The Traitor Show

Traitor Tribunal Case FST-CV15-6026844-S
Starring: Kevin Tierney as "the Judge", Julie Turbert as "the U.S. Attorney", and Krislyn Mina Launer as "the Assistant Attorney General".

(0:05:59) Hearing none, Mr. Pritchard filed a series of documents in preparation for this particular hearing, and there are three of them, excuse me, four of them. They are exhibits, pleadings 1167.00, 1168.00, 1169.00, and 1170.00.
(0:06:27) The subject of those exhibits, and I have read each and every single one of those exhibits, the subject of those exhibits is correctly stated in the head note underneath. The first exhibit says foreclosure of Jed Parkington, Inspector General's report on use of deadly force. Second exhibit, request to disclose who will get the proceeds from the sale of Jed Parkington's stolen home.
(0:06:53) Third, gunfire exchange between barricaded suspects and police during intervention, Stanford PD. And the fourth, deadly exchange report reveals training between U.S. law enforcement and Israeli police, military, Shin Pen. Disturbing, to say the least. My reading those exhibits is sufficient notice to the two of you.
(0:07:27) Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. And yes, Your Honor. Mr. Pritchard has attacked the hearing for today by filing a motion for default, pleading number 1171 and the heading of the notice of the.
(0:07:45) Default starts out with a litany of docket numbers. I have entered orders that he is not to file multiple docket numbers on one pleading because it creates a nightmare for the clerk's office and that I reject his right to file such pleading. Regardless of that fact, he continues on to do so.
(0:08:05) I have been liberal in that when he files objections that are related to the motions for summary for supplemental judgment. I accept those regardless of the fact that he has used the multiple headings and multiple docket numbers in them. So in fairness to Mr. Pritchard, I consider those. This is a last pleading that was filed in a form of a pleading that says motion for default treason and no subject matter. It outlines
(0:08:35) The docket number for this case, along with a couple of criminal cases that are currently pending, and in fact starts out in the following fashion. Affidavit, comma, a statement of truth. Kevin Tierney is a traitor. That's the first paragraph. The second paragraph. Kevin Tierney wars against the Constitution for the United States of America engages in acts of treason.
(0:09:01) That completes the second paragraph. The third paragraph, Kevin Tierney is the enemy, Title 50 U.S. Code 2204, including the Black's Law definition of traitor. I was able to read the 16 pages of documents filed as an exhibit, and I see nothing in there other than repeat of various documents that he has filed, seriatim, including documents,
(0:09:27) various attempts to arrest this very court and any judge who sits on the matter performing a citizen's arrest. He cites a well-known law starting with the 1803 case of Marbury versus Madison and continues on. It has not convinced me to reread Marbury versus Madison. I don't know how many times you have read Marbury versus Madison, but it's multiple occasions, both in college and in
(0:09:56) and in law school, and continues on their application.
(0:10:00) after citing the Magna Carta from the year 1215. And he repeats that signing. There appears to be nothing within the motion for default for failure to plead that addresses this particular matter. Pleading number 1172 is an affidavit. That affidavit states as follows, and that affidavit is relevant to the considerations in this court. The affidavit starts out with the
(0:10:31) multiple docket numbers that I have indicated, including the criminal docket numbers. There are three separate criminal docket numbers that are, excuse me, one, two, three, four, five separate criminal docket numbers. I'm not so sure who's attributed to those, but those are criminal docket numbers that he indicates. And he cites the affidavit in an 18 page document. And he indicates seeking an arrest without warrant under 54 dash 170.

Traitor Tierney's Fraud Willful Omission is grotesque. Please read the following left out of the tribunal of fiction:
Affidavit, a statement of truth:
Void ab initio – Void from the beginning
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, Living American, Beneficiary in Equity-Executor of 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut deliver testimony to identify and arrest pursuant to Connecticut General Statute (CGS) 54-170 Arrest without Warrant all the complicit participants as to their role in the following claims and charges.
FST-CV15-6026844-S CITIMORTGAGE INC. v. PRITCHARD, ANDREW H Et Al is void and null. The case is without having satisfied constitutional and statutory prerequisites is void ab initio - void from the beginning.
The Sixth and Seventh amendments to the Constitution guarantee the right to know the nature and cause of the charges against you, the right to face your accuser, which must be an injured living soul, and the right to a trial by Jury.
Even though my jurisdiction is the Constitution for the united states of America, the supreme law of the land (Article III), I would still like to reference requirements of CGS 51-88, CT-PB 3-3, CT-PB 4-2 and CT-PB 4-4 regarding “Attorney of Record”.
The complaint is void.
There is NO Attorney of Record in the summons and complaint.
Juris number 101589 was for the Hunt Leibert Jacobsen, P.C., 50 Weston Street, Hartford, CT 06120, a firm, not a living soul.
Currently, Juris number 101589 is McCalla Leibert Raymer Pierce LLP, a firm, not a living soul.
There is NO party or appearance; thus, all is null and void.
Every Foreclosure Case with a summons and complaint filed with a Firm Juris number is null and void.
And...
CLAIMS, CHARGES:
LOSS OF AUTHORITY FOR JUDGES, STATE REFEREES, AND JUDGE TRIAL REFEREES due to WILLFUL VIOLATIONS of the Connecticut Practice Book Section 11-18; WILLFUL VIOLATIONS of the Administrative Procedures Act; WILLFUL VIOLATIONS of Title 18 U.S.C Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights; WILLFUL VIOLATIONS of Title 18 U.S.C Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law; FRAUD UPON THE COURT by FALSE REPRESENTATION of court record by signing ORDER as JUDGE when you are not a Judge; WILLFUL VIOLATION of Civil Procedure as to establishing a Trial by Jury due to the many obvious legal issues raised; WILLFUL VIOLATIONS of CGS 52-434 State Referee which requires “Written Consent” by both parties; FRAUD UPON THE COURT by False Representation with the statement “JUDGE” on ORDERS throughout Court Records which on the face of it is a FALSE STATEMENT; Complicit Judge Trial Referee without “Written consent” is a Complicit Participant in the massive Racketeering network to enable the “Fraud & Swindle”, “Railroading”, “Racketeering”, “Seizure” and “Treason” by “War against the Constitution” and by obvious violations of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946.
NO STANDING AND NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION with obvious NO DUE PROCESS as confirmed by the following violations TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT; CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES CHAPTER 952 Section 53a-119 Larceny; CGA SEC. 53a-121 Value of Property; CGA SEC. 42a-9-109(a)(3); CGA SEC. 42a-9-203(b);CGA SEC. 42a-9-607(b) 12 CFR 1026 Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Regulation Z, 12 USC 2605 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Section 6; CGS Sec. 53- 379(a) Residential Mortgage Fraud; CGS 47-30 Ejectment. Set-Off of Defendant's Improvements; CGS Sec. 52-434 State Referees; CGS Sec. 53a-138 Forgery in the First Degree; CGS Sec. 53a-139 Forgery in the Second degree; CGS Sec. 53a-142a Filing a False Record; CGS Sec. 8- 265ee Notice to Mortgagee of Foreclosure; CGS Sec. 49-8a Penalty for Recording False Information; CGS Sec. 49-10 Assignment of Mortgage Debt-Requirements­ Sufficient Notice of Assignment; CGS Sec. 47-36aa Validations re Conveyancing Defects of Instruments Recorded after January 1, 1997, Insubstantial Defects-Defects re Power of Attorney-Defects re Conveyance by Fiduciary; CGS Sec. 47-5 Requirements re Conveyance of Land-Conveyance pursuant to Power of Attorney; CGS Sec. 53a-129a. Identity theft defined; CGS Sec. 53a-129b. Identity theft in the first degree: Class B felony; CGS Sec. 53a-129c. Identity theft in the second degree: Class C felony; CGS Sec. 53a-129d. Identity theft in the third degree: Class D felony; CGS Sec. 53a-129e. Trafficking in personal identifying information: Class D felony; CGS Sec. 52-571h. Action for damages resulting from identity theft; CGS 53a-130 Criminal Impersonation; CGS Sec. 53a-157b. (Formerly Sec. 53a-157). False statement: Class A misdemeanor; CGS Sec. 54-64a. Release by judicial authority; CGS Sec. 53a-180. Falsely reporting an incident in the first degree: Class D or C felony; CGS Sec. 53a-180b. Falsely reporting an incident concerning serious physical injury or death: Class D or C felony; CGS Sec. 53a-183. Harassment in the second degree: Class C misdemeanor; CGS 54-82m Speedy Trial; CGS Sec. 7-254. Delinquent assessments. Liens. Assignment of liens; CGS Sec. 52-215. Dockets. Jury cases. Court cases; CGS Sec. 52-218 Jury May Try Facts in Equitable Action; the Connecticut Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act (CORA) CGS 53-393 et seq.; no DUE PROCESS as per the Constitution of Connecticut, 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 122203 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; Executive Order 13848 Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election; Title 50 U.S. Code 2204 Definitions “ENEMY”, “SPOILS OF WAR”, etc.; Title 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office; 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 8 U.S. Code § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions; Title 22 U.S. Code § 611 – Definitions; Title 28 U.S. Code Chapter 176 - FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE; Title 22 U.S. Code § 286 - Acceptance of membership by United States in International Monetary Fund; 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 § 175 - Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide; Title 18 U.S. Code 2441 War Crimes; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason; and CGS 54-170 Arrest without warrant.
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", 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).
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."

OBVIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

1. NO JURISDICTION
2. NO JURISDICTION FOR REMOTE HEARINGS
3. NO TRIAL BY JURY
4. GROTESQUE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
5. FRAUD
6. FRAUD UPON THE COURT
7. UN-CONSTITUTIONAL CONNECTICUT PRACTICE BOOK, NO DUE PROCESS AND VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT
8. UN-CONSTITUTIONAL STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH, NO GRAND JURIES VIOLATES FIFTH AMENDMENT
9. WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF OATH AND DUTY
10. WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
11. SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
12. FALSE ARREST, KIDNAPPING AND ASSAULT
13. USE OF POLICE IN MILITARY ASSAULT IN CIVIL MATTER
14. USE OF MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS AGAINST AMERICAN PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
15. MISPRISION OF FELONY
16. MISPRISION OF TREASON
17. IRREPARABLE HARM
18. RACKETEERING
19. ENEMY (DOMESTIC)
20. ACTS OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REQUIRED

1) ARREST COMPLICIT PERSONS.

Sec. 54-170. Arrest without warrant. The arrest of a person may be lawfully made also by any peace officer or a private person, without a warrant, upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of a state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but when so arrested the accused shall be taken before such a judge with all practicable speed and complaint shall be made against him under oath setting forth the ground for the arrest as in section 54-169; and thereafter his answer shall be heard as if he had been arrested on a warrant.

2) Complicit participants must be brought before a unbiased Grand Jury of the People (not an Investigatory Grand Jury made up of one or three biased Judges) to determine that a Trial by Jury must commence for crimes and Treason.

3) Pay Restitution September 13, 2024 – RE: Andrew Hamilton Pritchard & “We the People of Connecticut”. [Bill of Complaint - $725,781,907,128]

Legal Maxim: “A claim not contested, stands true.”
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: “He who does not deny, admits.”
Legal Maxim: "An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in law."
If the government or any party fails to respond to an affidavit; then, the Affidavit is considered the binding truth between the parties involved.
See Sampson v. Channell, 110 F.2d 754, 762 (1st Cir. 1940): This case reiterates that an affidavit stands as truth unless specifically rebutted. The government, like any other party, is bound to respond to an affidavit in a timely and substantive manner. Ignoring it does not extinguish its validity; instead, it acknowledges the claims as true.
“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 by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the 1 government in its enforcement and collection activities.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932