Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 231 views

    Original Jurisdiction

    Uploaded by

    Tim Hutton
    This document is a notice and demand challenging jurisdiction filed by Timothy Ryan Hutton in the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Hutton challenges the jurisdiction and authority of Judge Doug Drummond over two criminal cases against Hutton, claiming the judge entered orders and decisions without due process and in violation of court rules. Hutton demands that within 7 days, the judge provide sworn affidavits and evidence proving the judge took an oath of office and that Hutton consented to the court's jurisdiction. If the judge fails to provide such proof, Hutton asserts no lawful jurisdiction exists and threats enforcement, seeking remedy through private lawsuit and potential imprisonment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Original Jurisdiction

    Uploaded by

    Tim Hutton
    231 views5 pages
    This document is a notice and demand challenging jurisdiction filed by Timothy Ryan Hutton in the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Hutton challenges the jurisdiction and authority of Judge Doug Drummond over two criminal cases against Hutton, claiming the judge entered orders and decisions without due process and in violation of court rules. Hutton demands that within 7 days, the judge provide sworn affidavits and evidence proving the judge took an oath of office and that Hutton consented to the court's jurisdiction. If the judge fails to provide such proof, Hutton asserts no lawful jurisdiction exists and threats enforcement, seeking remedy through private lawsuit and potential imprisonment.

    Original Description:

    Juristiction challange

    Original Title

    Copy of Original Jurisdiction

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a notice and demand challenging jurisdiction filed by Timothy Ryan Hutton in the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Hutton challenges the jurisdiction and authority of Judge Doug Drummond over two criminal cases against Hutton, claiming the judge entered orders and decisions without due process and in violation of court rules. Hutton demands that within 7 days, the judge provide sworn affidavits and evidence proving the judge took an oath of office and that Hutton consented to the court's jurisdiction. If the judge fails to provide such proof, Hutton asserts no lawful jurisdiction exists and threats enforcement, seeking remedy through private lawsuit and potential imprisonment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    231 views5 pages

    Original Jurisdiction

    Uploaded by

    Tim Hutton
    This document is a notice and demand challenging jurisdiction filed by Timothy Ryan Hutton in the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Hutton challenges the jurisdiction and authority of Judge Doug Drummond over two criminal cases against Hutton, claiming the judge entered orders and decisions without due process and in violation of court rules. Hutton demands that within 7 days, the judge provide sworn affidavits and evidence proving the judge took an oath of office and that Hutton consented to the court's jurisdiction. If the judge fails to provide such proof, Hutton asserts no lawful jurisdiction exists and threats enforcement, seeking remedy through private lawsuit and potential imprisonment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The document challenges the jurisdiction and authority of the court over the defendant in two criminal cases. It argues that due process was not followed and jurisdiction was not properly established.

    The document is challenging the jurisdiction and authority of the court over the defendant in two criminal cases, arguing that due process was not followed and jurisdiction was not properly established.

    The document lists three conditions that must be met for the defendant to accept the court's jurisdiction: 1) The judge must provide an affidavit affirming their oath of office, 2) Evidence must be provided that the defendant consented to the court's authority, and 3) All case files must be provided to the defendant.

    ​ ​IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY

    STATE OF OKLAHOMA

    STATE OF OKLAHOMA
    ​Plaintiff,
    ​Case No. ​CF-2017-3357
    ​Felony Information

    vs.

    TIMOTHY RYAN HUTTON


    Sui Juris
    ​Defendant,

    ​ OTICE AND DEMAND


    N
    ​CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION

    Let it be known, that, in relation to your alleged DECISION, as filed


    under Case No. CF-2018-2169, which you Judge: Doug Drummond issued on
    07/30/2018 and that on received on 07/30/2018. Cases were set for Trial on the
    merits for 10/8/2018.

    That you issued the above decision, knowingly, willingly, and intentionally
    entered above DECISION despite have being already ordered on the 6th day of
    June 2018 and filed with Don Newberry Tulsa County Court Clerk State Of
    Oklahoma on the 8th day of June 2018 ordered pursuant to Tulsa County
    District Court Rule CR4, courts own rules of reassignment of Criminal District
    Judge. The Court of Record Steven Hightower entered a Plea of Not Guilty to all
    charges in both, CF-2017-3357 and CF-2018-2169.

    Whereas I “The Defendant, Timothy Ryan Hutton have been deprived


    Due Process of Law and by judge allowing a misrepresentation to occur by
    allowing Court of Record Steven Hightower to enter plea when you had no
    authority to do so and making a false claim that defendant waives jurisdiction.

    “The Defendant” Timothy Ryan Hutton is set for Trial on the Merits on
    10/08/2018.

    1
    Whereas, all these orders took place on 7/30/2018, was a very stealthy
    approach to deprive, “The Defendant” Timothy Ryan Hutton, of his liberty, and
    his freedom without Due Process of law. and in support of

    ​“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to a denial


    of due process of law, court is deprived of jurisdiction.”​ ​Merritt v. Hunter,
    C.A. Kansas​ 170 F2d 739.

    ​ Jurisdiction is fundamental and a rendered by a court that does not


    “
    have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” ​In Re Application of Wyatt, ​300 P.
    132; ​ReCavitt,​ 118 P2d 846

    “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the
    jurisdiction asserted.” ​Latanna v. Hopper, ​102 F. 2d 188; ​Chicago v. New
    York​ 37 F Supp. 150

    ​ A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot


    “
    make a void proceeding valid. ​It is clear and well established law that a void
    order can be challenged in any court” ​OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. V.
    McDONOUGH​, 204 U.S.

    I hereby challenge any lawful jurisdiction which you claim to have, or


    any such jurisdiction of the District Court Of Tulsa County State Of Oklahoma
    (hereinafter 'ENTITY') under whose mandate you perform your duties, and also
    in relation to the making of any and all judgments, decisions, verdicts or any
    other such orders against me would amount nothing much more than fraud in
    the inducement and where court administrators were acting under color of law
    to deprive one of their guaranteed Constitutional Rights which include but are
    not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Preamble:

    I Am the living human being and man, sui iuris, and under such
    authority any jurisdiction which you claim to have over me, or in the making of
    the above alleged DECISION, is void. You obtained no permission, authority
    nor consent, in any form, to issue any such decision or order, in any claimed
    dispute, in which I may have been involved. The said order is void ab initio.
    .

    2
    However, I might accept your temporary jurisdiction under the
    mandate of ENTITY in this matter and grant such described jurisdiction to you
    and ENTITY, if you perform and fulfill following specific conditions as described:

    1.That you, Doug Drummond, James Kelly of alleged judge(s)), shall


    produce, unto this living man, within the period of 7 days from the date hereof, a
    sworn affidavit, sworn under your own hand, with full, unlimited, personal
    liability, under penalty of perjury, to the effect that you did, articulate, sign and
    swear an Oath of Office of Judge, to act under the authority of the ENTITY, and
    that you do, at all times, operate in strict compliance with that oath of office in
    the ordinary course of your duties, without fear, favour or exception, under Rule
    of Law.

    2.That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living
    man, within the same 7 days, true and certified documentary evidence and
    proofs (i.e.a statement, acceptance or declaration), signed under my hand and
    seal, that I did, grant unto YOU, and or unto the ENTITY, or unto any other
    person, permission, authority or consent; including, but not limited to, YOU, the
    ENTITY, the principal of the ENTITY, or the founding principal of the ENTITY, to
    honour any judgment, order, decision or verdict of the said parties, in any cause
    or matter, in which I may have been involved.

    3.That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living
    man, within the same 7 days, all the files in your possesion about these matters,
    since I do have reasonable doubt that your laws are broken and therefore
    crimes committed, including but not limited to articles 279. and 281. of your
    Criminal law and I shall demand remedy without prejudice, all rights reserved.

    Penal Endorsement:

    In the event of default of such valid proofs as described at paragraph


    numbers 1. & 2. & 3. herein you shall be deemed to have accepted and
    confirmed that the same is NOT true and accurate and that these documents
    and actions performed by you do not exist and they have never existed.

    That; you possess NO LAWFUL JURISDICTION to make any such


    order against me (or my property), nor any jurisdiction and that crimes have
    been committed, crimes described in your Criminal law, including but not limited
    to crimes described in articles 279. and 281. of said law.
    Since I Am the living human being and man
    –
    a fact which cannot be denied and is unrebuttable
    3
    –
    I Am the one who creates All. You, as PUBLIC SERVANT, nor any
    other ENTITY can ever claim nor maintain any jurisdiction over me, this, or any
    other living human being. You accepted and consented to service and indenture
    to the above named ENTITY, whose authority is always inferior to that of the
    living human being, sui iuris, therefore you serve only under the law that serves
    living human beings in the hierarchy of Divine Canon Law.

    Any attempt to enforce your alleged and purported jurisdiction in any


    way, in default of producing the above valid proofs as described, confirming
    lawful jurisdiction, such attempts shall be considered to be enforced slavery of
    this living human being and man.

    Therefore, hereby TAKE NOTICE that; should you persist with any
    enforcement action in respect of this matter, I shall act accordingly, under Rule
    of Law, and that you shall be held personally accountable, with full unlimited
    personal liability. Remedy shall be obtained by way of private law suit, for
    cause, on grounds of injury, loss and or damage caused to my estate, to include
    the remedy of imprisonment. The motu pro pio of Pope Francis, effective the 1st
    day of September 2013,
    (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/motu_proprio/documents/papa-fra
    ncesco-motu- proprio_20130711_organi-giudiziari_en.html) confirms, the
    removal of any perceived immunity for criminal offences from members of the
    Roman Curia and you are hereby Notified that you shall be held personally
    accountable for any and all the decisions which you make hereafter. The said
    order and judgment, described above as motu pro pio, confirms; that the Golden
    Rule of Law is now operational and in full force; the Golden Rule of Law that
    nobody is above the Law and that All are Equal before the Law.

    And so it is Done, Issued and Ordered;

    Made, under my duly authorized hand and seal, with full original jurisdiction and
    I am competent to say so.

    This day____ of 2018.

    __________________

    Timothy Hutton,
    sui iuris
    4

    You might also like