Subject: – CLAIMANT’S EXEMPTION FROM FEES<\/p>\n
EXHIBIT 010F NOTICE – CLAIMANT’S EXEMPTION FROM FEES<\/p>\n
Claimant has no record or evidence that any fees, court costs,
\npenalties, or any other financial medium is required to be paid,
\nor forfeited, to any court or policing agency without the United
\nStates and within any state of the Union of States.<\/p>\n
ADMIT – Libellee(s) listed within this document admit to the guilt of
\ntort and the breaching of contracts against Claimant under fictional
\nfalsity, a cloak to disguise a collateral undertaking, and malicious
\nvexation by legal process to Claimant’s pain and injury.<\/p>\n
The US Supreme Court has ruled that a natural individual entitled to “The Fee is the statutory creature moving within the fictional This is the fiction of law, wherein the fictional falsities are Fiction. Something is presumed to be true, which is false.<\/p>\n The alleged determination of “commitment cost” of $ _____________ “Although probable cause may not be inferred from malice, malice “Malice is a state of mind and an essential element of action for “The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend See the whole decision: 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 … Continue reading
\nrelief is “entitled to free access….. to its judicial tribunals and
\npublic offices in every State in the Union” (2 Black 620; see also:
\nCrandell vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35). Plaintiff should not be charged
\nfees or costs for the lawful and constitutional right to petition
\nthis court in this matter in which he is entitled to relief, as
\nit appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for
\nfictions and subjects of government, and should not be applied to
\nthe Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief
\n(Hale vs. Henkel,\u00a0201 U.S. 43<\/a>).<\/p>\n
\nfalsity as if it is presumed to be standing as the amortized
\nobligation”. Ryan v Motor Credit Company, 130 J.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d
\n607, 621<\/p>\n
\nperfected by devious means. Read Ballentine’s Law Dictionary.<\/p>\n
\nfor alleged traffic tickets or court costs, fees, or penalties
\nrequires execution as a “cloak to disguise a collateral undertaking”
\nin U.S. Funds and is “malicious vexation by legal process”under the
\ndisguise\/pretense of a “lawful” government to enforce the unwritten
\nMaster – Slave relationship.<\/p>\n
\nmay be inferred from lack of probable cause.” Pauley v. Hall335
\nN. W. 2d 197, 124 Mich App 255.<\/p>\n
\nmalicious prosecution and is to be found by jury from case, and
\nwant of probable cause is the other element of action for malicious
\nprosecution which must be proved by plaintiff.” Lopez v. Modisitt
\n488 F. Supp 119 D. C. 1980.<\/p>\n
\ninto the territorial limits of the states, but have force only
\nin the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the
\nexclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” CAHA v.\u00a0U.S.,<\/a>
\n152 U.S. 211 (1894)<\/p>\n
\n<http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.