Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
(ATLANTA DIVISION)

Jason Joseph Clark,

Tamah Jada Clark (both on their own
behalf and that of "Baby" Clark),
Plaintiffs

v.
DANIEL J. PORTER, et aI.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

fILED \1'1 CLERK'S OFFtCE.

U.S. D .C . Atlanta

1: 14-cv-02128-WBH
Civil Action No.- - - -

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO DENY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXCESS PAGES AND TO DENY

DEFENDANTS' PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS==(ACCOMPANIED

BY A BRIEFIMEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF)

In a "Motion for Excess Pages" dated September 15, 2014, defendants (Daniel
Porter, Governor Nathan Deal, Judge Thomas Davis Jr., Attorney General Sam
Olens, Secretary ofState Brian Kemp, Commissioner Brian Owens, Warden
Stanley Williams, D 'Anna Liber, Brian Bellamy, Georgia Department of
Corrections, and the State ofGeorgia--collectively, "Defendants"; by and through
their attorney, Ms. Deborah Nolan Gore), have expressly declared their intent to

Pg.lof4

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 2 of 24

produce a pre-answer aMotion to Dismiss" the current action, specifically based

upon the following notions: alack ofjurisdiction, failure to state a claim, sovereign
immunity, absolute judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, and qualified
immunity ".

COME NOW Plaintiffs and move this Court to DENY Defendants' "Motion for
Excess Pages", as well as Defendants' intended pre-answer "Motion to Dismiss",
for the following reasons:
1) Defendants' intended pre-answer "Motion to Dismiss", according to they
themselves, is based upon their claim to various forms of immunity
(sovereign, absolute judicial, prosecutorial, and qualified); and upon their
intended claimsl"defenses" of lack ofjurisdiction and failure to state a
claim-all of which "defenses"/claims are invalid and do not apply. In the
accompanying Brief/Memorandum, Plaintiffs will address the invalidity and
absurdity of Defendants' intended claims and "defenses" and demonstrate
their inapplicability to the present action.

Pg. 2of4

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 3 of 24

2) Defendants' "Motion for Excess Pages" could only be justifiable if their

intended "Motion to Dismiss" contained the possibility of validity, but does
not-which again, Plaintiffs will demonstrate in the accompanying
BrieflMemorandum in support of the present Plaintiffs' Motion.

As it now stands, based solely upon information about Defendants' intended

claims of defense provided by Defendants themselves, Defendants' intended
"defenses" are entirely meritless and the resulting "Motion to Dismiss" and
proposed Brief in support thereof in access of 25 pages only have the possibility of
sharing in that quality of mertilessness.

WHEREFORE,

In the interest of time, expenses, Justice, and preservation of everyone's

(Plaintiffs', Defendants', and the Court's) dignity, in an attempt to eliminate the
burden of unnecessary expenses and time allotment that would be needlessly
consumed in entertaining Defendants' said meritless claims, Plaintiffs respectfully
request that the Court grant this Motion. A proposed Order is attached hereto.

Pg. 30f4

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 4 of 24

RESPECTFULLY.
For the UNREPRESENTED Plaintiffs,

(Signed Friday, September 19,2014).

Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark

6901-A N. 9th Ave #429
Pensacola Florida [32504]
(850) 512-6642
[email protected]

Pg. 4of4

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 5 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
(ATLANTA DIVISION)

Jason Joseph Clark,

Tamah Jada Clark (both on their own
behalf and that of "Baby" Clark),

Plaintiffs

v.
DANIEL J. PORTER, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1: l4-cv-02128-WBH
Civil Action No.' - - - -

Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
FOR

PLAINTIFFS'MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXCESS

PAGES AND TO DENY DEFENDANTS' PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO

DISMISS

I, Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark for the UNREPRESENTED Plaintiffs, hereby affirm
that a true and correct copy of the above-mentioned Plaintiffs' Motion has been
served on Attorney Deborah Nolan Gore for defendants Daniel Porter, Governor
Nathan Deal, Judge Thomas Davis Jr., Attorney General Sam Olens, Secretary of
State Brian Kemp, Commissioner Brian Owens, Warden Stanley Williams,
Pg.lof2

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 6 of 24

D'Anna Liber, Brian Bellamy, Georgia Department of Corrections, and the State
of Georgia; at her last known address of:

Attorney Deborah Nolan Gore

40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Ga 30334-1300

fOl3 '2...250

q::o,_ 4493 '"1-135

CCE,t-\-if'iEd MB\1:\f :J

In addition, the same true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Motion has been
provided to Attorney Douglas Stuart Morelli (for defendants Charles M. Walters,
Butch Conway, Tracy Goodbar, Christa Kendrick, Gwinnett County, and Gwinnett
County Police Department); as well Attorney Raleigh W. Rollins (for defendants
Mitchell County and Camilla Police Department) at their last known addresses
(respectively):
Attorney Douglas Stuart Morelli
75 Langley Drive
QQ
Lawrencevilla GA 30046

%13 22.50 cp:J' L./4TJ

Ccr\\ ~\6d MOl\ ttJ

-AND<r711l~

..,- \.J

lc.rtTtt'td

For the UNREPRESENTED Plaintiffs,

Tamah Jada Clark

Ph: (850) 512-6642

E-mail: [email protected]

6901-AN. 9th Ave #429

Pensacola, Fla [32504]

Attorney Raleigh W. Rollins

Alexander & Vann, LLP
411 Gordon Avenue
I rrJ.tt:2.
Thomasville, GA 31792
~\ '3 'Z-ZSO 0::0\ 4""tT..J

}J8i1-=\tJ

X:

Signed Friday, Septe

Pg. 2of2

"15./)

....,..

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 7 of 24

!\\\k\'$ OH\Ct
DECENtJ) \~ C\;~ j\uenta
U.S.O,C,

l'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4: 1.0'4
FOR THE
C\~RTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

~
~~;~
St.?

(ATLANTA DMSION)

Jason Joseph Clark,

Tamah Jada Clark (both on their own
behalf and that of "Baby" Clark),
Plaintiffs

v.
DANIEL J. PORTER, et aI.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1: 14-cv-02128-WBH
Civil Action No.~_ _ __

Defendants
ORDER

Having duly considered the matter before the Court and for good cause shown, it is
hereby ordered that the "Motion for Excess Pages" by defendants Daniel Porter,
Governor Nathan Deal, Judge Thomas Davis Jr., Attorney General Sam Olens,
Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Commissioner Brian Owens, Warden Stanley
Williams, D'Anna Liber, Brian Bellamy, Georgia Department of Corrections, and
the State of Georgia-collectively, "Defendants"; by and through their attorney,
Ms. Deborah Nolan Gore, be and is DENIED. It is further ordered that
Defendants' intended "Motion to Dismiss" based upon claims of sovereign
immunity, absolute judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity,
Pg.lof2

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 8 of 24

lack ofjurisdiction, and/or failure to state a claim is meritless; and upon

presentation of such a Motion to this Court, it will also be DENIED.

So ordered this _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _-', 2014.

Judge Willis B. Hunt, Jr.

United States District Senior Judge

Pg. 2of2

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 9 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

(ATLANTA DIVISION)

Jason Joseph Clark,

Tamah Jada Clark (both on their own
behalf and that of "Baby" Clark),
Plaintiffs

v.
DANIEL J. PORTER, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE

U.S,D,C. Atlanta

SEP 24 2014
JAM~.aTTE~, CLERK

BY:U.~~I

1: 14-cv-02128-WBH
Civil Action No.- - - -

Defendants
PLAINTIFFS' BRIEFIMEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR EXCESS PAGES AND TO DENY DEFENDANTS' PRE

ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS

In the Original Complaint [Amended] July 15, 2014 that commenced the present
action, there was attached a 38-page document entitled <Exhibit A', which was
made part ofsaid pleading for all purposes, pursuant Federal Rules ofCivil
Procedure 10(c). In said Exhibit, Plaintiffs took special care to diligently and
meticulously lay the explanatory foundations for the validity ofall claims against
Defendants; and in doing so, also spelled out the legal proofdemonstrating why

Pg.1of14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 10 of 24

Defendants cannot exert any form ofimmunity in the present action. Nevertheless,
defendants Daniel Porter, Governor Nathan Deal, Judge Thomas Davis Jr.,
Attorney General Sam Olens, Secretary ofState Brian Kemp, Commissioner Brian
Owens, Warden Stanley Williams, D 'Anna Liber, Brian Bellamy, Georgia
Department ofCorrections, and the State ofGeorgia-collectively, "Defendants"(
by and through their attorney, Ms. Deborah Nolan Gore) have stated their intent to
utilize [invalid] claims ofimmunity and other meritless defenses to include lack of
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, in order to UNLA WFULLY have the
present action dismissed.

COME NOW Plaintiffs to reiterate that which has already been expounded in
'Exhibit A' of the Original Pleading [Amended] July 15, 2014; that We, the
Plaintiffs, may prevent a grave and blatant miscarriage ofjustice against us at the
hands of the Court and the above-named Defendants.

1) ORGANIC LAWS AND SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

FIRSTLY, let it be openly declared and silently and incontestably agreed upon
that the Declaration of Independence-1776, the Articles of Confederation-1777,

Pg. 2 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 11 of 24

and the United States Constitution-1787 form part of the Organic Law of the
United States; and that the United States Constitution-l 787, as well as the treaties
and laws made in pursuance thereof are the Supreme Law of the Land.
In the Declaration ofIndependence----1776, it is established that the former
British Colonies become free and independent states, meaning that they are also
free and independent sovereignties. (See Declaration ofIndependence----1776).
Said free and independent sovereignties then decide to associate into a
Confederacy styled "The United States of America"l, with each maintaining its
sovereignty and independence2
Thus, the United States of America, from their very inception, have always
been a conglomerate of independent states united, for certain purposes, into one.
However, it was contended that the U.S. Congress lacked sufficient authority to
carry out the purposes for which it was established (under the Articles of
Confederation) resulting in embarrassment before the world, and thus there was
proposed a new charter that provided for a more strengthened centralized
governing body that was empowered to act upon not only the states, but also upon

liThe style of this confederacy shall be, liThe United States of America./I Article I. Articles of Confederation (1777).
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is
not by this confederation, expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." Article II. Articles of
Confederation (1777).
1

Pg. 3 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 12 of 24

the citizens of the several states. The newly created United States Constitution of
1787, ("U.S. Constitution"), created a centralized government that was, for the first
time, both federal AND national in nature, meaning it could act upon both the
states in their political capacities, as well as upon the state citizens3-though ~
LIMITED in its scope of action4 .

a)

GUARANTEED UNALIENABLE RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Theretofore, derivatives of the English Common Law was the Supreme Law of
the Land in the several states; but, with the acceptance of the U.S. Constitution,
said Charter (along with treaties and laws made in pursuance thereof) was to
become the Supreme Law of the Land. Needless to say, this made the state citizens
very nervous. Thus, to guarantee unto the state citizens the protection of their
unalienable rights from encroachment by tyrannical and overly-centralized and

3 liThe difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies
composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the
nation, in their individual capacities." Federalist Paper No. 39. The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles.
by James Madison (1788).
4 "The government thus established and defined is to some extent a government of the States in their political
capacity. It is also, for certain purposes, a government of the people. Its powers are limited in number, but not in
degree. Within the scope of its powers, as enumerated and defined [in the Constitution], it is supreme and above
the States; but beyond, it has no existence [and no authority]." United States v. Cruikshank. 92 United States. 542.
(1875).

Pg. 4 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 13 of 24

oppressive government as had been experienced under the King of Great Britainfor which their forefathers and foremothers courageously fought and died-, there
was instituted within the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Now, the U.S.
Constitution did not do away with the state constitutions or sovereignty5, to the
contrary, it granted the Union Government! U.S. Federal Government the ability to
carry out the specific functions for which it had been established, as delineated in
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, subject to the limitations placed upon
it in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.
Bear in mind that the U.S. Constitution was set-up by the existing freemen, also
known as the former subjects of the King of Great Britain before the Colonies
gained independence from the same, and was NOT set-up by non-existent "citizens
of the United States"-a status that would not come into existence until nearly a
century later, with the passage of the 14th article of amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Accordingly, the U.S. Constitution does not grant rights to freemen,
it guarantees them from encroachment by the U.S. Federal government, its
agencies, agents, citizens, employees, and all other "U.S. persons".
liThe people of the United States reSident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the
other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does
not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole,
and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their
rights at home and abroad." United States v. Cruikshank. 92 United States, 542. (1875).
5

Pg. 50f14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 14 of 24

b)

CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AS A LEGAL STATUS

The earlier United States Supreme Court has held time and time again that the
term "Citizen of the United States" as used in the earlier parts of the U.S.
Constitution prior to the passage of the 14th article of amendment DOES NOT have
the same meaning as "citizen of the United States" does, as used in the U.S.
Constitution after the passage of said Amendment.
As stated verbatim in 'Exhibit A' of the Original Pleading [Amended] July 15,
2014:

"Prior to the ratification and addition ofthe 11h article ofamendment to

the U.S. Constitution, there was no legal definition ofthe term "citizen ofthe
United States'P 7; whereas United States citizenship theretofore implied
citizenship in one ofthe several Statel ofthe organic American Union, as it
existed before the War Between the States (1861-1865)-also known as the
American Civil War. 9 "
liThe first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a
definition of citizenship-not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition
was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress."
Slaughter-House Cases. 16 Wallace. 36. (1872).
7 "By the original [organic] Constitution, citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a
state. By this clause [found in U.S. Constitution, Article XIV, Section 1] this order of things is reversed. Citizenship in
the United States is defined; it is made independent of citizenship in a state, and citizenship in a state is a result of
citizenship in the United States. So that a person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its
jurisdiction, is, without reference to state constitutions or laws, entitled to all the privileges and immunities
secured by the Constitution of the United States to citizens thereof." U.S. v. Hall, (1871) 3 Chicago Leg. N. 260. 26
Fed. Cas. No. 15.282.
8 itA state [ofthe organic American Union] does not owe its origin to the Government ofthe United States, in the
highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and
sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people". Chisholm v. Georgia. 2 Dallas 419
{1793}.
9 "prior to the adoption of this [fourteenth] amendment, strictly speaking, there were no citizens of the United
States, but only of some one of them. Congress had the power 'to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,' but
6

Pg. 6of14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 15 of 24

Thus, "citizen of the United States" is a LEGAL STATUS-not an inherent

attribute ofjust being born on the land mass known as the United States. Said
legal status indicates that one falls under the protection and jurisdictional
purview of the United States Federal Government as opposed to one of the
governments and constitutions of the several states. This status was intended for
former slaves and/or federal agents and employees, but it has become common
place for it to be unlawfully applied to ALL Americans. (See 'Exhibit A' of
Original Pleading [Amended] July 15,2014 for further explanation and details
as to how this has occurred).

c) POSTERITY OF THE FREEMEN ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE U.S.

CONSTITUTION; NOT "CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES"

The phrase "We, the people" as used in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution
refers to FREEMEN-who were the former subjects of the King of Great Britain
before gaining their independence during the American Revolution-not "citizens

not the power to make a naturalized alien a citizen of any state. But the states generally provided that such
persons might, on sufficient residence therein, become citizens thereof, and then the courts held, ab convenienti,
rather than otherwise, that they became ipso facto citizens of the United States. But the amendment declares the
law positively on the subject, and reverses this order of procedure, by making citizenship of a state consequent on
citizenship of the United States; for, having declared what persons are citizens of the United States, it does not
stop there, and leave it in the power of a state to exclude any such person who may reside therein from its
citizenship, but adds, 'and such persons shall also be citizens of the state wherein they reside.'" Sharon v. Hill,
(1885) 26 Fed. 343.

Pg. 7 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 16 of 24

of the United States". Remember, the legal status "citizen of the United States"
was created in 1868 by and through the 14th amendment, which was 81 years
AFTER the U.S. Constitution was established, and said persons are NOT the
posterity (legally-speaking/in the eyes of the law) of the freemen who erected the
Constitution or the several states united thereby-nor were they in contemplation
when said Great Charter came into being.

ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE PRESENT ACTION ARE "CITIZENS

OF THE UNITED STATES". (See current defacto Constitution of Georgia and
Georgia Code Annotated).

2) [SACRED] OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE U.S.

CONSTITUTION

SECONDLY, let it be openly declared and silently and incontestably agreed

upon that ALL members of the Court (including presiding Judge Willis B. Hunt,
Jr.) and ALL Defendants (as well as their attorney, Ms. Deborah Nolan Gore) have
sworn a [sacred] oath to UPHOLD and DEFEND the United States Constitution of

Pg. 8 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 17 of 24

1787. Therefore, EVERYTHING that takes place in the present action must be in
accordance with the dictates of said Great Charter-all else is simply unlawful and
the perpetrator will have knowingly and intentionally committed grave act( s) of
treason, sedition, and fraud of the most heinous nature in a despicable attempt to
subvert the bestowal of long overdue Justice in behalf of Plaintiffs.

a) NON-JUSTICIABLE NATURE OF POLITICAL MATTERS:

Citizenship and nationality are wholly POLITICAL choices that can ONLY be
made by one for him or herself. Ergo, Attorney Deborah Nolan Gore (on behalf of
Defendants), cannot make ANY determination as to the political status, affiliation,
or allegiance of neither myself (Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark, Plaintiff) nor my husband
(Mr. Jason Joseph Clark, Plaintiff), or our child ("Baby" Clark, underage Plaintiff).
Citizenship and nationality are UNOBJECTIONABLY non-justiciable political
matters and not legal questions that fall within the jurisdictional purview of any
court, including this Court.
Plaintiffs have already clearly and expressly stated on the record for the Court,
their self-proclaimed political allegiance and affiliations-which are explicitly and
specifically exclusive of United States citizenship or nationality as defined at 8
Pg. 9 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 18 of 24

U.S.C. 110l(a)(22). The Court and the aforementioned Defendants by and

through their attorney, Ms. Deborah Nolan Gore, are without leave and without
authority to proceed with any discussion or determination as to Plaintiffs' political
status (namely, citizenship and nationality); any attempt to do so would be
unlawful, as compelled association is recognized as being unacceptable and
unlawful by civilized nations worldwide. Once more, Plaintiffs are FloridianAmerican foreign nationals (with respect to the current United States),
recognizable as freemen under the organic Constitution for the United States of
America REPUBLIC [8 U.S.C. 110l(a)(2l)], and are more than capable and
prepared to further explain this concept upon request.

b) SOVEREIGNTY AND ASSOCIATED IMMUNITIES CANNOT BE PROCLAIMED IN THE

ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION:

There can be no claim of immunity or other similar defense when a given party
has acted without lawful authority. For instance, it is an impossibility for the
President of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Xi Jinping, to go to the Russian
Federation (commonly referred to as "Russia") of his own volition and set up
tribunals that issue judgments that in tum result in incarcerations. Because Mr. Xi

Pg. 10 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 19 of 24

Jinping does not exercise lawful sovereignty over the Russian socio-political
territory (or its de jure people), he could not-upon being presented with legal
complaints against him for his [entirely hypothetical] actions in Russia-make any
claim of sovereign immunity, absolute judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity,
or qualified immunity. And any attempt to do so would be an outright laughable
absurdity on his part. Furthermore, before he could raise ANY defense of
immunity of any kind, he would first need to prove the legitimacy of his actions by
establishing that he had lawful authority to act in the first place.
Similarly, Defendants cannot exert any claims of immunity where they have
acted outside of their lawfully granted authority. In this instance, because the

current State of Georgia (body politic) is composed of a "U.S. nationals" citizenry

that was not in contemplation at the time of the birth of the Constitution of the
United States of America Republic, and are thus, NOT the beneficiaries of said
Great Charter or the Trust contained therein; Defendants' only viable method of
obtaining authority over otherwise free men and women in the state territories
recognizable under said Charter, is through their consent-plain and simple. In
essence, because they are not the lawful posterity of the freemen that erected the
State of Georgia (body politic) cognizable under the organic Constitution for the
U.S. Republic and are instead an extension of the federal-corporate-political
Pg. 11 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 20 of 24

(quasi-de/acto) United States Government, a large majority of the actions

perpetrated by said U.S. persons is done in commerce-through contractual nexus,
which serve as the medium through which millions of Americans unknowingly and
grudgingly enter into the realm of private intemationallaw.

c) THERE IS NO IMMUNITY AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS

This entire action is centered upon the fact that Defendants have acted upon
freemen, without lawful authority to do so. For Defendants to prove otherwise is an
impossible feat, as it requires that Defendants first prove that they had lawfully
obtained Plaintiffs' consent to interact with their various agents and agencies-in
the absence of fraud, deceit, or other misrepresentations, etc., free from threat,
force or coercion, and with full disclosure as to the terms and conditions of
transacting business with them.
Transacting business in a land in which Defendants are not lawfully exercising
power on behalf of the lawful sovereignty implies they are acting in the capacity of
a private person, in the absence of sovereignty and the immunities attached thereto.
They are NOT the sovereignty in the State of Georgia territory-they are merely

Pg.12 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 21 of 24

seditious RESIDENTS, and there is NO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (or other

immunity) available to them at this time.

d) OTHER MERTILESS CLAIMS AND "DEFENSES" OF DEFENDANTS

In addition to the now-invalidated claims of immunity in its various forms,
Defendants have also conjectured that We, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and that the Court lacks jurisdiction.
However, Plaintiffs have not failed to state a claim; Defendants have FAILED to
understand the statement of claim-which is a personal problem that they need to
figure out on their own time and at their own expense. Furthermore, the Court does
not lack jurisdiction; to the contrary, the Court has more jurisdiction and authority
over Defendants and the state that they belong to than they and their attorney Ms.
Deborah Nolan Gore could ever dream.

IN CONCLUSION
There is no need to entertain Defendants' "Motion for Excess Pages" or their pre
answer "Motion to Dismiss" based on claims of immunity, lack ofjurisdiction, or
Pg.13 of 14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 22 of 24

failure to state a claim, as all of these meritless "defenses" are a frivolous waste of
everyone's time and resources. All the while, Plaintiffs are and have been, for

FIVE (5) years, suffering irreparable damage as a result of the offenses committed
against them by Defendants. Granting the aforementioned motions would only
serve to prolong the carriage of Justice that is long overdue in Plaintiffs' behalf.
RESPECTFULLY,
For the UNREPRESENTED Plaintiffs,

(Signed Friday, September 19, 2014).

~A {l()(U

Jj~ Jada Clark O~'

6901-A N. 9 th Ave #429

Pensacola Florida [32504]
(850) 512-6642
[email protected]

CERTIFICATION REGARDING PAGE AND TYPE LIMITATIONS

I, Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark, hereby certify that this briefwas written in 14-point
Times New Roman font.
Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark
6901-A N. 9 th Ave #429
Pensacola Florida [32504]
(850) 512-6642
[email protected]
Pg.14of14

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 23 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

(ATLANTA DIVISION)

Jason Joseph Clark,

Tamah Jada Clark (both on their own
behalf and that of ''Baby'' Clark),
Plaintiffs
v.
DANIEL J. PORTER, et aI.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

I : I 4-cv-021 28-WBH
Civil Action No.' - - - -

Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
FOR
PLAINTIFFS' BRlEFIMEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXCESS PAGES AND

TO DENY DEFENDANTS' PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS

I, Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark for the UNREPRESENTED Plaintiffs, hereby affirm
that a true and correct copy of the above-mentioned Plaintiffs'

BrieflMemorandum has been served on Attorney Deborah Nolan Gore for

defendants Daniel Porter, Governor Nathan Deal, Judge Thomas Davis Jr.,
Attorney General Sam Olens, Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Commissioner Brian
Pg.lof2

Case 1:14-cv-02128-WBH Document 32 Filed 09/24/14 Page 24 of 24

Owens, Warden Stanley Williams, D'Anna Liber, Brian Bellamy, Georgia

Department of Corrections, and the State of Georgia; at her last known address of :

Attorney Deborah Nolan Gore

40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Ga 30334-1300
7013 2250 0001 4473 7138

In addition, the same true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' BriefIMemorandum has
been provided to Attorney Douglas Stuart Morelli (for defendants Charles M.
Walters, Butch Conway, Tracy Goodbar, Christa Kendrick, Gwinnett County, and
Gwinnett County Police Department); as well Attorney Raleigh W. Rollins (for
defendants Mitchell County and Camilla Police Department) at their last known
addresses (respectively):
Attorney Douglas Stuart Morelli
75 Langley Drive
Lawrencevilla GA 30046

-AND-

7013 2250 0001 4473 7145

7013 2250 0001 4473 7152

For the UNREPRESENTED Plaintiffs,

Mrs. Tamah Jada Clark

Ph: (850) 512-6642
E-mail: [email protected]
6901-A N. 9th Ave # 429
Pensacola, Fla [32504]

Attorney Raleigh W. Rollins

Alexander & Vann, LLP
411 Gordon Avenue
Thomasville, GA 31792

Signed Friday, September 19, 2014

Pg. 2of2

Clark et al v. Porter et al, Docket No. 1:14-cv-02128 (N.D. Ga. Jul 03, 2014), Court Docket

General Information

Court

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia;

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Federal Nature of Suit

Civil Rights - Other[440]

Docket Number

1:14-cv-02128

Status

Closed

2015 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service
// PAGE 25