth proof that the Accused, Kenneth B. De Vries, is subject to the jurisdiction of this court by coming forth with an injured party then this court has no alternative but to dismiss this matter of its own motion in the interests of justice for want of jurisdiction. AFFIDAVIT 1. I Kenneth B. De Vries reserve all of my Constitutional and Common Law rights, choosing to surrender none. 2. I have never knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally entered into any contract whereby I have abrogated my Constitutional or Common Law rights. This includes, but is not limited to obtaining a "driver's license". 3. I carry a "driver's license" under threat, duress and coercion. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Respectfully submitted September 25, 1995 With full reservation of rights and without prejudice, UCC 1-207 _______________________ Kenneth B. De Vries