UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Dennis Reid Eidson,

Plaintiff/Victim No. 03-CV-758

R.I.C.O. Civil Action

VS.

Felonies, High Crimes

and Misdemeanors

Michael Burrage,

d/b/a U.S. District Judge

H. Dale Cook

d/b/a U.S. District Judge

Stephen Lewis

d/b/a U.S. Attorney

David O'Meilia

d/b/a U.S. Attorney

Allen Litchfield,

d/b/a Asst. U.S. Attorney

Tiffany Harper,

d/b/a Financial Litigation Agent

Shannon W. Phelps Trial by Jury demanded herein

d/b/a Case Manager, Seagoville FCI

Dale Eberle

d/b/a Drug Task Force Agent

Sergeant Valentine

d/b/a Tulsa County Deputy Sheriff

Defendants/Accused

JURISDICTION

This action is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (R.I.C.O.), Title 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1503, 1510, 1951, 1961f 1962, 2314 et. seq. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by Title 18 USC §1964(b), (c), and (d). The amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 exclusive of interests and costs. This Honorable Court has pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 84 Stat. 1961 (1)(B), (1)(C), (1)(D), (1)(E), as amended, to prevent ongoing or further predicate acts. By this complaint, Plaintiff petitions for redress of grievances pursuant to the First Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America.

INTRODUCTION

2. The U.S. District Court, U.S. Attorney, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are government agencies/enterprises that claim to be empowered to investigate crimes and affect interstate commerce. Upon a showing of probable cause and a finding that property was used in, or gained from criminal activity, said government agencies are alleged to be allowed to obtain search and seizure warrants and move for forfeiture of property. The statutes providing for seizure and forfeiture have been under scrutiny since their enactment because of the broad powers granted to public officials. The Defendants are federal agents or employees of the above-named government agencies, and their positions provide a sophistication and organization that makes it difficult for private people to investigate their actions. These officials shroud themselves with immunities from ordinary lawsuits.

3. In this case, Defendants representing several government agencies shared a common purpose of engaging in criminal conduct under the guise of legitimate seizure and forfeiture proceedings. In essence, said Defendants created a criminal enterprise upon discovery of the existence of a warehouse operated by the Plaintiff without ever having a prior complaint by any person claiming to be damaged by any of the activities by the Plaintiff. They used their connections to legitimate enterprises, without any evidence that Plaintiff committed crimes. Once the assets of the Plaintiff were located, Defendants acted in concert to obtain and execute alleged search and seizure warrants that were not supported by probable cause in order to take Plaintiff's property, and other property that was not listed on the alleged search and seizure warrant. Defendants named herein executed a scheme to defraud Plaintiff involving a wide variety of predicate acts and racketeering activity including but not limited to: Perjury, Falsification, Theft, Robbery, Breaking and Entering, Mail or Wire Fraud, Interference with Commerce and Forgery. This scheme to defraud Plaintiff of his assets could not have been accomplished without the Defendants using their positions within their legitimate enterprises, acting in concert with their own criminal enterprise over a considerable period of time, and continuing to this day. At all times relevant to the events described herein, the defendants have acted and continue to act under color of federal law.

(2)

4. The Defendants named herein concocted a scheme to abduct Plaintiff and search his possessions and property using a pattern and practice of racketeering activity to wit: (a) Defraud the Plaintiff of his property using alleged seizure warrants. Defendants knew the alleged seizure warrants failed to allege facts based on personal first-hand knowledge sufficient to show probable cause for seizure and forfeiture of personal property. (b) Took property from the Plaintiff, which was not listed on the alleged search warrant. (c) Intimidated non-party witnesses in an attempt to fabricate criminal charges against Plaintiff.

5. The Defendants and their respective agencies/enterprises knew that they would benefit from the liquidation of said property. The Defendants named herein knew that no criminal complaints or civil actions had been commenced against Plaintiff prior to committing the acts and omissions as described herein.

6. For a Plaintiff to have standing, as in Case No. 94-CR-30-C or 94-CR-30-BU, and for the court to have jurisdiction of the subject matter, there must be in existence a bona fide contract binding the Accused into the criminal maritime jurisdiction, and this contract must be entered into evidence. Under the doctrine of "clean hands," relief will not be granted to a party if such party in prior conduct has violated conscience or good faith or other equitable relief. one seeking relief cannot take advantage of one's own wrongdoing.

(b) Want of jurisdiction is always a defense under UCC §3-408, unless there is an underlying or "antecedent" obligation. In this case, there is no evidence of an antecedent obligation, so it was presumed. Another problem with this case is the unconscionability of the contracts, and concerning UCC §2-302, voids all contracts. Further, according to the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, ... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him...”

(3)

6. (c) The Sixth Amendment makes this right to know the nature and cause of the accusation mandatory. The key word "shall" makes the enjoyment of the right to be informed mandatory. The Information or Indictment must state the nature and cause in plain language that is understood by the accused. In Case No. 94-CR-30-BU, it was not: jurisdiction, non-substantive law, a false "res," unidentified parties -- presumptions all, orchestrated by scheming attorneys to ravish citizens by keeping them in the dark and silent until the presumptions could become facts of record.

(d) Under the topic of fraudulent concealment, this entire Case No. 94-CR-30-BU proceeded based upon a presumption that an alleged offender is bound in some undisclosed manner to the maritime jurisdiction (by a State driver's license, presumption of interest in the "offender" himself, in the car he was driving in supposed interstate commerce, by a Social Security contract, etc.). This is a longstanding and well-settled unspoken policy that is grossly inadequate, amounting to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the Accused, and is part of a pattern of unconstitutional behavior by the court and allowed by the other attorneys involved.

(e) When the "offender" identified himself in a court of maritime jurisdiction, the offender identified himself by admitting his name and entered a plea, then the quasi in rem action automatically converted to a maritime personam action, in which the real man was held liable for actions of property in which the State claimed a priority interest and the "offender" became the Defendant.

(f) As a matter of policy, and in Case No. 94-CR-30-BU, attorneys for the Plaintiff (UNITED STATES) prosecuted the suit in maritime jurisdiction without evidence entered into the record of the contract binding the Accused to the maritime law. Without such contract, the court was wholly in want of subject matter jurisdiction and venue jurisdiction. The judges, prosecutors, and defense

(4)

attorneys Echols and Dupler conveniently overlooked the lack of binding evidence in their concocted scheme, and are guilty of violating the "clean hands" doctrine. The arresting officers Sergeant Valentine and Dale Eberle shall be sued in their individual capacities for champerty, the Prosecutors Steve Lewis and Allan Litchfield, and defense attorneys Echols and Dupler for barratry and allowing the bringing of a case with unclean hands, and Judges Cook and Burrage for lack of jurisdiction, and all of them for conspiracy to fraudulently conceal the true nature and cause of the accusation and a concerted act under R.I.C.O.

7. The court withheld or violated Dennis Eidson's constitutional rights in multiple instances during Case No. 94-CR-30-BU, as identified herein. Parts of the Constitution for the United States are quoted multiple times throughout this affidavit. The Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme law of the land, and any law in contradiction to the Constitution is unlawful. Also, to presume or say that the U.S. Constitution does not apply in some situation, case, or court within the borders of the United States of America is absurd, false, and treasonous, even and unless Dennis Eidson is a presumed military prisoner, or there is a presumed long-term, unconcealed State of Emergency in force, or a thousand other possibilities of presumptions. How many other presumptions must Dennis Eidson uncover, that his defense attorneys should be aware of, to even approach some semblance of justice, truth, good faith, or honorable court? These presumptions have been rebutted. Any judge who acts in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution does so without honor, without valid law, without authority, and violates his own oath and affirmation of office. The text of the Oath of Office for Judges may be found in the United States Code (USC) at 28 USC §453 and 5 usc §3331. Judge H. Dale Cook took his Oath of Office on 12/31/74. Judge Michael Burrage took his Oath of Office on 06/10/94.

(5)

8. Regardless of the jurisdiction that the court is operating under at the time, the oath and affirmation of the judge, and other public officers to uphold the U.S. Constitution remains in force. Depending on the stage of court proceedings, the jurisdiction seems to change at will; from admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to equity, to UNITED STATES, subject matter, venue, and under the yellow fringe flag, a completely foreign jurisdiction. This yellow fringe flag in federal courtrooms represents or signifies a foreign flag of a foreign State. The federal government, or its officers and agents, have created a State within a State in violation of Article IV, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Judges and public officers are operating in violation of their constitutional oaths in order to create a sanctuary within a foreign State. Secondly, they have changed the venue. The venue under the yellow fringe flag is a foreign jurisdiction, because it is not part of the United States of America, and is in violation of Rule 12(b)(3).

(b) In their foreign venue and sanctuary, prosecutors present fact yet deny the Accused the right to object. They violate their own rules and law, their oath and affirmation, and the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – the right to a fair trial. There can be no fair trial in this venue. Clearly, artificial fabrication of frauds and lies by government rulership systems based on usurpation and false claims cannot absolve anyone.

(c) When the judge takes our U.S. Constitution and surrenders it to a foreign State, he commits constructive treason, contempt for the U.S. Constitution, perjury of oath, and false swearing. This court, or "foreign State," according to the Eleventh Amendment, cannot have jurisdiction over a sovereign citizen. Nor can the judiciary of a "foreign State" have jurisdiction over a sovereign citizen.

(d) A judge that sits in a sanctuary of a "foreign State" invokes the Foreign Sovereignty Immunity Act of 1976. This foreign State is under treaty with the

(6)

United States to uphold the constitution of the U.S. while engaged in commerce. While engaged in commerce, public officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. Either way, foreign State or no, Judges and public officers are violating the rights of Due Process, the right to a fair trial, and a score of other laws with knowledge and accessory after the fact with their preconceived schemes of trickery, presumptions, and hide-and-seek machinations. They have knowledge, and they caused depravation of rights under color of law. Under Title 42 §1986 for knowledge, they are negligent of that knowledge. They have violated both their own oath and the Treaty -- criminals on the bench -automatic disqualification of the case as a mistrial.

8. (e) Due Process says the court must follow Title 31 §§3711-2716. They are also violating Title 42 USC §2000aa, using their jurisdiction as an act of official business to access the financial records of the Accused. They have also caused personal injury under Title 42 USC §1985, Subsec. 3, obstructing justice, and Subsec. 2 for depriving justice. With knowledge, they are back violating Title 42 USC §1986; then under Title 42 USC §1985 for conspiracy, because the judge has to work in conjunction with other individuals to certify a fraud, all of whom are coming in disguise as actors to extort money, property, and rights -- conspiracy. This evil intent by the judges and prosecutors is reckless and callous indifference and evidence of an ongoing policy to trample the rights and liberty of citizens and confiscate their property.

(f) The Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the government will not use automatic dominion over any rights not stated in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states clearly that no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation, and states clearly and unambiguously that fraud and extortion must not be the method by which government deals with the citizen. The Judge is under oath and affirmation to not violate due process. He is under Treaty also. When he applies some other law, contrary to the United States Constitution, for example Title 21 of the United States Code, an unlawful policy, not positive law when applied to a sovereign citizen of the Republic of Oklahoma, he violates the Treaty and the Constitution, and he loses jurisdiction.

(7)

8. (g) Each person has a right to sovereignty over his own body, his own life, and his own peaceful actions. The public must be protected from these incumbent public officials who are determined to disregard the commercial guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, and who are determined to substitute "summary process" for those guarantees.

Statement of Facts

9. On February 23, 1994, Drug Task Force Agent Dale Eberle instructed Sergeant Valentine, Tulsa County Sheriff, to stop Dennis Eidson's rented van on the highway. Sergeant Valentine alleged that Dennis Eidson had effected an illegal lane change while driving his van (failing to signal) and pulled him over. Later, under sworn testimony, Sergeant Valentine revealed this alleged violation to be a lie, that he stopped Dennis Eidson to simply "see what was in the van." Dale Eberle acted in collusion with Sergeant Valentine to detain Dennis Eidson by effecting an unlawful traffic stop (pretextual) without probable cause.

10. Upon further investigation by Sergeant Valentine, and discovering that Dennis Eidson's driver's license had been revoked (a convenient mistake by the Oklahoma Department of Motor Vehicles -- the driver's license was improperly suspended due to a technical error), and this was the basis of the arrest. Dennis Eidson was searched and taken into custody and his rented van was impounded. Once inside the Sheriff's Office, a more thorough search of Dennis Eidson's person

revealed about three grams of marijuana, a pipe for smoking, and a small key-chain sized .22 caliber revolver.

(8)

11. Dennis Eidson was charged initially on February 23, 1994 with possession of a small amount of marijuana and possession of a firearm, both misdemeanors, jailed and then released by New Day on the same day.

12. From omitting probable cause, Dale Eberle and Sergeant Valentine obtained evidence from the rented van of Dennis Eidson, consisting of dirt, trash, and marijuana cuttings from live plants. The "fruits of the search" were thus attained by omission of Due Process, that allowed a Search Warrant to be obtained for Dennis Eidson's rented warehouse on the same day of his arrest, February 23, 1994. At the warehouse, officers found an ongoing marijuana cultivation operation, and recovered approximately 1,760 live marijuana plants. In addition, government agents unlawfully seized numerous items not listed on the Search Warrant. An entire office full of furniture and equipment consisting mostly of a computer, computer software, a satellite dish and receiver, a prototype Paraffin Control Unit designed by Dennis Eidson for oil field use, a large desk and executive chair, a cabinet stuffed with books, several volumes of binders containing copies and printouts of thirty years of stock market data, and various tables and chairs and other records. Total worth of unlawfully seized property was in excess of $50,000.

13. On or about March 4, 1994, an unknown federal official presumed jurisdiction by some undisclosed manner of fraudulent concealment of some presumed contract whereby Dennis Eidson supposedly contracted for his own destruction, and the U.S. Attorney, or his assistant, held a closed-door hearing before a Grand Jury to indict Dennis Eidson on charges of cultivation of marijuana. Dennis Eidson turned himself in to the U.S. Attorney on March 7, 1994, was arrested, then released on bond of $50,000.

(9)

14. Sergeant Valentine testified at pre-trial hearing in front of Judge Cook, on the court record, that he stopped Dennis Eidson on the highway "to see what was in his van." Judge Cook termed the stop "pretextual" and ruled that Dennis Eidson's constitutional rights had been violated. Judge Cook ruled that the traffic stop was made without probable cause according to Sergeant Valentine's own testimony. The Prosecutor, Steve Lewis, agreed. The case was dismissed by Judge Cook on August 8, 1994. Neither Dale Eberle nor Sergeant Valentine were sanctioned, charged, or disciplined in any way for perjury of testimony about the illegal traffic stop, and thus, government officials continue their siege and plunder of the city.

15. The Federal Government appealed Judge Cook's opinion to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was then attached to a similar case, U.S. v. Guzman, but where a legal traffic stop had been made for speeding. Based on Guzman, the federal government won their appeal on April 11, 1996, remanding and overruling Judge Cook's decision back to the pretrial hearings for further proceedings.

16. With the case remanded back to the District Court in December, 1996, and once back in the pretrial hearings, the defense attorneys tried to bring up the issue of "pretextual stop" again. But Judge Cook would not allow it. He made veiled threats, told stories, recounted history, and made statements that grew into a ten-minute speech to discourage the defense attorneys from pursuing the issue of “pretextual stop." Naturally, after the Judge's bombastic speech, if the defense attorneys wanted to continue their careers as attorneys, they would drop the issue, and like good little pawns of the Judge's discretion, they did. This is a tacit agreement to "look the other way" at the whim of a Judge directing criminal activity, obtaining silence by threat, committing perjury by omission, and retaliation against a witness.

(10)

17. On December 11, 1996, under duress and coercion, under threat of the possibility of a life sentence at trial, without knowledge of the presumptions, fraud and misrepresentations against him, Dennis Eidson assented to a guilty plea and was taken into federal custody. The Prosecutors agreed to drop the gun charge, not out of the goodness they represent, but because they knew the gun was not connected to the alleged crime.

18. In March, 1996, Dennis Eidson was sentenced to a Mandatory Minimum sentence of ten years for cultivation of marijuana, plus a $3,000 fine, plus a two-point gun enhancement for a gun charge that had supposedly been dropped, plus five years probation after release, plus, plus, plus. upon information and belief, there are likely other presumptions as yet uncovered that will be rebutted, in addition to the above instances.

19. After Dennis Eidson was sentenced, he was designated to Memphis FCI and arrived there on April 23, 1996. In June, 1996, less than three months later, a Writ of Habeus Corpus was filed by the federal government to bring Dennis Eidson back to court to appear before another Grand Jury. This time, the Prosecutor, Allan Litchfield believed there was another person involved; a "money man," in the illegal growing operation ran by Dennis Eidson, and the Prosecutor wanted his name. Dennis Eidson refused to reveal any name, and was sentenced by Judge Burrage to 18 months in the Tulsa County Jail, harassed and questioned over and over again by Allan Litchfield, threatened, coerced, and placed under constant duress.

(11)

19. (b) Upon information and belief, it is believed that government officials, to further their own selfish interests, have gone beyond their authority and perverted the method of procedure, meaning, and application of the Grand Jury process in violation of its original intent, and now allows the Prosecutor to use this new unlawful process called the Grand Jury as his own kangaroo court. Otherwise, the multiple lies, presumptions and false representations made by Steve Lewis and Allan Litchfield and other agents of government to associate Dennis Eidson with a Grand Jury on both March 4, 1994 and July, 1996, would not have been possible.

(c) Until the twentieth century, American laws and procedures have never allowed secret, closed-door, covert hearings where unknown witnesses testify about unknown misinformation and altered facts, and completely omit other facts (absence of positive law, absence of probable cause, absence of a witness that had been damaged, failure to properly identify the Accused, conflicts of interest and other reasons and ulterior motives for government fraud, extortion, and confiscation of property), without the right to defend or cross-examine or be represented. Therefore, the Grand Jury is not allowed complete information, are blind to questions, investigation, or any real decision, and are little more than the personal rubber stamp of the Prosecutor to follow his lead.

(d) After gross misrepresentation by Allan Litchfield and other government officials to the Grand Jury, it is not surprising that a cause of action was handed down. Upon information and belief, the Grand Jury Foreman signed the document charging Dennis Eidson as "true," not true, correct, and complete. It follows that if the information and process were not correct or complete, it is probably in error.

(12)

19.(e) Upon information and belief, the Prosecutors, Steve Lewis and Allan Litchfield, presented misleading interpretations of the facts of the case, and twisted the law into vague shapes and did knowingly, willingly and intentionally present to the Grand Jury a presumption of a legislative presumption of evidence of law as the source of a corpus delicti. As an attorney and officer of the court, the Prosecutor knows that the facts defining a crime must arise from law, not from any illusion of law, pretense of law, etc. But the Prosecutors, Judges, and arresting officers and agents all wholly agree to use their collection of misrepresentations and presumptions to their full advantage to set up the Accused in advance of any defense through fraud, extortion, and organized crime. overall, the Grand Jury process and Indictment failed to satisfy the Fifth Amendment requirement of Due Process of law.

(f) The gross violation and deliberate indifference to Dennis Eidson's rights is plainly obvious in hindsight as a continuing policy allowed as a consequence of inaction within Tulsa County officials' departments governing policy, and as a direct result of the decisions of those policymakers of the municipality.

20. In January and February, 2001, Dennis Eidson sent a Verified Actual And Constructive Notice, Bill of Peace, and Specific Negative Averment to Judge Burrage and Acting U.S. Attorney Thomas Scott Woodward as "Respondents." By these Affidavits, Judge Burrage and the U.S. Attorney's Office were given a chance to right the wrongs perpetrated against Dennis Eidson and release him from prison. These affidavits established several unlawful activities by Judge Michael Burrage, established proof of the sovereignty of Dennis Eidson, and rebuttal of all federal contracts and presumptions. These affidavits were assigned the Case No. 94-CR-30-BU and filed by Judge Burrage with the federal Court Clerk, and established as an ongoing case. Dennis Eidson did not request these Affidavits be filed. On February 26, 2001, Judge Burrage issued an Order denying Dennis Eidson's requests as "frivolous," and concluded the requests made were "wholly without merit." Judge Burrage did not rebut the Affidavits point-for-point, but merely summarily "dismissed" them, which does not satisfy a commercial claim.(see Exhibit "A").

(13)

20. (b) The question remains also whether a Judge can dismiss a claim in which he is a party. Judge Michael Burrage should have recused himself. There is a common law maxim, which had seen codified by the Code of Judicial Ethics, which provides that a person cannot be a judge of his own case.

(c) Any attempt on the part of any public official to remove, quash, expunge, release, or in any other way destroy the effect of affidavits without properly rebutting them in commerce or prosecuting them before a Seventh Amendment constitutional jury constitutes a violation of the State and Federal laws against: 1) Perjury by commissions, 2) False swearing, 3) Bearing false witness, 4) Perjury by omission, 5) Subornation of Perjury, 6) Subornation of perjury by omission, 7) Extortion of false testimony, 8) Obtaining testimony or silence by threats or duress, and 9) Retaliation against a witness.

(d) There was no time for application for the disqualification of Judge Burrage in the 2001 case. He did not answer Dennis Eidson's Affidavits or rebut them, but merely dismissed the case after he, himself, or his assistants, filed the Affidavits as Court Records. Dennis Eidson did not request they be filed. This was done to "dismiss" them. It was only after these events occurred that Dennis Eidson realized he could not receive a fair trial, thus, fraud and conspiracy are newly realized and ongoing.

(e) Judge Burrage has substituted summary process for a jury trial. He is then holding office in Insurrection and Rebellion against the United States Constitution, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the American public, he is committing Treason against the united States of America, and he is engaging in "Mixed War."

(14)

20. (f) As a party to this cause, as a necessary and material witness to the instant case, with personal bias, prejudice, and personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts and of parties concerned, it is asserted that Judge Burrage is disqualified to sit as judge on either case, past or present, involving Dennis Eidson. He is a material witness because he, in many instances, has directed the claimed organized crime, and contains sole knowledge of how and why the crimes were perpetrated.

21. Judge Burrage and U.S. Attorney Woodward were defaulted for failing to rebut Dennis Eidson's Affidavits by "Notice of Default and Stipulation," dated March 12, 2001, hereinafter referred to as "Notice of Default." At "2d" of the Notice of Default, Judge Burrage and Thomas Woodward admit to being an alien enemy of Dennis Eidson and the united States of America and the people, U.S. Constitution, and government thereof, and that they are committing treason, insurrection, and conspiracy against the people and government of the united States of America. They agree by default at "2f" of the Notice of Default that there never was a bona fide contract or case with Dennis Eidson of legal means, was flawed from inception, and all presumptions against Dennis Eidson and contracts with Dennis Eidson are null and void. The Notice of Default has established on the record the confession and consent of judgment against Judge Burrage and Thomas Woodward and are actionable in law, commerce, and any competent jurisdiction (See Exhibit "A").

22. on January 25, 2003, Dennis Eidson sent Notice to the U.S. Attorney's Office of David O'Meilia, disputing all claims and statements, rebutting all presumptions and/or contracts, and requesting their authority to act as a debt collector. Tiffany Harper, Financial Litigation Agent, responded by returning a copy of the "JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE," hereinafter "Judgment," Case No. 94-CR-30-BU, and a letter dated January 30, 2003.

(b) On February 7, 2003, Dennis Eidson rebutted the claims made by Tiffany Harper and inferred by the Judgment, with a Notice of Private Administrative Remedy, including Dennis Eidson's own Inquiries, Statements, and Claims. The U.S. Attorney's Office, nor their agents, made any attempt to rebut Dennis Eidson's Statements and Claims, and were defaulted with a Notice of Default (See Exhibit "B").

(15)

23. On March 7, 2003, Dennis Eidson gave Notice to Shannon Phelps, Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Correctional Officer, disputing BOP authority to act as a debt collector. Mr. Phelps responded with a letter dated March 18, 2003, hereinafter "Mr. Phelps' Response," and on multiple occasions used threats, intimidation and retaliation to extort money from Dennis Eidson, even though the alleged debt was in dispute. On March 20, 2003, Dennis Eidson gave a second Notice to Mr. Phelps, rebutting and revealing Mr. Phelps' Response as manipulative misrepresentation and veiled threats and intimidation to extort money, with no valid authority or claim. There was no further response to this second Notice, and Mr. Phelps was defaulted on April 4, 2003 (See Exhibit "C").

(b) It is confirmed by the Payment History (Exhibit "B") of Dennis Eidson's IFRP fine payments, and from the BOP Account Statement (Exhibit "C") that funds have been withdrawn quarterly for most of the period of incarceration. Tiffany Harper and Mr. Phelps were personally liable when they acted in collusion to carry out a policy of unlawful debt collection practices, especially after they were warned. Warden Went is liable for directing and enforcing an unlawful policy of debt collection practices, and guilty of not amending said policy. All are guilty of deliberate indifference of Dennis Eidson's rights by enforcing a scheme of unauthorized money collection.

24. Defendants Judge Burrage and Agents of the U.S. Attorney's Office have been previously noticed and warned by Plaintiff's Affidavits, to which Defendants did not answer/rebut, or answered without addressing the demands made (See Exhibits "All, "B", and "C"). In the said Notices and Affidavits, eternal principles of Commercial Law, the underpinnings of all human law and civilization, were clearly and simply set forth and explained (clarification of contractual terms). The above-referenced Defendants/Parties failed to avail themselves of the remedies under Commercial Law to resolve the disputes with this Plaintiff in a civil, peaceful and honorable manner.

(16)

By failing to respond to the Plaintiff, Defendants are in contractual default. Defendants have admitted to and acquiesced to the crimes which the Plaintiff has complained about and sought to protect himself from further abuses. Their continuing on with the wrongful incarceration and actions against this Plaintiff, the Defendants are acting in knowledgeable and willful criminal assaults against Plaintiff and in knowledgeable and willful breach of contract that they opened.

In this matter, the Plaintiff has been the victim, the Commercial Affidavits sets the complained issues and this criminal complaint defines the crimes, verifies the actual damages, and the intent of Defendants was established by proof that the Defendants were Noticed and warned of their wrongs and what was required to right them. Their failing to rebut the Affidavits or prove their own claims, the contractual requirement of Plaintiff's Commercial Affidavits and Notice and Warning, the Defendants acted willfully against this Plaintiff.

Plaintiff exercises his unalienable Sovereign Right against Defendants and their officers for a redress of grievances (fraud, extortion, theft, and other noted wrongs) by Criminal Complaint under R.I.C.0, pursuant to the commercial instrument of the people, known as the Constitution for the State of Oklahoma, the parallel sections of the Constitution for the United States, United States Code Title 18, the United States Criminal Code, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

25. Comes now Dennis Eidson, an Inhabitant whose liberties are protected under the Constitution and laws of the organic Republic established by way of the Constitution ordained by the People of the State of Oklahoma, 1907, and further protected by the guarantees of liberty enumerated and un-enumerated in the Constitution ordained by the People of the several united States of America, AD 1789-1791, as purviewed through Article in Amendment XIV thereto and Article 1 §2 of the Constitution ordained by the people for the State of Oklahoma, AD 1907.

(17)

26. To be filed and served separately, and incorporated herein by reference, is a Memorandum in support of Plaintiff's claims.

AUTHORITY

27. The Plaintiff, Dennis Eidson, brings this petition for redress in his own name, and under his own authority as retained at Article 10 in Amendment to the Constitution of the several united States of America as purviewed through Article I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution for The State of Oklahoma.

28. The Plaintiff, Dennis Eidson, on his own authority, expressly grants the court(s) established by the authority of the people through the Constitution of the several untied States of America at Article III jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims.

29. The Plaintiff brings this action to claim damages incurred by Plaintiff as the result of unlawful acts, and failure(s) to act, by the parties named and identified as "Defendants." The acts, and failure(s) to act are claimed to be acts under color of law and without lawful authority.

30. The Plaintiff brings this action directly into the courts established at Article III of the Constitution ordained by the people of the several united States of America as Plaintiff is denied access to any court of the Judicial department of a republican form of government at Oklahoma by Defendants.

(18)

31. Plaintiff brings this action to the national court(s) under the requirement at Article IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution ordained by the people of the several united States of America that the national government guarantee the inhabitants of the several republic members of the national union access to a republican form of government, in this case a Judicial tribunal operating under the guarantee(s) of the constitutions of The State of Oklahoma and of the several united States of America.

32. Defendants have admitted that they can identify no lawful authority under which the Defendants act, and continue to cause Plaintiff further damages.

33. Plaintiff cannot find, nor have Defendants provided to Plaintiff upon request, any evidence or other reason to believe that Defendants are operating under any lawfully constituted state or corporate authority.

CIAIMS

34. The Plaintiff, Dennis Eidson, claims the acts, and failures to act are a matter of policy and custom, and a part of a pattern and practice of criminal racketeering activities by the Defendants and others under color of law through the creation of a fictitious organization through which the Defendants, and others, have stolen the identity of the republic, The State of Oklahoma, and routinely deprive the inhabitants of Oklahoma of life, liberty, and property without due process of law and under color of law.

35. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have under color of law and without any lawful authority restrained the Inhabitant's protected liberty to the right to be free from involuntary servitude causing Plaintiff damages.

(19)

36. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have under color of law and without any lawful authority restrained the Inhabitant's protected liberty to the right to be free from prosecution without disclosure of the nature and cause of the action, including but not limited to disclosure of the venue and substantive system of law under which the court is convened, the identity and capacity of the complaining party, and the exact nexus of relationship between the complaining party and the Inhabitant prosecuted upon which an action may lie causing the Plaintiff damages.

37. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have under color of law and without any lawful authority restrained the Inhabitant's protected liberty to the right to be free from seizure without lawful process causing Plaintiff damages.

38. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have under color of law and without any lawful authority restrained the Inhabitant's protected liberty to the right to be free from taking of property (monies, possessions, photographs, fingerprints, etc.) without due process of law causing Plaintiff damages.

39. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have under color of law and without any lawful authority restrained the Inhabitant's protected liberty to the right to effective assistance of counsel in an action purporting to be a legal proceeding causing Plaintiff damages.

40. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have under color of law and without any lawful authority restrained the Inhabitant's protected liberty to the right to not have contracts impaired causing Plaintiff damages.

41. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have under color of law and without any lawful authority restrained the Inhabitant's protected liberty to the right to exercise the powers retained by the People of the several united States of America at Article X in amendment to the Constitution ordained by the People of the several united States of America, AD 1789-91, and further as retained by the Constitution ordained by the People for The State of Oklahoma, AD 1907, causing Plaintiff damages.

(20)

42. Plaintiff claims that Defendants operated under color of law and without any lawful state or corporate authority, in the substantive capacity of a corporation(s) sole, for which the beneficiary participants are personally liable without any governmental or corporate immunity.

43. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have under color of law and without any lawful authority restrained the Inhabitant's protected liberty to the right of a republican form of government causing Plaintiff damages.

OTHER CLAIMS

The Plaintiff, Dennis Eidson, sets forth other abuses of FE1,ONY HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS by the Defendants. In the instant action, the above-named Defendants have caused and/or supported the following criminal actions willfully and knowingly:

44. USED INVALID LAW. There is no authority, jurisdiction, or application for the it policies" called Titles and Codes, specifically Titles 18, 21, and 28 of the United States Code, to an Inhabitant of any republic, that are not government employees; these are not "positive law." Since an unconstitutional law is void and invalid, there is no crime. In the instant case, there was failure to charge a crime based upon a valid or existing law, making the court and prosecution liable. The Defendants, as Agents of a federal conspiracy, stepped outside their authority, broke their oaths, and are personally liable. From Am Jur 16 §178, "... ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under an unconstitutional statute, he does so at his peril and must take the consequences."

(21)

45. MANUFACTURED DIVERSITY. Dennis Eidson, Plaintiff, was not named as a party to the Case No. 94-CR-30-BIJ, but unknowingly went along for the ride of fraudulent prosecution. The Prosecuting attorneys and judge utilized the Manufactured Diversity of DENNIS EIDSON (the all-capital-letter juristic fiction) as a party in the action to gain jurisdiction over the sovereign Dennis Eidson. This is clearly prohibited by 28 USC §1359, if these "policies" mean anything at all. A mandate to correct the legal paperwork involved when proper names are provided, is clearly set forth in the Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter 22 §403:

"When a defendant is indicted or prosecuted by a fictitious or erroneous name, and in any state of the proceedings his true name is discovered, it must be inserted in the subsequent proceedings, referring to the fact of his being charged by the name mentioned in the indictment or information." If not properly identified, all corresponding judgments are void, as outlined in Am Jur 2d §100, at Judgments. Further, from Am Jur 17A §234: "Where a contract is a unit and is left uncertain in one particular, the whole will be regarded as only inchoate, because the parties have not agreed, and therefore, neither is bound."

46. FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. The rules and regulations asserted against Dennis Eidson are not laws, but rather terms imposed by contract agreements. It is the contracts themselves which make these rules and regulations binding. However, from Am Jur 17A §243, "As a general rule, participation in the unlawful intention or purpose of the other party to the contract renders the agreement illegal." Further, from Am Jur 37 §4169 11... no lapse of time, however great, and no delay in bringing suit, will defeat the right to recover for fraud if ;the party complaining was ignorant of the fraud."

(22)

47. INVALID PARTIES. Defendants have admitted by default that UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a non-existent entity, without the ability to sue or be sued; a nullity in a court of law. From Am Jur 59 §20, "Since plaintiff is a mere nullity, there is no case in court, and consequently there is nothing to amend." DENNIS REID EIDSON, a Manufactured Diversity, is also a nullity and invalid party. Dennis Reid Eidson, a sovereign Inhabitant of the Republic of Oklahoma, was never made party to Case No. 94-CR-30-BU. From Am Jur 59 §8, "One who is not a party to the record, is not a party to the cause, ... the courts will not look beyond the record." From Am Jur 59 §259, "It is held that an action must be dismissed without prejudice if an indispensable party is not joined."

48. DENIED THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF 1AW. Such denials include but are not limited to the right to work, the right to receive just reward of labors, denying access to multiple Constitutional rights and specifically acting against Defendant . under a color of official right. It is a "taking action" denying the right to personal property violative of the provisions of the state constitutional provisions and under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The right of due process of law requires, before any sort of judgment against an individual, that he has had opportunity to identify the nature and cause of the accusation or claim, and the right to defend himself against the accusation, that he has had an opportunity to state his case, that he has had a proper and lawful judgment by a jury of his peers, or by a knowledgeable waiver of the right to answer. The Defendants, as officials, acted against that due process right by acting in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the Plaintiff of his property, without any kind of lawful Judgment, commercial paperwork, contracts, or proof of claims. Defendants are therefore guilty of denying the Plaintiff, Dennis Eidson, every constitutional protection afforded -- an act of TREASON, and an act of MIXED DOMESTIC WAR.

(23)

49. DOMESTIC MIXED WAR. A mixed war is one which is made on one side by public authority, and the other by mere private persons (Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed., page 1420). liar does not exist merely because of an armed attack by military forces of another nation until it is a condition recognized or accepted by political authority of government which is attacked, either through an actual declaration of war or other acts demonstrating such position (Savage v. Sun Life D.C. 57 F Supp. 620, 621).

The most insidious and perfidious type of mixed war exists when the government acts against the people under guise of protecting the people's rights and upholding the nation's most cherished values and ideals. In such case, as is the case today, government officials are "wolves in sheep's clothing," occupying positions of prestige and power, with the support of the people, while treasonously betraying that trust. This is an ideal confidence game whereby arch-charlatan criminals can engage in piracy on an ongoing basis under color of law and be tolerated or even treated as heroes by their victims. This best describes the federal court today, and in the instant case, that hides behind presumption, lies, trickery, and schemes of fraud; basically a chimera.

The Defendants are hereby accused of the following crimes against, and violations of the right of the people of the Republic of Oklahoma. Such rights or obligations are secured, preserved or defined by the Constitution to prevent such abuses by both employer and of government officials by their oaths to support both federal and state Constitutions.

50. MALFEASANCE OF OFFICE. By such wrongful action, these individuals have acted with malfeasance of office in conspiracy with other agencies of government, deliberately, knowingly and willfully violating said rights, and are guilty of misconduct in office, whether public or private.

(24)

51. SLAVERY. The civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. The Defendants have denied the right to "fortunes" earned by the labors of the Plaintiff and the people of Oklahoma. The unlawful conversion of such property and giving it to another without due process of law, forcing the Plaintiff to work for less than what was lawfully and contractually agreed upon, breaching interpersonal contracts and relationships, is criminal. The Defendants have absolutely refused to communicate in GOOD FAITH with the Plaintiff. They have refused to disclose the lawful authority by which they act, the contract in default or the damages which they claim created the so-called liability. By such actions, these have destroyed the right to life, liberty, and property by such taking of personal property and liberty without due process of law, reducing the Plaintiff to the condition of a slave. As such, Defendants are in fact in violation of the state and federal Constitutions that abolished slavery.

52. TREASON. Treason is defined as the assault against the authority to whom one owes allegiance. It is one of three specific crimes named in the United States Constitution. It requires that one commit an act of war against the Constitution or giving aid and comfort to an enemy. Such clearly defined actions by government officers and such private officers who have privileged authority in commerce by the Constitution, in specific connection to the above violation, malfeasance of office along with violating their oath of office and in the related connected activities herein as listed below, is nothing short of Treason, and there is no other term or set of terms that accurately define such activity. Defendants have willfully violated the basic fundamental principles this Country was founded on, and therefore condoned the acts of Treason by so-called governmental officials against the Plaintiff, making them liable for such acts of Treason by refusing to stop such actions against the Plaintiff, Dennis Eidson, when they had the power and authority to do so after being noticed (criminally under Title 18 §4; civilly under Title 42 §§1983, 1985, 1986).

(25)

In addition to and along with the above-cited crimes, the Defendants acted in concert with such so-called government officials to complete such acts as listed as follows:

53. FRAUD. Permitting shown and demonstrated acts of fraud and actively participated in a scheming conspiracy of untruths and misrepresentations to deceive those who entrusted them in dealing in good faith, while specifically acting in deliberate bad faith when such fraud was shown (Title 18 USC 1001).

54. EXTORTION. By such actions of Fraud, said Defendants under assumed (usurped) official right and color of office to demand, without any real lawful or proper authority, stole monies and possessions from Dennis Eidson by misrepresentations and untruths, and demanded more money for payment of an alleged debt created by them to extort more money under a color and cover of law to raise revenue (Title 18 §872, §873, §1951, §1962).

55. ROBBERY. (Attempted Robbery). Defendants, by such action of conspiracy under a color of law and official right, used intimidation, threats, and fear by force of imprisonment or punishment to extort revenues (Title 18 USC §2112).

(26)

56. FALSE DOCUMENTS. Accepting false documents that are known not to be true or known to be false, to falsely condemn Dennis Eidson under a color of law without benefit of a lawful trial, raise revenue by stealing monies of Dennis Eidson.

57. CONSPIRACY. A confederation of two or more individuals who may not know each other by, by their joint efforts, commit some unlawful or criminal act (Black's Law). Multiple officials, agents and other persons named and properly noticed by the attached Commercial Affidavits, and un-named persons who under a cover of official right and appearance and color of law continued to perform such acts to continue to raise revenue by fraud and extortion, for any so-called government function (Federal Racketeering Act, Title 18 USC §1961 et. seq.).

58. RACKETEERING. Is the combination of the above-identified crimes. Title 18 USC §1961 (R.I.C.O.) defines it as involving a host of patterned criminal actions that includes but not limited to an act or threat of murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, and, as in the instant case, robbery, extortion, fraud, slavery, etc.

Causes of Action

59. The Defendants are guilty of the above crimes in acting in conspiracy with such agents of foreign powers and each other to further destroy another individual, Dennis Reid Eidson, the Plaintiff, by such activity. TO WIT, the above-named Defendants did WILLFULLY AND UNLAWFULLY:

60. COUNT 1: On or about February 23, 1994, Defendants created or had created, a false document, the alleged Search Warrant that was brought without probable cause, due process, authority, or positive law, then other Defendants accepted and honored the false document by the United States District Court, of an undocumented, unproven liability, shown to be false by the Plaintiff, Dennis Eidson, to take property without due process of law (Title 18 §241, §1961, §1962).

(27)

61. In accepting and honoring false documentation, Defendants specifically and willingly conspired with the state and federal authorities to steal the property of Dennis Eidson, prosecute, convict, and imprison Dennis Eidson, denying Dennis Eidson the rights of due process of law for any action against him. The rights denied, violated or trespassed are enumerated below. Each action -- denial, violation or trespass -- is a separate high crime or misdemeanor, brought together in this Count as violations against the Constitution. The penalty is defined under Title 18 USC §3571, individually listed for subtotal tally as to the civil damages sustained by such criminal actions. RIGHTS OF THE SOVEREIGN DENIED OR VIOIATED ($250,000 for each felony trespass, denial, or violation by a government representative) are secured, preserved and protected by the Constitution for the United States and parallel sections of the Oklahoma Constitution:

1. Second Amend. - Deprived of the right to bear arms.

2. Fourth Amend. - Seizure of personal property not listed on Search Warrant.

3. Fourth Amend. - No warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.

4. Fourth Amend. - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

5. Fifth Amend. - Deprived of fair trial based on constitutional law (no positive law applied).

6. Fifth Amend. - Enforced an ex post facto law (no law).

7. Fifth Amend. - Deprived of monies and possessions without fair trial.

8. Fifth Amend. - Deprived of private property without just compensation.

9. Fifth Amend. - Denied right of liberty.

10. Fifth Amend. - Denied right of due process.

11. Fifth Amend. - Denied right of acquiring property.

12. Fifth Amend. - Denied right of possessing property.

(28)

13. Fifth Amend. - Denied right of defending property.

14. Fifth Amend. - Denied right of privacy.

15. Fifth Amend. - No person shall be forced to say or do anything that can be used against him later on.

16. Sixth Amend. - Denied right of reasonable defense (defense attorneys were part of the conspiracy and actions against Dennis Eidson).

17. Sixth Amend. - Denied right to confront accuser; injured or damaged party.

18. Sixth Amend. - Denied of the right to be informed of the true nature and cause of the complaint against Dennis Eidson.

19. Sixth Amend. - Denied of the right of the accused to be confronted by all witnesses against him.

20. Seventh Amend. - Denied right to fair trial by jury.

21. Seventh Amend. - Denied right to trial by jury for undefined wrongs (advised against trial by jury by defense attorney).

22. Seventh Amend. Denied right to Common Law, Article III court.

23. Eighth Amend. No cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted (multiple convictions, enhancements, imprisonments through hearings, sentencing, Grand Juries, two years in condemned County Jails, threatened, intimidated, bullied and made a slave of the State).

24. Tenth Amend. - Federal and State officials using powers not delegated to United States. Prosecution of Oklahoma Inhabitant not delegated to the United States.

25. Thirteenth Amend. - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States of America.

26. Art. III, Sec. 1 - Judges shall hold their offices during good Behavior. Defendants continue holding office after bad behavior.

27. Art. III, Sec. 3 - No controlling agency shall harass a U.S. citizen (mixed war/treason).

28. Art. IV, - No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

29. Art. IV, Sec. 3 - No new State shall be formed or erected with the jurisdiction of any other State.

30. Art. IV, Sec. 4 - Denied guarantee to every State a Republican form of Government.

31. Art. IV, Sec. 4 - The United States did not protect against local attack.

(29)

32. Art. VI - Government officials are bound by Treaties, Alliance, and Confederation; no state shall work against the United States Constitution with anyone (BAR attorneys, etc.).

33. Art. VI - Judicial officers broke Oath or Affirmation, and duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

34. Art. VI - Deliberate, willful violation, denial, and rejection of mandatory and prohibitory provisions of the Constitution by Government officials.

Thirty-four actions of high crimes and misdemeanors in a single count of conspiracy. Almost all are listed as misdemeanors ($100,000 each). An elected official in government would be charged as felonies ($250,000 each), 18 USC §3571:

Subtotal of damages in Count 2: $250,000 x 34 = $8,500,000

62. COUNT 3: Partial Table of Crimes

Accounting of Damages Sustained

Nature of Crime Damage Penalty Authority for Damages

FRAUD $ 10,000 18 USC 1001

EXTORTION $ 5,000 18 USC 872

CONSPIRACY $ 10,000 18 USC 241

RACKETEERING (Criminal) $ 25,000 18 USC 1963

GRAND THEFT $250,000 18 USC 3571, 3623

TREASON $ 10,000 18 USC 4

=======

Subtotal $310,000

63. RACKETEERING (Civil) -- Lost salary, triple damages:

$100/day x 365 days/yr x 6 years x 3 = $657,000

64. COUNT 5: FALSE IMPRISONMENT

$1,500/day x 365 days x 6 years == $3,285,000

(30)

Beyond the Matrix

Contact Us