IN THE DISTRICT COURT of THE UNITED STATES America
FOR THE STATE/ DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re Henrietta of Arnold County case #____________________
Daughter of Jeffrey (Lower court case number D0202CR2000130113)
Native American National Citizen of The (New Mexico Court of Appeals Case # 473216)
State New Mexico, Ex Rel, in Special Appearance, (New Mexico Supreme Court # 49, 1842)
Chief Executor/Administrator over Estate
Party of Special Interest, (of and in Honor)
Brett of the town of Veguita son of Isaac
Junior Executor/Administrator over Estate
Native American Citizen of The State New
Mexico, Ex Rel, in Special Appearance,
A Secured Party of interest
Petitioners/creditors (of and in Honor)
REED S. SHEPPARD, SECOND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT (Corp. EIN # 85-6003585, 85-6000565),
Respondents/debtors (in dis-Honor)
Notice of removal and Verified Petition and Warrant There of…
The Petitioners come before this body in full life, and in their Proper Personas. The Petitioners are neither
‘collective entities’ nor ‘artificial constructs’ of any contrivance of man. The Petitioners are National Citizens of
America and believe that they have The Right To Access The Court, The Right To Due Process, The Right To Equal
Protection of Laws and that they do not need a special code, handshake, blood stain signature, incantation, or
the like to be able to obtain REDRESS. The Collective Entity Rule/Doctrine does not apply in this matter
as the Petitioners are American NATIONAL Citizen’s as a matter of Heritage, and progeny, and is vested and
shrouded by the rights secured thereof, such an application of an artificial person and or labeling is hereby and
The Natural Sentient Status of the Petitioners is one of the matters before this body, and anything to the
contrary is rebutted by the preponderance of evidence supported throughout any and all documents submitted
to the United States Courts henceforth, heretofore, forthwith and forever in reference this matter. The
“Collective Entity Doctrine” encompasses an Artificial Entity/Legal fiction, thereby making the ‘Collective Entity”
an-intangible construct, visible at most in document form. The Declaration of Executorship – Grantor’s
Assertion of Rights, certified by an officer of the court, the Secretary of State, and constitutionally backed by
official seal, representing full faith and credit of the United States of America attests to the standing and status
of the Petitioners on file with this Court and annexed this Document.
Comes now the Petitioners in direct support of their request for removal of the above captioned matter, of the
Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico, into the jurisdiction of The Constitution of the United States of
America, and The constitution of The State of New Mexico, and before this The United States of America District
Court of the State of New Mexico, we bring forth the federal/Constitutional questions involved, herein allege,
we further state, and provide:
(Although the questions may not contain number listings and/or question marks, the context and verbiage denotes a question being
presented, and a written specific response is demanded to each and every question presented to this body via this instrument) Please note
the following when providing your detailed response.
The right to counsel of choice is essential and fundamental in one's accessing the court, and seeking advice in
reference to matters at and of law:
Douglas v. Noble, 261 U.S. 165 ; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 319-320. Cf. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 .
Obviously an applicant could not be excluded merely because he was a Republican or a Negro or a member of a particular
church. Even in applying permissible standards, officers of a State cannot exclude an applicant when there is no basis for
their finding that he fails to meet these standards, or when their action is invidiously discriminatory. Cf. Yick Wo v.
Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 ." [Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957), emphasis added]
1. One of the questions before this body is: does a plaintiff and/or defendant’s, have the right to counsel of
choice, of their own choosing whether or not the chosen one is licensed to practice law?
2. Did the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico error when it denied the defendant in the above
captioned matter the right to counsel of choice? By refusing to correct did the Supreme Court as well as
the Appeals Court for the State of New Mexico further violate the rights of the Petitioners and the
Defendant by failing to correct? (18 USCA ss 4)
3. Does the unwritten order by the court, to block and deny Counsel to Henrietta the Defendant create a Breach of
Trust, and or violate fiduciary responsibilities?
4. Does the court (whether acting as a legislative or constitutional body) have the right, discretion,
authority, and or power to force counsel upon any petitioner, defendant, plaintiff who does not
voluntarily consent to such appointment? Does the court have legislative or constitutional authority to
force Counsel upon the Petitioner and or Defendant, over the sovereign Will of the ESTATE, and the
authority delegated to the Executor therefrom? If they do please provide the constitutional amendment
permitting such authoritative power.
5. The Second Judicial District Court ordered a competency evaluation, without producing any evidence that
such an evaluation was necessary on the record, and without holding a hearing before all of the parties
involved, did it not violate the right to due process, to a fair and impartial hearing? Did the lower Court
violate the rights of Henrietta the Petitioner to “Personal Privacy” and the Defendants “Confidential
Privacy as secured by FOIA, Privacy Act, and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
6. Does Henrietta J. Williams the defendant, and or The Other Petitioners have Secured and Constitutionally
7. Did the presiding Judge and appointed Fiduciary, REED S. SHEPPARD have a duty and obligation under the
aforementioned Constitutions, International Law, customary International Law, and Treaty
based International Law, to respect, promote, and protect the Rights of Henrietta the
Petitioner and HENRIETTA J WILLIAMS THE DEFENDANT, including but not limited to: The right to live in
peace, the right to justice, the right to due process, the right to equal protection and recognition before
Established as fundamental rights (and that would include collective entities) is the Right to live At Peace, the
Right to Justice, the Right to Due Process, the Right to Equal Protection of law (no matter what laws it may be).
The lower court matter (the second judicial district court of Bernalillo county (a corporate entity to be referred
to throughout this document as the lower state court)), is holding a Sentient Self-Aware Woman as surety. She
has never consented to such a confinement, has never voluntarily entered into any agreement and or contract
with that body. She has never admitted to being a collective entity i.e. The Defendant, nor has she volunteered
to stand in the place/in the stead of the defendant. Henrietta The Petitioner has made it quite clear VERBALLY
and in all of her documents presented to the court that she will not accept or engage in any contract with any
corporation especially one masquerading as a court of law (The Second Judicial District Court of Bernalillo
County New Mexico is A Corporation unlawfully assuming Judicial responsibilities), with only legislative
authority, who has not met the terms of preexisting fee assessments; via the irrecusable contract presented the
lower court. All conditions of acceptance to the facts and appointments have been met in accordance with title
15 by tacit acquiescence. 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (The 3 day rule)
The lower state court (THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY NEW MEXICO is a
Corporation, and the CFO of the corporation is Greg Ireland) has received the discharging instrument "PAY TO
THE ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WITHOUT RECOURSE" (written on a certified copy of the
original charging instrument, as is the required endorsement on all promissory notes, bonds, required by the
United States government). To date THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY NEW
MEXICO has failed to properly discharge this matter in accordance with standard business and accounting
practices. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY NEW MEXICO Corporation tax ID
numbers are: 85-6000589, and 85-6003585, 85-6000565 respectively, and as a Corporation cannot sit in the
stead of the people of the state of New Mexico, or of the people of the United States of America to act in their
behalf without their consent. It must be objected to severely as no corporation is granted Judicial Power and
Authority under law, the United States Constitution, nor does the state of New Mexico constitution grants such
judicial power and/or authority to corporations. The Second Judicial District Court is legislative in creation only!
Congress has never authorized an administrative agency to maintain “Judicial Power”, and the following
questions must be answered:
8. Does the courts within the state known as “The State of New Mexico”, operate as courts of law, having
“judicial power” and authority delegated by the Constitution and the articles thereof? (This question
would be inclusive of The State of New Mexico Appeals Court, the Second Judicial District Court of
Bernalillo County New Mexico, the Supreme Court of The State of New Mexico, and The Federal District
Court in the State of New Mexico).
9. Does the representative operating and maintaining seats commonly referred to as Judicial Officer have
judicial powers invested on them, or are they merely "acting" ‘as ministerial clerks for superior
reviewing purposes’ of matters? Please note the following when providing your detailed response:
"It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing
administrative law they are described as mere 'extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing
purposes' as a ministerial clerk for an agency..." 30 Cal 596; San Christina, etc.Co. v.San Francisco (1914) , 167
Cal. 762, 141 P. 384.
"It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such as voluntary
subscription to license. All jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear on
the record of the court." Pipe Line v Marathon. 102 S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22; 0'Neil v Dept
Prof. & Vocations (1935) www.lawyerdude.s5.com/o’neil.html 7 CA 2nd 398; Eiseman v Daugherty 6 CA 783; AISI
v US, 568 F2d 284; K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West's 1965 Ed.); K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW, P. 95, (CTP, 6
Ed. West's 1977) FRC v G.E. 28I US 464; Keller v PE, 261 US 428; Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376. l54 SE 583, 7l
ALR 604; Endicott v Perkins, 317 US 501; Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 US 515 (1984); Butler v. Collins, 12
Calif., 157. 463; Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722; Porter v. Michigan State Bd. of State Examiners in
Optometry (1972) 199 N.W.2d 666, 41 Mich. App. 150.
10. Jurisdiction has been challenged in the lower court matter on at least seven different occasions, the court being
asked to prove jurisdiction on the record and refusing to do so as documented on the public record. These actions
or LACK thereof are recognized under law as acting without jurisdiction. A question before this body is: once
jurisdiction is challenged, must it be proven on the record? And if the court whose responsibility it would be to
prove jurisdiction fails to do so on the record, does intentional failure not indicate and substantiate a deprivation
of secured rights, a violation of the rules established for that venue under the Constitution of America and the
Constitution for the several union states? Please note the following when providing your detailed response:
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks
jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505
F2d 1026., Hagans v Lavine, 415 U. S. 533; Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional
facts FATAL to the government's cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64); Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573,
576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992); rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993); Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215, Latana 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. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v.
Thiboutot, 100S. Ct. 2502 (1980); Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910; Hill Top Developers v.
Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985); Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211
P2d 389; Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215; Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416; Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte
Giambonini, 49 P. 732; In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846; Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27;
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409;Wuest v.
Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937; Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
The corporation known as THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of Bernalillo County New Mexico is acting
without jurisdiction, and in violation of its own States Constitution. There is no provision within the body of the
Constitution for the State of New Mexico, and the Constitution of the United States of America, nor Common
Law which authorizes a corporation to exercise authority over sentient living beings, nor can it ever be (please
see Bond v. United States and the seventh, ninth, tenth, and eleventh amendments of the United States of
America Constitution independently and collectively).
By holding of the Petitioner Henrietta, an American citizen, a mature age, a Sentient Self-Aware Woman, as
Surety In the lower court, Reed S. Sheppard is acting without authority or consent to such a confinement; and
similar matters have been adjudicated as amounting to FATAL error and enforces a duty and obligation to
correct upon the higher State Courts and this body.
The preponderance of evidence and facts regarding this matter confirm and establish that Henrietta has never
voluntarily entered into any agreement and or contract with her body, nor does she accept the enforced liability
to perform under any contracts that she did not enter into knowingly, willingly and intentionally.
Title 42, section 1986,
… that the litigant has knowledge that the court is committing some kind of wrong, then we use F. R. C. P. Rule 60(b) because we have discovered fraud, or
neglect. We have to use a special pleading authorized by F. R. C. P.
Rule 9 (b), because we have an obligation periodically to inform the other parties under F. R. C. P. Rule 26 (e) of the wrong, and the Title 42, section 1986: for
stopping the wrong.
This United States of America Federal District Court in the state of New Mexico appears to have proper jurisdiction
over this cause of action for removal, pursuant to, but not limited to, the following statutory authorities: 15 USC §
1692k(d), and also 28 USC § 1443(1), 28 USC § 1446(b), 28 USC § 1331, 28 USC § 1601-1613 and 28 USC § 1367
(each supported by Statute at Large and Supreme Court of the United States Rulings).
Moreover, this United States of America Federal District Court in the state of New Mexico is said to be an Article III
court with the express authority to hear and adjudicate any questions arising under the Constitution, Laws, and
Treaties of the United States; including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, the Thirteenth Amendment (prior to
revision), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
with Reservations. [See the Article VI Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America, as
lawfully amended (wherefore The Petitioners present to this court that the power is derived from the people and
th th th
not from Congress, please refer to the 9 , 10 and 11 amendment of the United States constitution)], and
removal of this matter is as a result of such reasoning.
As acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United States in several numerated cases the state court
known as THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY NEW MEXICO has legislative
authority only, and prohibited by law from acting as a judicial body, WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S.
Henrietta of Bernalillo county New Mexico, Daughter of Jeffrey and Chief Executor (to be referred to throughout
this document as Henrietta The Petitioner), for the Henrietta J Williams Estate (to be refer to throughout as the
defendant) (a foreign corporation acknowledged by the United States Federal gov’t as established by the 98
series E.I.N. number supplied by the Federal gov’t) is not an employee of the estate and or trust, and retains her
right to “Personal Privilege”, and The Estate retains its rights in reference to “Confidential Product”.
Henrietta The Petitioner has made her intentions clear to the courts, that the defendant (Recognized By The
Foreign Sovereigns Immunity Act as a Foreign State, Instrumentality of a Foreign State, A Corporation, and this
places The Defendant outside of the jurisdiction of the lower courts of The State of New Mexico), And That the
Petitioners chooses to exercise their secured constitutional right to access the court and to counsel of choice
(see Bond vs. U.S. 2011). Henrietta The Petitioner is not the defendant, has never accepted standing as surety
for the defendant, has never volunteered to be held captive in behalf of the defendant, and there has been no
evidence to the contrary put forth by anyone in this or any other matter.
The Petitioners recognized that in the legal setting the DEFENDANT is refer to as an artificial entity, a collective
entity (see FCC v. AT&T (2011)). Due process requires at a minimum that one is made aware of all the charges
against them, Henrietta the petitioner is not being accused of being an artificial entity (as far as the official
record and the information provided would indicate) and or a collective entity on any items produced to date,
if such an accusation is being put forth it shall and must be produced in writing on the record, so as to be
effectively challenged/rebutted. If such is the contention of any one, may it be said and stated forever, “THAT
NO MAN HAS EVER BEEN THE CREATOR OF ANYTHING, FOR TO CREATE SOMETHING MEANS THE CAUSE IT OR
BRING IT INTO EXISTENCE FROM THAT WHICH WAS NOT, SINCE EVERYTHING EXISTED PRIOR TO MAN’S
INSPIRATION, IMAGINATION, CONJURING, AND BENEVOLENT PENMANSHIP, MAN CAN NEVER BE SAID TO BE
THE ORIGINATOR OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING!”
Henrietta The Petitioner is an American National Citizen a Direct Descendent of colonist/establishers of this
NATION, has the Inalienable and Unalienable right to counsel of choice, and she has chosen Brett of the town of
Veguita son of Isaac, (a secured party, a party of special interests, a party in interest, (to be referred to as Brett
The Petitioner, or the petitioners throughout), to provide counsel in reference to this matter.
Does the Defendant As Well As The Petitioners have a right to know ALL of the charges that have been alleged?
Do they have the right to know if the defendant is being tried as a collective entity, and if The Petitioners are
being held accountable, as surety for The Alleged Actions of The Collective Entity?
If the answers to either of the above aforementioned questions is yes, such a process would violate the most
fundamental of all laws “that one cannot be held liable for the actions of another”, that maxim is over 5000
years old, recognized by every peaceful nation of the world, including the United States of America.
An evidentiary hearing is hereby demanded!
Does the Petitioners also have THE SECURED RIGHT to know what jurisdiction the courts purport to operate
under, LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, ADMIRALTY, ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMON LAW AND THE
Do The Petitioners have the secure Right to Due Process, Equal Protection, to Redress, Counsel of Choice, Access to
the Courts, Discovery, Evidentiary Hearing, Witness Lists, and to Be Treated by the Court Respectfully and without
None of these rights have been afforded the petitioners and it is believed that such has been done intentionally,
knowingly, willfully, forcefully, and in a conspiracy by and of the Second Judicial District Court, who as a body
has been concealing each of these rights from the defendant and the petitioners in an act of gatekeeping, and
that such actions are in direct violation of due process. These errors are fatal, and cannot simply be
ignored, the wrongs done in this instant matter must be corrected!
Violations of secured rights
The lower court was asked on several occasions to prove jurisdiction on the record, now 200 days later have
never stated, established or proved jurisdiction on the public record of this matter. It is believed that The Lower
Court is acting without jurisdiction and or authority (please referred to the Foreign Sovereigns Immunity Act of
1933), and is in violation of not only the Civil Rights of the Defendant, but the Common Law, International
Human Rights of the Petitioners.
Do The Defendant as well as The Petitioners had a right to a speedy trial, especially if no time has ever been
waived? (The case was commenced on or about June 15, 2011 and now nine months later the matter continues
in violation of that Fundamental Right).
The lower state court in its rulings have suggested that The Right to Counsel of Choice It Is Not a Secured Right,
and by its actions the lower state court has willfully and intentionally violated the right to equal protection, the
right to due process, the right to counsel, the right to access the court, the right to redress, the right to be free
from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to liberty, and the right to justice, and continues to do so by its in-
Because the petitioners insist on their right to counsel of choice (a secured right cognizable by this court see:
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights."Murdock v.
Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)
,,, the court assumes that it can challenge the competency of one exercising their rights. Competency was not a
matter before the lower court until the petitioners insisted on the right to counsel of choice. And the court
sitting as fiduciary cannot act as executor over a sovereign American citizen (sovereign used in this context is in
reference to the foreign sovereign immunities act of 1933). A Sovereign American National Citizen cannot have it’s right to
be sentient challenged by Fiduciaries, that would defy precedent.
The lower Court has deprived The Petitioners of their liberties, The Petitioner Henrietta of Bernalillo county New
Mexico daughter of Jeffrey has had to endure the courts persistence in speaking with Her in legalese language
that not all reasonable men and women understand (see the Judiciary act of 1789) and is a violation of what is
required by law.
When the court ordered a forensic evaluation, it did so without notice and without lawful hearing. In violation
of the right to confront, cross examine, contest, and or make that choice to acquiesce (there cannot be any such
order of a sovereign American citizen, such an order would Violate The Constitution of the United States
Established By And For Sovereign American citizens):
("Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to being
subjected by force of law to a significant deprivation. . . . That the hearing required by due process is subject to waiver,
and is not fixed in form does not affect its root requirement that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before
he is deprived of any significant property interest. . . ." (Original italics; 401 US 378- 379) Randone v. Appellate Department,
1971, 5 C3d 536, 550.
"In the latter case [Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306] we said that the right to be heard ‘has little reality or
worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default,
acquiesce or contest.’ 339 U.S. at 314" Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 339, 340).
The lower Court has deprived The Petitioners of their secured rights by arresting and taking into custody
Henrietta of Bernalillo county New Mexico daughter of Jeffrey on February 29, 2012; without warning, without
hearing, without notice, a violation of the due process clause cognizable by this court. A Habeas petition to this
district Court of the United States of America for the territory of New Mexico is forthcoming. (Note the case law
below that indicates conduct such as this is not permitted even by a Corporations Employee under Heading “Due
Process Case Law”)
The Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the constitution are basic and fundamental aspects of law
among civilized nations. The Petitioners were entitled TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, as such is afforded to, not only
American Citizens, United States Citizens, Immigrants, but Animals Within The Animal Kingdom (note that if my
dog bites a self-aware human being, or an animal of the animal kingdom, even the dog gets a fair hearing).
The lower court is not permitting and allowing fairness in the instant matter, the lower court has successfully
blocked access to the court by stating on the record “I will not permit any filings by the defendant,
and or you (referring to Henrietta of Bernalillo county New Mexico daughter of Jeffrey)”.
As access to the Court is a basic and fundamental right recognized by the fifth and sixth amendment of the
United States Constitution, the lower Courts instructions to its clerks directing them not to file any pro se
documents in criminal matters without prior approval, is a violation of due process and equal protection of law.
One need never obtained permission to defend themselves, for if one needs to obtain permission to speak on or
in behalf of self, and or to defend oneself then one is without right, without choice, without standing, and
without liberty (Note the case law contained herein that indicates this is not permitted even by a Corporations
officer under Heading “Due Process Case Law”).
Notice to the lower court of DISCOVERY DEMAND, of DISMISSAL OF COUNSEL, of EVIDENTIARY HEARING, of the
INTRODUCTION OF SECURED PARTY IN INTEREST, DECLARATION OF EXECUTORSHIP, has been given and after
months of inaction the lower court has yet to be file, comment and or provide reason for such lack of process
and/or delay. The court was without authority and or jurisdiction to ignore such lawful filings, and has abused
any discretion it may have had and it is perceived that it did not possess.
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
The matter was brought before the Enbanc state of New Mexico Court Of Appeals, (injunction, restraining order,
and temporary stay) and after filing fees were paid, this supervisory court promptly refused to intervene. They
hinted that the jurisdiction for the matter was the constitution for the State of New Mexico, if that was ever the
case then several amendments to that constitution have been grossly violated, and or ignored by the lower
The matter was brought before the Enbanc state of New Mexico Supreme Court, who collectively refused to
comment and or intervene, although the Constitution for the state of New Mexico requires them to provide
such assistance as a matter of LAW. All remedies have thus been exhausted, an essential requirement prior to
entering this venue. (see the attached and or annexed for copies of such refusal to act and or prevent).
The Petitioners are each and all for the purposes of these matters nor-resident aliens under Law and Statute and
Black’s defines “non-resident alien” as, “One who is neither a resident or a citizen of the United States.
Citizenship is determined under the federal immigration and naturalization laws (U.S. Code Title 8, 28 USC 1603-
1611 ). The Second Judicial Court of New Mexico is and has been without subject matter Jurisdiction, and acting
outside of Law, Authority and Discretion.
Brett The Petitioner, is a Co-Executor, Administrator, and Co-Governor OF THE HENRIETTA J WILLIAMS ESTATE
his Annex Affidavit furnishes proof as to HIS Status and Standing. And as to THEIR right to be able to access one
of the members of their group please refer to the following:
Haines v. Kerner (92 S.Ct. 594). NAACP v. Button (371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715);
and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar (377 U.S. 1);
Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)
Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases….
Petitioners complains of various willful, systemic deprivations of fundamental Rights guaranteed by the United
States of America Constitution, and/or by federal law, and which deprivations are a combination of common
law, and civil violations of 42 USC § 1983, as well as criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.
Within the proceedings of the instant state court, Petitioners have duly advised the state court judge, and all
other parties – multiple times in their warning and judicial notices– that certain actions and judicial events are
now existing, have been done, and a threat the Petitioners, in clear, unambiguous violations of basic due
process, the United States of America Constitution, state statutory law, federal statutory law, Common Law,
Human Rights Law, Commercial Law, International Law, relevant and related rulings by the high state courts,
and/or against the relevant rulings held unanimously by all of the several federal Circuit Courts of Appeals.
This Presentation for warrant of removal inures to the very essence of the enactment and clearly expressed
purpose of 28 USC § 1443(1) by Congress, i.e.: to provide a remedy for removal to a United States District Court
when a state court (Peraon/Indavidual) “is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any
law providing for the equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction
TIMELINESS OF, AND GROUNDS FOR, REMOVAL
28 USC § 1446(b) that provides for this timely petition for removal is restated here:
“… a notice … of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be
ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” (emphasis supplied).
INCORPORATION OF PRIOR PLEADINGS IN LOWER STATE COURT
Petitioners hereby incorporate by reference all pleadings, papers, and effects heretofore filed or otherwise
lodged within the state proceedings the same as if fully set forth herein.
SUGGESTED PRELIMINARY PROCEDURES IN THIS CAUSE
Petitioners suggest that, before this Court might consider any matter herein further, that this Court utilize its
inherent authority, as well as the statutory authority vested under 28 USC § 1447(a), to issue one or more
appropriate Order(s), directing that any one or more of the parties to the instant state court matter each show
cause as to why this Court should or should not either: (1) issue any and all appropriate declaratory and/or
injunctive relief; and/or, (2) retain the removal permanently, and further decide any or all other matters to the
ends of justice therefore.
Petitioners reiterate that their request for removal to this Court is not just about a supported and reasonable
expectation of some future manifest deprivations of their various civil, constitutional, and equal rights within
the same said state court, but also that such a deliberately unlawful pattern of the same is well
established, threatened yet again, and must be stopped.
And according to federal law the apparent crimes for which the defendant has been accused are not criminal in
nature, and it was irresponsible for the lower state court to file this matter along with criminal proceedings:
PART 72—DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PERSONAL PROPERTY
§ 72.11 Meaning of terms.
As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and
vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms “includes” and “including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are
in the same general class.
Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny;
robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like
offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to
narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.
Equity. As used in administrative action on petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeitures, shall mean that interest which a petitioner has in the personal property or
carrier petitioned for at the time of final administrative action on the petition, but such interest shall not be considered to include any unearned finance charges from the
date of seizure or the date of default, if later; any amount rebatable on account of paid insurance premiums; attorney's fees for collection; any amount identified as
dealer's reserve; or any amount in the nature of liquidated damages that may have been agreed upon by the buyer and the petitioner.
Person. An individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company or a corporation.
Re-appraisal. An up-to-date statutory appraisal to determine the present value of the property or carrier involved in a petition for remission or mitigation of forfeiture
made in the same manner as the original appraisal, and performed at the written request of the petitioner whose petition in regard to the property or carrier has been
allowed and who, for reasonable cause, is not satisfied that the original appraisal represents the present value of the property or carrier.
Henrietta of the town of Bernalillo daughter of Jeffrey of the state of New Mexico (is being held surety for the
defendant Henrietta J Williams), has been charged with breaking and entering into their own property. The right
to be secure in one's property is absolute, and charging someone with breaking and entering their own
property, listed and registered in their names, (and proof of this fact is still a matter of public record) violates
due process and is without reason.
Without the immediate intervention, and the exercise of full jurisdiction and authority by this Honorable Court
in retaining said lower state proceedings, at the very least with which to issue such appropriate declaratory and
injunctive relief as to due process and equal civil rights, that the Petitioners will be otherwise subjected to
manifestly egregious denial and inability to enforce in said state court one or more rights under the laws
providing for the equal rights of citizens of the United States, and will be likewise unlawfully forced to suffer
manifestly irreparable harm and injuries therein, without any further reasonable remedy at law.
``It is declare under the penalties of perjury and with full commercial liability with reservation of rights and without
recourse that this affidavit and request for removal, including the documents submitted in support thereof, has
been examined and, to the best of knowledge and belief, is true, correct, and complete.''
Dated: The 29th day of March 2012
Brett Native American Citizen of The
State of New Mexico Son of Isaac
P.O. Box 393 Town of Veguita New Mexico
COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, AT 14: Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private
property- partaking in the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief
among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for
money and other forms of property."
Due Process Case Law
MEYER V. NEBRASKA 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400: "The term (Liberty) 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, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting public
interest, by legislative action..."
WYNEHAMER V. PEOPLE, 13 N.Y. 378: "The sole purpose of government is the protection of private rights."
LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 US 451 455: "The primary function of government is to render security to its subjects."
ALLGEYER V. STATE OF LOUISIANA, 165 US 578 (1887), "The liberty mentioned in that amendment (14th) means, not only
the right of the citizen to be free from mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to
embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all faculties; to be free to use them in livelihood by any lawful
calling: to pursue any livelihood or vocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper,
necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purpose above mentioned."
U.S. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT 5, Bill of Rights,"...nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law."
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 US 436,491, 86 S. CT. 1602: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, VOL 16, SECOND EDITION, SECTION 177: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law
and no courts are bound to enforce it."
MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 US (2 CRANCH) 137, 180 (!803): "All laws (Rules of Practice) which are repugnant to the
Constitution are null and void."
ALEXANDER HAMILTON: "The sacred Rights of mankind held within the Constitution are not to be rummaged for, among
old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand
of divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."
16 AM. JUR. 2D SAEC. 177: Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
SHERAR V. CULLEN, 481 F 2D 946 (1973): "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise
of Constitutional rights. 26 U.S.C.A. 7402 (b)."
MILLER V. U.S., 230 F 2D 486, 490 (ALSO SIMMONS V. U.S. 3900S377): "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right
cannot be converted into a crime."
PRINCIPLE OF LAW: The spirit or intent of the law overrides the letter of the law.
NATIONAL R.R. CORP. V. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF R.R. PASSENGERS, (1974) 414 U.S. 453, 458, "Even the most basic
general principles of statutory construction must yield to clean, contrary evidence of legislative intent."
GOULD V. GOULD 245 U.S. 151: "In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their
provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace
matters not specifically pointed out. In the case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in
favor of the citizen."
BOYD V. U.S. 116 U.S. 635: "Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally
construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN JAY: "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 (PUBLIC LAW 93-579): "Any federal agency that asks you for information must (compelled, not
imperative of request.) inform you whether giving the information is mandatory or voluntary."
U.S. V. MINKER. 350 U.S. 179, 187: "Because of what appears to be lawful command on the surface, many citizens,
because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to
“Because we obviously must apply Supreme Court precedent, even when it conflicts with our own, earlier authority”
Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988), U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals