Subject: – CLAIMANT’S EXEMPTION FROM FEES
EXHIBIT 010F NOTICE – CLAIMANT’S EXEMPTION FROM FEES
Claimant has no record or evidence that any fees, court costs,
penalties, or any other financial medium is required to be paid,
or forfeited, to any court or policing agency without the United
States and within any state of the Union of States.
ADMIT – Libellee(s) listed within this document admit to the guilt of
tort and the breaching of contracts against Claimant under fictional
falsity, a cloak to disguise a collateral undertaking, and malicious
vexation by legal process to Claimant’s pain and injury.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that a natural individual entitled to
relief is “entitled to free access….. to its judicial tribunals and
public offices in every State in the Union” (2 Black 620; see also:
Crandell vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35). Plaintiff should not be charged
fees or costs for the lawful and constitutional right to petition
this court in this matter in which he is entitled to relief, as
it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for
fictions and subjects of government, and should not be applied to
the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief
(Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43).
“The Fee is the statutory creature moving within the fictional
falsity as if it is presumed to be standing as the amortized
obligation”. Ryan v Motor Credit Company, 130 J.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d
This is the fiction of law, wherein the fictional falsities are
perfected by devious means. Read Ballentine’s Law Dictionary.
Fiction. Something is presumed to be true, which is false.
The alleged determination of “commitment cost” of $ _____________
for alleged traffic tickets or court costs, fees, or penalties
requires execution as a “cloak to disguise a collateral undertaking”
in U.S. Funds and is “malicious vexation by legal process”under the
disguise/pretense of a “lawful” government to enforce the unwritten
Master – Slave relationship.
“Although probable cause may not be inferred from malice, malice
may be inferred from lack of probable cause.” Pauley v. Hall335
N. W. 2d 197, 124 Mich App 255.
“Malice is a state of mind and an essential element of action for
malicious prosecution and is to be found by jury from case, and
want of probable cause is the other element of action for malicious
prosecution which must be proved by plaintiff.” Lopez v. Modisitt
488 F. Supp 119 D. C. 1980.
“The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend
into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only
in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” CAHA v. U.S.,
152 U.S. 211 (1894)
See the whole decision: