WRIT OF CAPIAS - DEMAND FOR ARREST OF TRAITORS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
December 5, 2025
PUBLIC NOTICE & JUDICIAL NOTICE:
WRIT OF CAPIAS - DEMAND FOR ARREST OF TRAITORS

[Sui Juris PETITIONER, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, living-breathing American man]
vs.
[Chief United States District for the District of New Jersey, Judge Renee Marie Bumb (in her individual capacity), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Christine P. O’Hearn (in her individual capacity), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Jamel K. Kemper (in his individual capacity)Judge Frank J. DeAngelis (in his individual capacity); Judge James M. DeMarzo (in his individual capacity); THE COUNTY OF SUSSEX and SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD; SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD Chairman, Peter Southway (in his individual capacity); SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vice Chairman, Brian Hautau (in his individual capacity); Joseph D. Greer, Esq. (433302023) of Lavery Selvaggi & Cohen, a Professional Corporation; James F. Moscagiuri, Esq. (029222001) of Lavery Selvaggi & Cohen, a Professional Corporation; Dennis R. McConnell, Attorney at Law; Senior Planning Aide of the Sussex Country Division of Planning and Farmland Preservation Program, Rudy Dragan; and the other Complicit Participants]
Petitioner, Sui Juris, living-breathing American
Andrew Hamilton Pritchard
Beneficiary in Equity-Executor
9 Sylvester Court
Norwalk, Connecticut
Misty Brook Meadow Farm of Shya Beth, Case: 2:25-cv-12408-JKS-AME
The “Racketeering-Conspiracy” to steal by “Fraud and Swindle” the Farmer’s non- agricultural development rights and credits using “Land Preservation” non-profits, State Agencies, State Programs and State Agricultural Committees is grotesque injustice that irreparably harms all the State of New Jersey and America.
Writ of Capias – Demand for Arrest: Chief United States District for the District of New Jersey, Judge Renee Marie Bumb (in her individual capacity), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Christine P. O’Hearn (in her individual capacity), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Jamel K. Kemper (in his individual capacity)Judge Frank J. DeAngelis (in his individual capacity); Judge James M. DeMarzo (in his individual capacity); THE COUNTY OF SUSSEX and SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD; SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD Chairman, Peter Southway (in his individual capacity); SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD Vice Chairman, Brian Hautau (in his individual capacity); Joseph D. Greer, Esq. (433302023) of Lavery Selvaggi & Cohen, a Professional Corporation; James F. Moscagiuri, Esq. (029222001) of Lavery Selvaggi & Cohen, a Professional Corporation; Dennis R. McConnell, Attorney at Law; Senior Planning Aide of the Sussex Country Division of Planning and Farmland Preservation Program, Rudy Dragan; and the other Complicit Participants as a living-breathing American Man, one of “We the People”, the Owners of Our Government, I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, have the authority as bestowed by God to address any felony that I witness firsthand.
The Complicit Judges named above do not comply with their oath to the Constitution of the United States war against that Constitution and engage in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The Complicit Judges are engaged in acts of treason.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect.
The judges and complicit participants named above are traitors.
They are the “ENEMY” (TITLE 50 US CODE 2204) of the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, as defined by the Judiciary Act of 1789; and willfully execute “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” (TITLE 18 US CODE 2331) to Shya Beth, the Sui Juris Plaintiff, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, the Sui Juris Petitioner and “We the People” of America by weaponizing judicial authority from top to bottom for any objective and/or target.
All Affidavits are unrebutted-uncontested; thus, they are lawful fact.
Legal Maxim: “The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.”
Legal Maxim: “A claim not contested, stands true.”
Legal Maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
Legal Maxim: “Failure to enforce the law does not change it.”
Legal Maxim: “A claim bought in law that is not contested or rebutted, then stands true. Hence silence to a controversy is considered consent to any judgment.”
Legal Maxim: “An Unrebutted Affidavit is Truth.”
Legal Maxim: “Judicial notice is a form of evidence.”
Legal Maxim: “The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.”

The United States Constitution requires Due Care in recognizing Legal Maxims.

AUTHORITY:
As a living-breathing American Man, one of “We the People”, the Owners of Our Government, I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, have the authority to address any felony that I witness firsthand (CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant). (King James Version) Galatians 6:7-8, Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Amen.

AFFIDAVIT: STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, Living American, Beneficiary in Equity-Executor of 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut delivers my testimony, so help me God.
Subject: Misty Brook Meadow Farm, property of Shya Beth.
The “Racketeering-Conspiracy” to steal by “Fraud and Swindle” the Farmer’s non- agricultural development rights and credits using “Land Preservation” non-profits, State Agencies, State Programs and State Agricultural Committees is grotesque injustice that irreparably harms all the State of New Jersey and America.
This scheme of taking control of farmland development rights, hiding their ability and plan (down to the percentage of the profits) to resell the development rights when the time suits them flies in the face of all of what the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program publicly stands for: Preserving New Jersey farmland, and supporting the next generation of farmers.
The “Deceptive Business Practices”, “Fraud & Swindle”, and “Racketeering-Conspiracy” executed and disguised as a noble cause of saving our farmland and open space is Diabolical.
Is it happening elsewhere in America?
Complicit State of New Jersey Judges and Chief United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Renee Marie Bumb (in her individual capacity), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Christine P. O’Hearn (in her individual capacity), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Jamel K. Kemper (in his individual capacity) are engaged in “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” (Title 18 US Code 2384) as an “ENEMY” (Title 50 U.S. Code 2204) execute and enable “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” (Title 18 U.S. Code 2331) and TREASON (Title 18 U.S. Code 2381) attacking the Misty Brook Meadow Farm, property of Shya Beth, the Farmers of New Jersey, and “the People” of America by weaponizing judicial authority which requires strict adjudication in an Article III Court with Trial by Jury.
The willful manipulation of the court’s dockets by the Complicit Judges and Clerks makes “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” and “RACKETEERING” is blatantly obvious, the cover-up.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus (“The Great Writ”) is a right and that must be heard within 20 days at the latest, see Title 28 U.S. Code 2243 - Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision.
Serious Constitutional violations are stated by Shya Beth, Sui Juris American.
[Page 6 Writ of Habeas Corpus June 23, 2025, Case: 2:25-cv-12408-JKS-AME.]
Sui Juris Defendant, Shya Beth, demands a Trial by Jury as this is an Adversary Hearing in which the Judge and the Plaintiff are both employed by the State of New Jersey with obvious bias.
[Page 20 Writ of Habeas Corpus June 23, 2025, Case: 2:25-cv-12408-JKS-AME.]
4. Complicit State of New Jersey Judges engage in "SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY" (Title 18 US Code 2384) as an "ENEMY" (Title 50 U.S. Code 2204) executing "DOMESTIC TERRORISM" (Title 18 U.S. Code 2331) and TREASON (Title 18 U.S. Code 2381) against the Petitioner, the Farmers of New Jersey, and "the People" of America by weaponizing judicial authority for profit and rogue power.
Instead of executing the Writ of Habeas Corpus as required by Law, Judge Semper does nothing. This is start of the cover-up to protect the complicit participants and more.
Look at the U.S. District Court’s, Case: 2:25-cv-12408-JKS-AME, willful violation of Shya Beth’s Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on June 23, 2025, not entered until July 22, 2025, over 20 days late.
This is default and fraud upon the court.
Holy Cow (farm theme), it gets even worse.
None of the Docket Title Headings match what was filed.
Almost all the Petitioner’s filings are NOT entered on the date of filing.
Judge Semper NEVER issues an Order or rebuts a claim, does nothing.
U.S. District Court Clerk fails to Issue Default when all is compliant.
Judge Bumb does not deny any claim made in the Writ of Capias.
Writ of Capias, Doc. 9, is hidden by Title “Submissions Received from Shya Beth”.
Writ of Capias of Judge Bumb is entered 16 days after it was filed.
Judge Bumb removed Judge Semper from the Case that is in Default.
Judge Bumb assigns Judge O’Hearn to the Case that is in Default.
Judge O’Hearn October 29, 2025, ORDER is Fraud upon the Court.
Judge O’Hearn conveniently construes that Doc. 4 is an Amended Complaint.
Doc. 4 is a Second Writ of Habeas Corpus with Judge Semper’s Default.
Judge O’Hearn fraudulently represents Judge Semper’s adverse decisions and actions.
Once again, Judge Semper did nothing, abandonment and failure of Oath and Duty.
Judge O’Hearn’s Order says NOTHING about the Writ of Capias of Judge Bumb.
Judge Bumb with Writ of Capias reassigns the Case back to Judge Semper.
Judge Bumb’s Writ of Capias is lawful fact, Maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
Summary: The foxes got together to clean up the hen house massacre (Farm theme).
I witness Traitors and Racketeers trying to silence and harm a good American Farmer.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is in Default and more.
Let me make it clear for all the Traitors using the absurd lack of jurisdiction claim, read below what the Supreme Court of the United States says:
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 - Supreme Court 1923
Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact by the Supreme Court, that writ of habeas corpus--may be invoked if the petitioner is free from bodily restraint and thereby the court is prohibited from dismissing this petition on the grounds the petitioner is not a prisoner or jailed.
As to LIBERTY, “While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
The Kangaroo Mob Racketeering Money Machine (aka Judicial Branch of United States of America) works as follows:
Slogan: “Money Wins”
Fact: Truth and Justice do not exist.
Racketeers: Lawyers, Judges, and the “ENEMY”.
Duties: Lawyers proffer the spin for the Judges to issue “Opinions” to win.
Requirements: Avoid all without an Oath to the Bar; Grand Juries, and Trial by Jury.
Marketing: Feed the Media spin from Expert Lawyer Racketeers and Corporate money.
Mission Statement: Confuse, divide, hide and delay as they will pay, no transparency.
The ENEMY, complicit Judges and Attorneys, are in control of our legal system; and thus, controls our country. They seized control with the backing of Big Money.
The Battle for America in our courts is a serious matter.
Law and Justice are the lynchpin for a prosperous and balanced society.
Our courts are to protect us from harm and deliver remedy.
Instead, the weaponized “ENEMY” courts deliver attack after attack against us, “We the People”.
This mutiny empowers the limitless plunder of America in total.
The crimes against humanity are staggering.
The “ENEMY” seizure of our farmland ends here.

VIOLATIONS AND CHARGES OF COMPLICIT PARTIES

The Complicit Participants named above are in violation of the following: no DUE PROCESS the 5th Amendment, the 7th Amendment and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution; plus, The Right to Privacy' addressed in the 1st Amendment, 3rd Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment and the "Liberty" Guarantee of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution; 18 US Code 4 Misprision of felony; 18 U.S. Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact; Title 18 US Code 153 Embezzlement Against Estate; Title 18 U.S.C Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights; Title 18 U.S.C Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law; Title 42 US Code 12203 Prohibition Against Retaliation and Coercion; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees; Title 9 18 U.S.C 1951 Hobbs Act; Title 5 Administrative Procedure Act 1946; Executive Order 13818 Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption; Title 50 U.S. Code 2204 Definitions “ENEMY”, “SPOILS OF WAR”, etc.; Title 5 U.S. Code §3331 - Oath of office; Title 18 US Code 2384 “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY”; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1918 - Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1346 - Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”; Title 15 U.S. Code § 1122 - Liability of United States and States, and instrumentalities and officials thereof; Title 42 U.S. Code § 12202 - State immunity; Title 42 U.S. Code § 2000d–7 - Civil rights remedies equalization; Title 5 U.S. Code § 558 - Imposition of sanctions; determination of applications for licenses; suspension, revocation, and expiration of licenses; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions “Domestic Terrorism”; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason; N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-1 – 56:8-184 (the “Consumer Fraud Act” or the “NJCFA”); NJCFA § 7, N.J.S.A. § 56:8-19; N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7 (Deceptive business practices); N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4 (Theft by Deception); N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1 (Forgery and Related Offenses); N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1. and N.J.S.2C:41-2 through N.J.S.2C:41-6 (Racketeering); N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2. (Conspiracy); and all such related charges.

Restitution: Bill of Complaint December 4, 2025:
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, demand the charges above be executed by the proper Authority of “We the People”, and demand Restitution for “2890 Farmers of New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program” in the amount of $1,909,839,713.03 (252,978.8285 Acres as of April 29, 2025); plus, $1,000,000 for Shya Beth of Misty Brook Meadows Farm due to her court efforts and emotional distress; Total Damages Due: $1,910,839,713.03

It is upon “the People” to ensure justice prevails when those in positions of power reveal themselves to be an enemy of those who put their trust in them.
Maxim of Law- The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.

Supreme Court Case Law:
Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
"The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better."
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 (April 14, 2023),
"Cases involving ... deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property constitute a core of cases that ... MUST be resolved by Article III courts—not executive adjudicators dressed up as courts".
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977); U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970); Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)
"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately."
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52,
Conspiracy "A conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense." Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997). It is "the common-law principle that, so long as they share a common purpose, conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators." Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 64 (1997). "A conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense, but it suffices that he adopt the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal endeavor."
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice".
Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)
Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis."
Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
"It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)
"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them."
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. JARKESY, JR., 603 U.S. (June 27, 2024)
“I write separately to highlight that other constitutional provisions reinforce the correctness of the Court’s course. The Seventh Amendment’s jury-trial right does not work alone. It operates together with Article III and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to limit how the government may go about depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury. Article III entitles individuals to an independent judge who will preside over that trial. And due process promises any trial will be held in accord with time-honored principles. Taken together, all three provisions vindicate the Constitution’s promise of a “fair trial in a fair tribunal.” In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955).”
That is why the Constitution built “high walls and clear distinctions” to safeguard individual liberty. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211, 239 (1995). Ones that ensure even the least popular among us has an independent judge and a jury of his peers resolve his case under procedures designed to ensure a fair trial in a fair forum. In reaffirming all this today, the Court hardly leaves the SEC without ample powers and recourse. The agency is free to pursue all of its charges against Mr. Jarkesy. And it is free to pursue them exactly as it had always done until 2010: In a court, before a judge, and with a jury. With these observations, I am pleased to concur.
In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992),
The court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that '[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.'"
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeal.
“The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Fay v. NOIA 372 US 391 (1963)
concluded the great writ of habeas corpus now indeed extends to ALL constitutional challenges.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 - Supreme Court 1923
Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact by the Supreme Court, that writ of habeas corpus--may be invoked if the petitioner is free from bodily restraint and thereby the court is prohibited from dismissing this petition on the grounds the petitioner is not a prisoner or jailed.
As to LIBERTY, “While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Wild v. Fregein Construction, 68 P.3rd 855 (2003).
To falsify information is indisputably fraud. “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.., even if it is holding a piece of paper that says it is a chicken”
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford- Empire Co., 322 US 238 (1944).
“[T]ampering with the administration of justice as indisputably shown here involves far more than injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions In which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistent with the good order of society”
American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1950)
It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Rights are a subset of property. property. Government exists to secure and protect rights, NOT to conspire against and trample them. The primary fiduciary duties of oath taker public servants are to protect and secure such rights.
United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806).
In the early days of our Republic, "prosecutor" was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.
United States v. Lee (1882)
"Under our system the people, who are there called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, has established his right to property, [106 U.S. 196, 209] there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or artificial, not even the United States, should prevent him from using the means which the law gives him for the protection and enforcement of that right."
"courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights."
"While by the constitution the judicial department is recognized as one of the three great branches among which all the powers and functions of the government are distributed, it is inherently the weakest of them all. Dependent as its courts are for the enforcement of their judgments upon officers appointed by the executive, and removable at his pleasure, with no patronage and no control of purse or sword, their power and influence rests solely upon the public sense of the necessity for the existence of a tribunal to which all may appeal for the assertion and protection of rights guarantied by the constitution and by the laws of the land, and on the confidence reposed in the soundness of their decisions and the purity of their motives."

Jurisdiction:
By the grace of God almighty, and through the supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI Clause 2 & 3) and the below-listed treaties of supreme law, it is I alone, who shall determine my status, standing, honor and jurisdiction.
I hereby invoke and stand upon all my natural rights, given by my God, which are written in the documents listed below. These, and all others, are universally known as the supreme law of the land:
• The Holy Bible, KJV 1611 GOD's Laws are Superior Law
• 1215 Magna Charta
• 1606 The First Charter of Virginia
• 1620 Mayflower Compact
• 1628 Petition of Rights
• 1639 Fundamental Orders of 1639
• 1641 Grand Remonstrance
• 1689 English bill of rights
• 1765 The Declaration of rights in congress at New York
• 1774 The Declaration of rights in congress at Philadelphia
• 1775 The Declaration of Arms
• 1776 The Virginia Declaration of rights
• 1777 the Articles of Confederation
• 1783 Treaty of Peace
• 1787 Northwest Ordinance
• 1789 The Constitution for the United States of America
• 1791 The Bill of Rights
• 1864, 1929 and 1949 The Geneva Conventions
• 1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• 23 March 1976 The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, Articles 1-27
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, hereby and forever stand firm upon these natural rights listed above, giving the free man of God, one of "We the People".
The Supreme Court said that the "rights of life and personal liberty are the natural rights of man. To secure these rights ... governments are instituted among men" U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto 542, 23 L. Ed. 588.
“Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisions of either, it is so far void." Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840)
The constitution is the law of the land and there can be no statutes or rule making that would abrogate the constitution. The general principal is: anything that is repugnant to or abrogates the constitution is null and void of law.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, (1803) "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law."
"An officer of the court may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'Individual Capacity' , not his official capacity..." see 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity." Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457,293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991). The same rule applies to state officials.

Summary:

Maxim of Law – “The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.” All aspects of “government” at all levels must be fully transparent and fully accountable to the people they swore to protect and serve.
The Battle for America is not complicated.
The Complicit Judges are traitors maintaining rogue power through “Seditious Conspiracy” and “Domestic Terrorism”
The ENEMY, complicit Judges and Attorneys, are in control of our legal system; and thus, controls our country. They seized control with the backing of Big Money.
TRUTH 1: Constitutional Oath and Duty mean nothing to the ENEMY Judges.
Canon 3228
Public Service
2.The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or public officials by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private superior oaths to their own Guild.
TRUTH 2: The Complicit Attorneys Oath and Duty is to the ENEMY court, not the Client.
Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia, volume 7, section 4:
§ 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S.
“His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the clients, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.
TRUTH 3: The Violations.
NO AUTHORITY (POWER):
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect.
TRUTH 4: The Solution.
DUTY OF THE "COMMON LAW" GRAND JURY - If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their peers, from their lands, home, liberties or lawful right, we [the twenty-five] shall straightway restore them. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five Grand Jurors, the sureties of the peace. -- MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15, A.D. 1215, 52.
The obvious and most basic violations of Human and Constitutional Rights result in extraordinary irreparable harm to so many.
To put it simply, a Trial by Jury verdict is law. The “ENEMY” knows this and assaults us with “Opinions”.
The Judges and Clerks of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey have willfully violated their Oath and Duty.
Restraint of liberty is unacceptable.
King James Version (KJV) Galatians 6:7, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Respectfully,

Petitioner, Sui Juris, living-breathing American
Andrew Hamilton Pritchard
Beneficiary in Equity-Executor
9 Sylvester Court
Norwalk, Connecticut
Phone: (203) 858-7949
Email: [email protected]