Stephen B Oliver
P.O. Box 241
Sneads, FL 32460
(850) 272-9789
Counselor,
My name is Stephen Breckenridge Oliver. I am contacting you today with a most diar need for a good attorney to help me prevail in justice and preserving the United States Constitution. I have been seeking justice for more than a decade, and I feel as though a TORT will apply due to the fact that I have encountered so much resistance in the pursuit of justice. I will need you to represent me on a continguency basis with an award of 30%. I feel as though this award amount will be enough for yourself and any partners you have to retire on should you desire to do so. This case is based on the following:
What constitutes a TORT? In my belief, a TORT is a knullification of the statute of limitations, and what is directly bearing on the statute of limitations regarding a TORT application status is the fault relevancy.
Although due to the fact that Mr. Oliver was denied a records appeal due to allegedly false conditions, it is contended by Mr. Oliver that the Freedom Of Information And Privacy Act of 1974 was in fact violated, and that the motive for that violation as being conducted appears to be evasion by proxy of records tampering. It is considered to be not possible that the FOIPA Office will be able to produce legitimate evidence constituting Mr. Oliver as a "Mob Boss" or that Mr. Oliver is somehow a constituted threat to the person of anyone resulting from a release of records pertaining to Mr. Oliver, to Mr. Oliver. As the records were not released to Mr. Oliver, the content of the records is speculative, however, Mr. Oliver contends that the reasoning for appeal denial is considered as being unsubstantiated. Concealing these records from the victims legal repercussion capabilities is in fact failure to disclose legal evidence to the victim, and therefore failure of disclosure has occured, as well as other offenses as this occured. Any accused or prospective plaintiff is allowed the right to evidence to be reviewed while deciding legal matters including the decision as to whether or not to file with the court.
Who's fault is it that the victim in this case did not recieve justice within the alloted accepted time frame considered as acceptable standard? The answer to this question is a toss-up between the State government of the State of Alabama, and the US government and the personnel of the US government employed withing the region of the State of Alabama, as well as the US Government employees in the Capitol region of Washington D.C. as that region was also notified of this condition and failed to act responsibly. This is to say that the fault of non-expediant implimentation of pursueance is not the fault of the victim. The victim made all attempts of pursueance within the alloted time frame prior to the statute of limitations expiration considered as timely accepted standardized pursueant allowances.
February 26, 1999 the statute of limitations became knull and void. This is to say that any TORT from this date forward till the end of time is constituted as applicable. This is the date in which the victim obtained a viable pursueance status in accordance with the juris prudence of the US. It is no fault of the victim that failure to comply with law conducted by the State of Alabama or the US personnel in that region occured. This is the date in which the State Of Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission recieved the complaint sent to that state by the victim. That state maintained that the complaint filed by the victim involved legal matters not within the jurisdiction of that commission. This notice was delivered to the victim March 29, 1999. This is clearly within peramaters of accepted standardized time frame as the act of espionage against we the people was performed by the state of Alabama on September 11, 1997. This was the date in which the state had chosen to incarcerate an accused without allowing the accused to be represented by an attorney, without allowing the accused to enter the intended constitutional effective defense, and without allowing the accused the right to be held on trial before a jury of peers. On December 11, 2002 the victim submitted in writing to the US attorneys office of Mobile, AL a filing of charge against the state of Alabama personnel in which conducted the violation. This was delivered to the office of Gina Vann, US attorney at that time.
These conditions constitute the statement that all timely pursueances within the peramaters of law were met by the victim, and constitutes a TORT applicative till the end of time.
The following is what has been sent to The Hague (The International Court Of Justice). The Hague has so informed me that in order to file a charge against any given sovereignty the charge must be brought forward by a sovereignty. Although I am a person among We The People, appearantly The Hague does not consider this status to be of sufficient entitlement as to be of a sovereign entity to the extent of acknowledging a charge as being brought to be constituted. As this is the appearant case, I am now intending to present this charge against the United States in a US Federal Court. I have no idea as to how this condition will develop, but this should prove to be educational at the very least, and obtaining this knowledge and experience in my opinion is well worth the filing cost as well as any time consumed to take this action. The aquisition of knowledge and experience obtained from merely taking this action could very well be considered as priceless for any practitioner of law, as well as myself. Although I am legally allowed to represent myself in this matter, which I am hoping I will not have to do, I am bearing a strong feeling that having an attorney, or firm, to serve as a front man, or men (or women), is as considered to be the priority prudency on that regard. Please consider this as I write you today.
Stephen B Oliver
P.O. Box 241
Sneads, FL 32460
International Court Of Justice
2517 K J
The Hague
Netherlands
Dear Court Of Justice,
I am writing you today with the purpose of pursueance of justice regarding a case in the United States in which has resulted in the constituted intervention of your International Court. The facts illustrated in this correspondence will demonstrate that this is indeed the status of this particular case. I realize that your court requires the charges to be brought forward by a state. Along with pointing out that the crime committed was that of state employees, along with Federal employees of said region, the fact that the Government here in the United States is comprised of "We The People", and therefore as I write you today, I do so with the representation of a state by proxy of the Judicial Branch sovereign property as a victim of the following outlined special conditions which result in this status. Although as I write you today it is not as an elected official, it is within the stipulated condition that I am a native born US citizen, and are in fact constitutably among "We The People". As well, as I write you today, I do so with the complete acknowledgement and adhererance to sovereign compliant policy and law. In regards to the conduct of employees of "We The People" in said case, compliance in fact did not occur. That is to say that the employees of "We The People" that conducted said criminal actions were in fact non-compliant with the sovereign policies and laws, and have neglected duty conditions of agreed terms of employment of "We The People". That is to say that certain employees of "We The People" willingly and knowledgably prefered and chose to neglect duty, as well as disavow law policy in regards to the pursuance of the issuance of justice. As the said neglect occured, "We The People" became fraudulent in nature regarding the aspect of the sovereign property of the Judicial Branch and Justice Department. Resulting from this fraudulent condition, or status, the actual tangible representation of the sovereign state of "We The People" is now being represented by the individual, which is myself, in regards to the properties of the Judicial Branch which allows for the accused rights as the sovereign actions to be determined by. That is to say that the state employees in which initiated actions of willful neglect, obstruction of justice, and invocation of vigilante law enforcement are currently representing "We The People" in a fraudulent nature, and the individual, myself, is representing the actual sovereign properties of the implimentation of Justice among "We The People" by proxy of application of policy standards in which were neglected as well as said employees of "We The People" initiating policy of their own will of law rather than the written will of law, and in regards to content of any given defense to be presented by an accused is to be determined by the accused and not employees of "We The People". The State may contend that bringing of a Constitutional defense by any given accused whereas the content of the defense is to be determined as viably applicable as constitutional by employees of "We The People", and this is in fact the case, however, as this viable application is determined, release of the reasoning applied to the determination of viability, or lack of viability, to the constitutional nature of application is to be disclosed to the accused for purposes of cross examination. It is not known to the individual bringing said charges that this procedure ever occured, however it is known to the individual that if in fact this procedure did occur, the reasoning for determining viability or non-viability was at no time disclosed to the accused. The illustrated conditions contained in this correspondence will illustrate as such. To the best of knowledge of the individual bringing about the representation of the true nature of the sovereign properties of actual tangible nature in regards to policy and observance of law, the employees of "We The People" have made no efforts to enact judicial policy of written and declared sovereign property, which of course is the reasoning for the bringing of the attention of the International Court Of Justice regarding the posession of pretensive sovereignty.
In regards to the individual, myself, failing to meet the stipulated standards of providing the bringing of charges against the United States as generally brought forth by a Ministry Of Foreign affairs, here in the US, this ministry is standardly referred to as The State Department. The State Department is headed by The Secretary Of State. As attached photocopies of reciepts will indicate, all attempts to meet The Hague standards in regards to compliant State Department addressment have been met. Certainty regarding the neglect of The State Department to acknowledge the pursuit of justice in this case and who is responsible for this neglect is not known by the individual bringing these said charges, myself, however, The Hague can rest assured that all attempts compliant to The Hague standards in regards to the bringing of charges to your court have been met in the ways and means pursuance. As I spoke on the phone with an employee of The State Department regarding the attempt to bring this to the attention of the Secretary Of State, I was informed by an employee that would only release his name as "Jeremy" that I could expect not to recieve any help of any kind from The State Department. I bring the courts attention to the fact that The State Department failing to act upon a request of the pursueance of justice does not negate that the pursueance of justice is within the standards of sovereign properties, and as well make the point that the expectancy of employees of "We The People" to bring to The Hague charges against themselves has been demonstrated by this action as not to be expected, however, this lack of judicial compliance is to be made to serve as additional evidence against employees of "We The People". It is not known with certainty by the individual among "We The People" that is bringing forth these charges that The Secretary Of State was made aware of this representation request. That is to say it is not known by the individual that Madam Secretary was made aware of this case, and it is entirely possible that employees of "We The People" in The State Department under the command of Madam Secretary in fact did not inform Madam Secretary of this case. This may very well enforce the action in which the individual is now taking regarding the illustration of tangible sovereign properties and policies to The Hague as a necessity.
I would like to now begin the illustration of the nature regarding the allegations in which the individual is bringing against employees of "We The People" of The United States.
On September 29, 1993 the accused, Stephen B Oliver was called to a routine traffic stop by an Officer Thornton with the standard of a law enforcement officer bringing to the attention of an operator of a motor vehicle to pull over to the side of the road by proxy of lumination of signal lights placed on top of law enforcement vehicles. The accused complied with the signal and pulled over to the side of the road. It was presented to the arresting officer by the accused at that time that the accused intended to present a Constitutional effective defense regarding Marijuana. The accused was placed under arrest for posession of Marijuana and taken into custody. The accused was provided a bail bond amount, the amount was paid, and the bond was made. The accused then recieved a notice by proxy of mail as to the date specified to appear in a Mobile, AL Municipal Court to respond to said charges. The accused appeared in specified Court on specified date, December 20, 1993 (Case # CC-93-3115). The presidio presiding over said Court, commanly called "Judge" was a Judge Lackey. The accused at that time enlightened the Court as to the intent to bring forth the argument contention regarding Marijuana as "Constitutionally Legal". The Judge declined to hear the argument content, however, the Judge did make a finding of Guilty, and granted the accused an allowance of appeal. An appeal bond amount was set, and the appeal bond amount was paid, and the accused was released with the standard basis of set appeal.
When the case went before the District Court level, May 5, 1994, a Judge Zoghby was presiding. The attending prosecutor offered the accused a plea bargain deal which would have the accused enter a plea of guilty resulting in the knullification of the Constitutional argument presentation. The accused declined this plea bargain offer, and maintained the intent of bringing the Constitutionally Legal status argument before The Supreme Court regarding the Constitutionality of Marijuana. Judge Zoghby did not hear the argument, and did not require the accused an additional appeal bond, released the accused after granting the accused an appeal.
On December 27, 1993 the accused made a written request to the court for a Jury Trail at the court clerk window as required. The accused encountered difficulty retaining an attorney in which was agreeable to the taking of said case endeavor, however the accused did in fact find an attorney that agreed to take the case. The attorney in which was retained to present the intended argument before The Supreme Court was Counselor Joseph Brunson. The content of evidence in the defense to be presented was to include, but not restricted to, the bringing of Marijuana accompanied by Marijuana Tax Stamps issued by The Alabama Department Of Revenue under Title 40 Chapter 17A, as well as non-taxable amounts of other controlled substances covered under that law in order to illustrate to The Court that Marijuana is indeed a Taxed Private Property, and as well the non-taxable amounts of controlled substances covered under said law does not negate the nature of substance form, and therefore non-taxable amounts still Constitutably serve as a Taxed Private Property applicable to the natural form. After being retained to take the case, and prior to constructing the formulation of said case, Counselor Brunson requested the accused sign a waiver of liability as so that Counselor Brunson would be within legal rights to construct formulation of said case, the accused complied.
As so that The Hague will have a better understanding as to the nature of the willingness for employees of "We The People" to conduct such an extensive neglect of duty, the individual will now illustrate the content of the defense in which the accused intended to present to The Supreme Court.
As there are multiple points to be addresed regarding the Constitutionality of Marijuana, these points will be made to The Hague in this correspondence individually.
**Marijuana Is A God Given Right - It is contended by the accused that God put forth on this planet all life, including all the plants and animals.
**Marijuana is a Taxed Private Property - Title 40 Chapter 17A of Alabama Law clearly stipulates Marijuana as a Taxed Private Property.
**Marijuana Falls Under The Category Of Life - Marijuana is a plant which falls within the categories of "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of Happiness".
The evidence surrounding these points is of an extensive nature.
It is contained in the US Declaration Of Independance that "We The People" are to be granted Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of Happiness along with all other self-evident God Given Rights, and although it was expected by the accused for The State to contend that The Declaration Of Independance is not contained within "Law", it is contended by the accused that the Declaration Of Independance is in itself the basis of the sovereign state in which provides The Constitutional rights of "We The People" and therefore applies to all laws contained within the borders of all states within the sovereignty in which this Independance has been declared for as a basis of exhistance, which is all of the "United States", resulting in the inheritable application to all laws maintaining Constitutional applications. It continues to be maintained by the individual that the Declaration of Independance be implimented as a practical standard for the life of The United States, and The US Constitution. For any employee of "We The People" that may have brought forward the contention that once Marijuana is harvested it is no longer alive, and thered as "Life", the accused contends that the harvesting of crops is in fact a natural essence of "Life". This essential enlightenment is especially noted whereas vegetarians are concerned as beginning with "Advacado" and going through the alphabet to "Zhuccini" that the harvesting of crops is required for "Life". In regards to "The Pursuit Of Happiness", "We The People" of The United States are allowed to pursue actions in which result in the obtainment of happiness as long as this pursuit does not infringe on the allowance of any other to pursue their own happiness. It is contended by the individual that actions taken by any given individual in which is not effective to any other given individual meets this requirement in the light that any given individual that chooses to participate in the utilizing of Marijuana is not capable of projecting the utilization effectiveness to any other given individual, and therefore does not infringe upon the rights of any other given individual.
The United States Supreme Court rules in Montana Vs. United States (MT Vs. US) that States may Tax for posession of a private property, or States may prosecute for posession of a private property, but States may not both Tax and Prosecute for posession of a private property. Title 40 Chapter 17A Section 8 of Alabama Law clearly illustrates Marijuana as a Taxed Private Property, and applies Constitutionally as well by Amendment 14, which is the right to private property, and Amendment 16, which is Income Tax. The fact that States have as of yet to digest MT Vs. US into law serves as a point of guilt on behalf of "Employees" of "We The People" in regards to posession of pretensive sovereignty.
The individual is now presenting the charges in which are being requested to be brought against employees of "We The People":
1. - Obstruction Of Justice - As defined sovereign procedures indicate, the accused is allowed the right to a Jury By Trial of his/her peers, the right of representaion of an attorney, and the right to enter a defense when accused of a crime. I point out to The Hague that none of these rights were allowed to the accused in this case by employees of "We The People" as the counselor for the accused was arreasted while constructing the formulation of the defense to be presented, and at the arraignment of the accused counselor, Joseph Brunson, the accused was present. Joseph Brunson was represented at that arraignment by counselor Dennis Knizley. The accused informed counselor Knizley at the time of this araignment that the accused had retained counselor Brunson for the purpose of constructing a defense in which the evidence that counselor Brunson had been arrested for having in his posession (44 Lbs. Of Marijuana and non-taxable amounts of other controlled substances covered uner Alabama Law Title 40 Chapter 17A) was in fact evidence to be presented on behalf of the accused before The Supreme Court. It is now being pointed out to The Hague that that an accused is allowed to have attorney counselor aid in constructing and formulating a defense proposed to serve as evidence in The Court by proxy of Retainment, Pro Bono, Continguency as well as any other contributions in which any given counselor may provide in order to represent the client to the best of their ability. It is to the understanding of the accused that counselor Knizley then made The Court aware of this fact. At no point did any Court apointee make an effort to confirm this fact, nor was any subpoena issued to the accused in order to confirm this relevant fact. On September 11, 1997 the accused appeared before The Circuit Court bench presided by Judge Key. At that point in time, due to the fact that counselor Brunson had been arrested for constructing the defense for the accused, a second counselor had been retained. That counselor was Jim Byrd. Jim Byrd on that date was scheduled, to the best of knowledge of the accused, to appear in a Court in which was in another county (Baldwin). This made it impossible for the counselor to be in two places at once. As a result of this predicament, counselor Byrd had an associate assistant employee issue a statement of request to The Court. The request was for the granting of a one day continuance based on the reasoning that the representing attorney had to be in another courtroom in another county simultaneously. It was abundantly appearant that the accused was not a flight risk. The request for a one day continuance was denied. The accused was found guilty of distribution of Marijuana, taken into custody, and made to serve a sentence for said crime. It was at this point in time in which the accused became the victim.
2. - Invocation Of Violation Of Excessive Punnishment - At the time of arrest the accused had in his posession 0.12 Grams, or 0.004 Ounces. This clearly does not meet the reuired amount required to meet the defined stipulated requirement od as a Dealer in accordance to Title 40 Chapter 17A as the sovereign law of "We The People". The victim makes the point to The Hague at this point that the laws governing "We The People" are of classified sovereign property essence and nature. It is also being pointed out to The Hague by the victim at this time that all persons presiding on a bench of any given Court within the boundries of any given Township, City, State, or Federal established sovereign property is an employee of "We The People".
3. - Unlawful Incarceration Of A Person - As the terms of incarceration of the accused were fabricated according to the victim as well as States' evidence, the incarceration for a crime in which never occured is unlawful.
4. - Invocation Of Vigilante Law Enforcement - As an employee of "We The People" Judge Key discarded the sovereign property of State Law and enforced his own will of law in place of State Law.
5. - Posession Of Pretensive Sovereignty - As crimes conducted by employees of "We The People" in the State Of Alabama were reported to US Federal employees in that region, those Federal employees of "We The People" willfully neglected the sovereign duty in which they were employed to perform. As per proper juris prudence, the victim filed a complaint with the State Of Alabama Judicial Review Commission regarding the actions taken by the employee of "We The People". This complaint was recieved by The State, and The State gave notice of reciept to the victim in a letter dated March 4, 1999. The letter from The State cited that The State had recieved notice of complaint dated February 26, 1999. Notice of reciept was signed by Executive Director Margaret S Childers. March 29, 1999 a letter from The State was sent to the victim stating that The State Commission has no authority to consider correctness of a Judge's ruling. You may observe the attachments. The FBI was addressed with this incident, asked to perform an arrest of Judge Key, and the FBI under the supervision of a Supervisor Reeves, referred the victim to the US Attorney Office. The victim then addressed The US Attorney Mrs Gina Vann with a hand delivered letter to the US Attorney Gina Vann (Employee of "We The People"). US Attorney Office took no action of any kind to the best of knowledge of the victim. If there were any actions taken on behalf of the US Attorney office, the office neglected to notify the victim. The US Attorney General was written several times on this matter and to the best of knowledge of the victim, no action at all was taken on behalf of the employee of "We The People" to pursue justice in this case. The victim has no photocopy of this evidence for The Hague to view as these letter copies were stolen from the victim by an unknown party, however, the victim assures The Hague that these letters were indeed sent. The victim now points out to The Hague that all Federal employees of "We The People" are paid to enforce Federal Laws regarding the pursuance of Justice, and willfully neglecting to do so directly results in a compromise of the sovereignty of "We The People" and the sovereign property in which they are employed to perform the duty of.
6. - Espionage Against We The People Of The United States - The United States consists of three branches of Government. The Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch, and The Judicial Branch. As The Legislative Branch composes and votes on a Bill, after a Bill passes it is then passed on to the office of The Chief Executive Officer (The President). The President then either signs the Bill into Law, or Veto's the Bill. Should any given accused feel as though they can Constitutionally prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the other two branches have made an error in enacting any given Bill into Law as it may be deemed contradictory to the US Constitution, "We The People" have the allowance of presenting whatever defense we feel may prove that this error occured, resulting in the preservation of The US Constitution. This is the sovereign property called "The Balance Of Powers". To sabotage "The Balance Of Powers" is to sabotage the sovereign properties of The United States, and it defined as "Espionage". This is a crime against "We The People". It is believed by the victim that The Hague is now being enlightened by the content of this correspondence that "Employees" of "We The People" have carried out this crime. It is also believed by the victim that treaties stipulate this crime to be of an "International" type crime. It is also believed by the victim that "Employees" of "We The People" are not immune from being prosecuted for conducting violations of treaties regarding "International" nature whereas the criminal nature is concerned.
7. - Willful Violation Of The Freedom Of Information Act - On May 1, 2008 an attempt on behalf of the victim was initiated to obtain all records pertinent to crimes conducted by "Employees" of "We The People". This was filed as Request No. 1113931-000. The US Freedom Of Information and Privacy Act office enlightened the victim that there was no change in the file since the last time the victim obtained a copy of that file from the FOIPA. As the victim was aware that indeed additional files were by all rights contained in this file, that finding was appealed. On September 12, 2008 the US Department of Justice Office of Information and Privacy responded to the appeal notice. I now refer The Hague to the photocopies of said documents. When I addressed the FOIPA Office, I was told by a woman by proxy of phone communication claiming to be Brentin V Evitt to "Sue The Government". The victim would also like to know the reasoning law enforcement chose to willfully neglect duty and would like to know if the FBI of Mobile, AL considers that someone seeking help of anger management is constituted reasoning to forfiet the implimentation of justice as reported by a victim for this reasoning. The victim is also demanding to know the reasoning that the City Of Saraland Alabama chose not to arrest someone after they had falsely implicated the victim as a perpertrator of rape. There are numerous other incidents reported in which the victim is demanding to know the reasoning for failure to perform duty on behalf of law enforcement of the region of Mobile, AL. The victim would also like to know how the FBI interpreted the reporting of an industry being harassed constitutes an investigation into the industry itself rather than those that were reported as conducting the harassment.
***The victim is also seeking to discover the source of "Alledged" accurate information as being provided to law enforcement. The victim is demanding the disclosing discovery of the source of any "Alledged" anonymous tips as suspected as being an intentional provision of false information with the motive of utilizing law enforcement as an instrument of malice, along with several other demandingly sought discoveries as disclosed status as so that truth and justice may be sought correctly.
It is now being made as a point to The Hague that those "Employees" of "We The People" that would claim sovereignty of immunity in regards to actions taken while employed by "We The People" do indeed posess this status, however, this property is only applicable as to where the sovereign actions are conducted. Non-sovereign actions, such as sabotaging The Judicial Branch, is not an action wich the victim contends to be applicable to this property, that is to say that sovereignty of immunity does not apply as a given granted right of "Employees" of "We The People" to invoke their own will of law. As the actions conducted by "Employees" of "We The People" referred to in this correspondence are not conducive with sovereign actions, any claim made by "Employees" of "We The People" to be granted the immunity umbrella of the sovereign property of sovereignty of immunity is now being contested as non-constitutional and non-viable in application.
I realize that The Hague is a Noble and Humanitarian effort, which is of course why I am seeking your help in the preservation of the US Constitution. Does The Hague attempt to enforce the request of punitives as a Humanitarian effort? The victim is not certain of this either way, but now asks you to consider what it is that punitives are. They are an award of fiscal nature ordered by a Court to be paid to a victim. This is a Humanitarian effort and endeavor, is it not? WHat I am saying is that punitives in itself is a humanitarian action. An attempt to make things right for a victim which has been done wrong. In this case, there are millions of "We The People" in which are being wrongfully incarcerated, which is classified defined as "Captive", however, the victim that is pursueing this issue with The Hague is the only person to the knowledge of the victim in which was not allowed to enter a Constitutional defense which would have resulted in a the fiscal growth capability if the victim had been allowed to enter a defense. The victim contends this as the victim as of yet is to find anyone that is remotely capable of proving that the constitutionality of Marijuana argument intended to be presented was incorrect in any way, or is able to be disproven in any way. The victim estimates that some of the best attorneys in the world must be employes by The Hague, and the victim now puts a challenge to The Hague to disprove the validity of the intended Constitutional argument. If this can be disproven, the victim will cease pursuit of Justice. It is contended by the victim that humanitairian efforts include punitive reparations.
The punitive reparation conditions sought are as follows:
1.- For not allowing an accused to enter a defense - Although Judge Key allowed the accused to enter a defense regarding the traffic citation, the Constitutional effective defense was not allowed to be entered. The victim contends that the endeavoring actions required to address a simple traffic citation, and the endeavoring actions to address a Constitutional issue to be brought to The Supreme Court has a great deal of difference. The victim went through considerable efforts just to find an attorney that would take the endeavor, and when the victim finally did find an attorney to accept this endeavor, "Employees" of "We The People" simply arrested him, and even though The Court was aware that Counselor Brunson was obligated by law to represent his client to the best of his ability, and that client, myself, was in the courtroom ready, willing, and able to testify as to the fact that Counselor Brunson had been retained by the victim, was provided this relevent fact by Counselor Knizley, "Employees" of "We The People" still neglected to comply with the sovereign property of written law while enforcing their own will of law. The victim points out to The Hague that Joseph Brunson had until the time in which the accused was set to appear before the bench, which was September 11, 1997, to construct said defense for his client. The amount of punitives being sought by the victim for this crime against "We The People" is the amount of $16,000,000.00 USD. This amount cannot be accurately calculated as the amount of anguish resulting from this is not tangibly calculateable. however, the victim feels that if the amount of damage for this crime against "We The People" could be accurately calculated, it would come to much more than the sought amount. The victim feels this would be a fair punitive award none the less.
2. For Unlawful Incarceration - Although "We The People" have a correctional instituted system for the purpose of holding those persons which violate laws as a sovereign property, this correctional sovereign property was made to serve "We The People" as a sovereign property, and not those "Employees" of "We The People" that choose to enforce their own will of law. As Judge Robert E Lee Key enforced his own will of law, and in fact did not allow the accused to enter the intended Constitutional effective defense, the sovereign property of written law was discarded. As well as finding the accused guilty without allowing the accused to enter the intended defense, resulting in the accused becoming the victim in said case, Judge Key found the accused guilty of a crime in which States' evidence clearly did not indicate as having occured. The victim would like to hear from "Employees" of "We The People" how 0.12 Grams of Marijuana could possibly be distributed. As the victim does not believe it is possible that "Employees" of "We The People" could validate this as a distribution, the fact that the victim was made to serve a sentence for "Distribution Of Marijuana" is clearly a wrongful incarceration. The victim would also like to point out to The Hague that "We The People" have an amendment in the US Constitution which prohibits excessive punnishment, which further illustrates the willingness of "Employees" of "We The People" in this case to discard the sovereign property of written law. The amount being sought as a punitive for this crime against "We The People" is $89,000,000.00 USD. This amount is determined by the time per day served for a crime which in fact never occured.
3. - For Imposing Hinderance Of Fiscal Growth - As "Employees" of "We The People" engaged in the disallowance of fiscal growth resulting from the utilization of the sovereign property of the US Constitution and The Judicial Branch, the liability for this hindering action falls on the entity in which employed those employees that conducted this hinderance. The amount being sought for this punitive is $90,000,000,000.00 USD. This amount is derived from the statistics provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration relevent to the amounts of Marijuana imported into this country for the purpose of sale. Considering the time span in which this fiscal growth hinderance has effected, the victim could cite a considerably larger punitive, however, the victim is only citing a small percentage of the entire potential fiscal growth in which the "Employees" of "We The People" have hindered as the victim is only a single person among "We The People".
4. - For Witholding Public Property From The Public - As the victim attempted to obtain records in which could reflect wrongful actions conducted by "Employees" of "We The People", the requested sovereign property of "We The People" were not released on a basis in which the victim feels is slanderous and false in nature. The victim would like very much for the "Employees" of "We The People" that came to this deduction to produce any and all evidence in which could illustrate the allegatorial reasoning for not releasing said sovereign property of "We The People" as viably valid. The victim feels that being told to "Sue The Government" by an "Emploee" of "We The People" does not validate any action taken by "Employees" of "We The People". The victim also feels as though that the case is "Employees" of "We The People" have instructed the victim to "Sue The Government", the victim may as well sue the government for all it has has coming to it. The amount being sought for this punitive is $3,000,000.00 USD. This amount is being derived by the victim from an anguishing effective nature nature. It is believed by the victim that seeking a higher amount for this punitive would not be out of order.
The victim would also like to point out to The Hague that in the region of Alabama, recently a man named McGregor was arrested. He was paying off local municipalities for the right to be allowed to break the law. This is being made to serve as evidence of the victim that the "Employees" of "We The People" in that region have held corrupt activities as the "Status Quoa" for decades, which is intended by the victim to further illustrate that "Employees" of "We The People" in that region are prone to enforce their own will of law rather that the sovereign property of written law.
The victim looks forward to hearing back from The Hague with a notice of intent that The Hague intends to help "We The People" in the continueing endeavor to preserve the US Constitution.
Sincerely,
Stephen Breckenridge Oliver
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
P.S. There are currently Millions of "We The People" being victimized with wrongful incarceration resulting from the espionage conducted by "Employees" of "We The People".
Stephen B Oliver
P.O. Box 241
Sneads, FL 32460
Mrs. Hillary Clinton
Secretary Of State
US Department Of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Madam Secretary Clinton,
My name is Stephen B Oliver. I am contacting you in
pursuance as instructed requirement notified by The
International Court Of Justice, The Hague. For purposes
of clearity, and proper legal addressment, I will be reffering
to myself as the accused, the victim, and standardly as
Stephen B. Oliver.
So that you are aware, Madam Secretary Clinton, I
have attempted several times to observe the chain of
command in contacting your office, and have not gotten
any type of positive result. It is for this reason I am
adding the charge of Obstruction Of Justice to the
charges against the United States. As per standard,
The Hague will be recieving a copy of this
correspondence.
The standard of reasonable requirements in which
The Hague has set as a standard in regards to this case
was sent in a letter dated 08 February 2011. The case
number reference appears to be A2011/058.
The reasoning I am pursueing justice sought in The
Hague is the direct result of accompliced espionage
conducted by employees of the United States Justice
Department.
In regards to constituted jurice prudence of the U.S.
State Department in the pursuance of the criminal activities
conducted by employees of We The People within the
Judicial Branch, the crime of espionage is directly
pertinent to International Trade. For example, countries
like Poland that pose no bearing on Marijuana as being
criminalized in any sought fashion maintain an opportunity
of Trade in which produces fiscal growth. As you are
probably aware, the Republic of the U.S., in which I have
pledged allegiance to my entire life with the exception of
illegal properties of government forcing my person to
acknowledge particular properties of dissidence to remove
my loyalties from these illegal activities, as a Republic in
which allows for the properties of Capitalism to produce a
fruition of fiscal growth. The illegal actions in which I am
reffering to are elaborated in detail in the following of this
correspondence. As the State Department maintains
International relations in regard to treaties, trade, and
probably many more things in which I am not aware of,
International trade pertinance is among the State
Department jurice prudence I am aware of. As the
espionage I have been victimized by was conducted within
the U.S. Judicial Branch, the initial pursuit of Justice was
pursued by the logically standard means here in the U.S.,
however, as willful neglect obstructed Justice, pursuit of
the perpertrators is still occuring. This is of no fault of my
own. Maintaining Justice as sought will be the standard
until this issue has been resolved, as I have been victimized
as of yet without resolve.
The pursuit of Justice and the filing of a punitive
sought suit against the United States in a United States
court has been viably deemed a conflict of interest. That
is to say that the United States cannot be asked to fairly
rule against itself. If the United States is able to produce
a Presiding Judge of any given bench that chooses to
denounce loyalty to the United States of America, the
viability of this conclusive decuction will be retracted.
Although admittadely judges in this case willfully disavow
the US Constitution in thier practices, it is doubtful the judges
in question will openly announce their disloyalty to the United
States while conducting practice. Should the United States
extract a plea of guilty from the judges in question, and seek
resolve here in a United States Court, naturally the status of
this situation will be reStephen B Oliver)
to enter a defense. All judges were aware that the intended
defense to be entered was to be presented to the State and
US Supreme Court, and that the utilization of the Judicial
Branch was intended to be prudent by the accused. The
prudency will now be exhibted for you in this correspondence
Madam Secretary Clinton.
On the 23rd of September, 1993, the accused (Stephen
B. Oliver) was arrested by an Officer Thornton employed by
the Municipality of The City Of Mobile, within the boundries of
The State of Alabama. The accused was arrested for
possession of Marijuana. The accused gave oral notice at
time of arrest the prudent intent of utilizing the Judicial
Branch and the contention of a constitutional challenge
regarding the classification as constitutionally legal.
The accused went before Judge Lackey, was found
guilty, and granted appeal. Judge Lackey made the claim
that the accused could talk till he was "Blue In The Face"
and it would not alter the ruling. The judge did not hear nor
digest the intended argument of the accused granting no
bearing for prudency of appeal status for the profixed judge
to find on, yet the appeal was granted anyway.
The accused went before a Judge Zoghby. No claim was
made by this judge. Appeal was granted without hearing. A
plea deal was offered to the accused in which would have
resulted with the accused being found guilty with no
constitutional effectiveness bearing on the outcome. The
accused declined the offer of a guilty plea. This occured at
District level.
Request for Jury Trial was lawfully made by the accused.
Judge Robert E. Lee Key held a hearing, and declined
the accused a jury. At this hearing the judge proclaimed that
he was saving the constitutional argument for another time.
It was at this point in which the accused hired attorney
representation to present the argument before the Circuit
Court. The attorney hired was Joseph Brunson. The accused
hired Joseph Brunson to obtain Marijuana, and Marijuana Tax
Stamps distributed by We The People of Alabama by proxy
of the Alabama Revenue Department in accordance with
Title 40, Chapter 17A of Alabama Law. Joseph Brunson was
also hired to obtain small amounts of classified contraband as
defined by Title 40, Chapter 17A of Alabama Law in which
were to exhibit non-taxable amounts of classified jurice
prudence under the same Chapter. The intent of the
obtainment of the Marijuana and Tax Stamps was to exhibit
the Fact that Marijuana is a Taxed Private Property. The
intent of obtainment of other classified contraband contained
in Title 40, Chapter 17A of Alabama Law was to establish
prudent relevance in State Used Laws in which classify non-
taxable amounts of taxed private properties as being in nature
a taxed private property classification, just in a non-taxed
amount. This is pertinent to the amount found in the possession
of the accused on the date of arrest in this case. Title 40,
Chapter 17A, Section 5 reads as follows:
Nothing in this chapter may in any manner provide immunity
for a dealer from criminal prosecution pursuant to Alabama
law.
As will be reffered to later in this correspondence, MT Vs. US
clearly stipulates that states may either tax for possession of a
private property, or prosecute for possession of a private
property, but states may not do both. Although the amount in
which the accused was in possession of, it does not negate
the classification of defined controlled substance, therefore
establishing non-taxable amounts of controlled substances to
be of essential taxed private property in nature of classification.
The victim believes that this would have resulted in a ruling
which would have been in the favor of the accused.
It is also contended by the victim that this perameter be
used as evidence against the United States in regards to
utilizing excessive punnishment implimentation, as well as
evidence that the State Of Alabama has chosen to discard
the rule of will in regards to acknowledging the Judicial
Branch powers, as MT Vs. US is as of yet digested. This
clearly illustrates the State of Alabama and it's alleged yield
of sovereign allegiance to the United States as a falsehood,
which is resulting in a possession of pretensive sovereignty.
The reasoning for the untaxable amounts of other
classified contraband example evidence was to establish the
amount in which the accused was found possessing, which
was 0.12 grams or 0.004 Ounces of Marijuana, as pertinent
pertaining to the conent of Law which illustrates these
properties as Taxed Private Properties, and the non-taxable
amounts as non-serving in relation to the defined exhistance
of these contrabands. Even though the accused was being
tried for distribution, and the law clearly illustrates that more
than 42 1/2 grams is required in order to establish this intent,
all amounts less than the defined amount required for
dealer definition do not negate the substance classification
as Taxed Private Property in whole, as the contraband
substance perameters of Title 40, Chapter 17A, Section 8
content clearly establish.
Joseph Brunson was arrested while preparing the
argument for the accused. The court possessed the
knowledge that Joseph Brunson was conduting actions
required by law as the accused was present at the
arraignment of Joseph Brunson, and made Mr. Brunsons'
representation, Mr. Dennis Knizley, aware of this fact, which
was in turn disclosed to the Court by Dennis Knizley. The
Court pursued prosecution of Mr. Brunson, indicating a
positive malice being conducted by the Court. The Court
made no effort to the knowledge of the accused, Mr. Oliver,
of confirming this fact. Mr. Joseph Brunson was in the process
of pending argument at the time of the arrest, therefore was
not in violation of any laws, in fact Joseph Brunson was in
compliance of Law when he was arrested, and pursueing that
prosecution was an obstruction of justice being carried out by
the court. It is also now being pointed out as a property of this
case that Joseph Brunson had until at least September 11,
1997 to accumulate content to be presented to the court as
it was on this date that the court set for the defense to be
presented. Even though the court did not allow this defense to
be entered, it does not negate that attorney rights allow for an
attorney to have until the defense is to be presented to the
court to perform dfense accumulative actions pertaining to
intended presentation of defense. The prosecution of Joseph
Brunson occuring while in the process of preparing a defense
to be presented is an additional point to the courts willingness
to discard constitutional properties of procedure, which
establishes additional grounds to the point of the court
demonstrating a basis of operation motivated by biased malice
rather than the constitution. Should the claim arise that the
accused did not produce the amount of monies required
for the accumulative cost of the defense all together as a
whole, such as the cost of the 44 Lbs. of Marijuana contained
in evidence, the accused did in fact produce the agreed upon
condition of retainment payment between the attorney and
client, and as well, attorney representation of continguency,
as well as pro bono, are completely legal and legitimate terms
of representation of any given accused or victim, as well as
these terms are to be presented by the attorney client relations
and not to be determined by the court, with the possible
exception of court appointed attorneys.
On September 11, 1997 the accused was presented
before the presidio of the Circuit Court Bench in Mobile,
Alabama of the United States Judicial Branch, presided
by Judge Robert E. Lee Key, and was not allowed to
present the Constitutional effective argument resulting
in a bypass of Justice, and a complete alienization of the
Balance Of Powers. As you may realize, this action is
classified defined as "Sabotage", and is considered a
crime conducted against We The People. It is also
commonly reffered to as Espionage as the progression
of We The People has been compromised in relevance
to the Constitutional process. Jim Byrd was the attorney
representation for the accused on September 11, 1997,
however, he was not present. Mr. Jim Byrd, to the best of
knowledge to the accused, was scheduled to represent
two different clients simultaneously, in court rooms which
were in two different counties. Mr Byrd sent an associate
to present a one day continuance request, and was
denied. The court delayed for three years, and couldn't wait
one more day? It was abundantly appearant that the accused
was not a flight risk.
The accused was made to serve time for the crime of
distribution of Marijuana, and was sentenced to Six Months
in Mobile County Metro Jail. The accused served from
September 11, 1997 till December 25, 1997, and was
released early due to the accused serving as a "Trustee"
inmate. The accused recieved no pay or any other type
of compensation for his labor. The victim does not
consider recieving 2 days served for every 1 day as a
trustee a non-excessive punnishment due to the fact
that a fair trial never occured.
In addition to the before mention point, the accused
also additional evidence which was to be addressed.
Marijuana is a God Given Right. There is no evidence
to the contrary, and Freedom Of Religion allows the
accused to the belief that all plants and animals here
on Earth were put here by God. Although the preamble
to the Constitution has been claimed not be an actual part
of the constitution, it is contended by the accused that
"Preambles'" are in fact included in binds of literature
work which are not seperate from the literature work as a
whole, and therefore are in fact a tangible inclusion
to any given work of literature, including the Constitution. It is
contended by the accused that when any given Private
Property is Taxed, it is of ought the right to be possessed in
accordance with the ruling in MT Vs. US, which ruled that states
may either tax for possession of a private property, or
prosecute for possession of a private property, but states may
not do both. This point is reinforced by Amendment 14.
Title 40, Chapter 17A, Section 8 exhibits the ability of fiscal
growth by utilizing Marijuana as a product, which is constituably
applied to Amendment 16 providing further constituative
jurisdiction application alotted to "We The People" as the tax
red as monies produced from controlled
substance, and Amendment 16 is Income Tax.
Included as well as intended contitutional relevent
content is the fact that Marijuana is classified defined
as "life". Some may argue that once a plant is harvested
it is no longer living, and therefore does not qualify as
classified defined "life". In response to those that would
raise that point, it was, and still is, intended to brought
to the attention of the court a list of all harvested plants
from Apple to Zuchini to classify the harvesting of plants
to be a classified essential of "life", especially whereas
vegetarians are concerned.
This is included by the victim in his plea to you,
Under Secretary, for the pupose of your realizing the
validity of argument squashed as so that the crime of
esionage against the United States will not go
unpunished, and as well, admitatedly, the accused
is attempting to present a clear conditioning of facts
pertinent to the sought punitives.
You may be wondering right about now how this
ever made it to the Hague? Why was this not addressed
when the accused first reported this to the Justice
Department? That's a question that the accused wants
very much to be answered. How is it that something
that happened so long ago even has a relevance of
bearing today? In a word, records. At the point in time
in which the U.S. Government declined compliance of the
freedom of information act of 1974, all occurances pertaining
to point of records became current status as challenged,
including the results of being victimized by espionage
conducted by personnel within the State of Alabama as well
as the Federal employed government accomplices.
In pursueing the wrongful action conducted by Judge
Robert E Lee Key in not allowing the accused, Stephen
B. Oliver, to enter a defense, the Judicial Review
Commission of the State Of Alabama was contacted, and
informed of what happened. On March 4, 1999 the accused
recieved notice that the complaint date February 26, 1999
had been recieved, and was signed by Margaret S. Childers.
On March 29, 1999 Randal Cole made the notice that the
State Of Alabama has no authority to consider the
correctness of a Judge's ruling. Appearantly in the State
Of Alabama it is standard procedure not to allow the right
to enter a defense, recieve a jury when requested, or allow
an accused the right to attorney. I myself find this incredible,
and will pursue the prosecution of this espionage against We
The People of The United States despite the alleged findings
of the State Of Alabama.
As you may realize, the Federal Bureau Of Investigation
(FBI) is a part of the Justice Department. Supervisor Reeves
of the Mobile Region FBI was made aware of these facts,
failed to act, and reffered the victim to the US Attorney's
office. The US Attorney at that time was Mrs. Gina Vann.
On December 11, 2002 a letter of notice was hand delivered
to the office of the US Attorney's office. Mrs. Gina Vann gave
no response what so ever. The hand delivered letter which was
delivered on December 11, 2002 stated that the crime of
sedition against the United States had been conducted by
Judge Robert E Lee Key, as well as accomplices in the State
Of Alabama. Perhaps I should illustrate the nature of the
claim of sedition for you. As the United States progresses
in a state of experiment, there are those of foreign nations
which are continuously attempting to depart the United States
from this progression. Although this war may not be with bullets
and bombs, this state does exhist. To aid the dismemberment
of progression being utilized by the balance of powers among
We The People is an assault on the very nature of the premise
of the United States, and is a constituted classified act of war,
and when this action is formed and carried out internally, it is
classified defined as "Sedition", and is a war crime against
the United States.
I will not speculate as to how a portion of the evidence I
have spent time building has managed to "disappear" as I
realize it could have been any number of things from vandals,
theft phobia patients, or kids that broke and entered and
thought the file the evidence was in looked "cool" and
decided to take it or something, I simply do not know the facts
as to how some of the evidence disappeared, so I will only
speak of what I know.
This case was brought to the attention of US Attorney
Generals, and a complete willful neglect of pursuant duty
occured. This stands as evidence that the United States
cannot be asked to fairly rule against itself.
The relevance bearing properties of pursuance is in the
records. Records being witheld obstructs this being reflected.
This constitutes active status, and negates any statutes of
limitation at this time. The accused has no intention of not
taking required actions to keep pursuance allowances status
active, as the appeal to the records exhibits.
Since September of 1997, I have been accused of a variety
of different crimes. With the exception of one of the DUI's, I
was in essence not guilty. The last time I was arrested, I was
accused of stealing computers in which I have reciepts for,
and was given a no bill for the charge in which I was arrested.
The charge in which I was arrested for was possession of
Marijuana. I was given a Bond of One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) for that crime. I discovered the bond amount
as I called my Uncle Frank Breckenridge to come get me out.
He asked me how many people I had killed, and I responded
that I had not killed anyone, and there had to be some mistake.
He told me that he was not going to be able to pay a bond of
a Million Dollars even if I hadn't killed anyone. The accused
does not understand how in fairness that it is possible to have
such a ridiculously high bond for possession of a few Marijuana
stems and seeds which was reduced to Thirty ($30.00) after
having served Seven Weeks only to recieve a no bill. The
accused feels certain that the court was well aware of the
intention to address the Supreme Court regarding the Marijuana
defense, the accused did inform a detective of the intent. As
this is being written to you today, Mr. Oliver is still waiting to
have access to records determining the reasoning and origin
of such a ridiculously high bond. This is being used by the
accused to illustrate intended violative actions prohibited
by excessive punishment laws, as well as to illustrate intended
malice conducted by the misrepresentation of the laws
stipulated in the governing of "We The People" being
presented by those with an internal capable position that have
allowed the position to be compromised with their own
personal will of law rather than the will of written law.
I attempted to obtain all records belonging to We The
People pertaining to my person. I was told on the phone by
someone claiming to be working for The City Of Saraland
Alabama Municipality Records Division that I had no business
looking for records, cursed me more than adequately, and
hung up on me. I then pursued those records more, and
the City Of Saraland Alabama wrote me a letter claiming that
they had no records of any kind on me. The City Of Saraland
Police Department even went so far as to falsely inform a
former employer that I had robbed ATM's. This is a clear
display of intent of Malice in my opinion.
I feel as though this is a continueing display of corrupt
undue influence being imposed upon the government of
We The People of that region (Alabama) in an appearant
successful attempt to utilize the property of We The People
as one's own personal enterprise. I feel as though the actions
taken, or not taken, on behalf of those paid to take actions
pursuant to State and Federal Law Enforcement exhibits this
as the status quoa in that region. I speculate that the nature
of the corruption in this region focused on myself as the
victim is a direct result of my choosing to tell the truth in a
court room. As well, I feel as though for the United States
Justice Department to endorse the suppression of truth
in a Court Room based on a bias of nature to be appauling
and an offrontation to every Man, Woman, and Child that has
given thier lives so that we have our freedom. I could be the
craziest loon on the planet, and I still have the right to enter
a defense when accused, correct? This has been included
by the accused to illustrate first person knowledge.
In April of 2008 I, Stephen B Oliver, requested in
accordance to allowances of the Freedom Of Information
Act, all records pertaining to myself. On May 1, 2008 I
recieved a notice from the FBI in Washington DC notifying
me that the FBI had recieved the requested file. The
request number for that file was labeled 1113931-000. The
file I was sent was incomplete and inaccurate. An appeal
was filed. On August 28, 2008 a notice was recieved from
the US Department Of Justice advising that the administrative
appeal had been recieved. On September 5, 2008 an
additional notice was recieved from the US Department Of
Justice notifying that the administrative appeal had been
recieved. I am not affluent with the policies of the US
Department Of Justice, but I found that the sending of
duplicate notices for the same single action to be paculiar.
The appeal was designated case number 08-2628, the
notice was signed by Priscilla Jones, Supervisory
Administrative Specialist. Both of the sent notices were
signed by this person. On September 12, 2008 Janice
Gali McCleod signed a notice which was sent to me citing
pursuance of 552(b)(7)(C) that I was not to be allowed
access to the records pertaining to my person, Stephen
B. Oliver. 552(b)(7)(F) was also cited as reasoning for this
non-allowance. I point out to Madam Secretary Clinton that
I have never been convicted of Murder of convienance, or
any other type of violent crime, and this allegation holds no
substantiality, as well it illustrates intent of Malice on behalf
of the Department Of Justice. I base this statement on the
fact that there is no base for this slanderous allegation, and
the only exhisting appearant motive is Malice. It was also
noted in this notice that the appeal to the adequacy of the
FBI's search of records was conducted adequately.
Although I have not recieved any of these files to be
able to properly review for confirmation with the first hand
knowledge my person possesses, from the standards
exhibited by the US Department Of Justice alleged as
Malicious, confirmation either way has been hindered.
On December 11, 2008 I recieved another notice from
the US Department Of Justice that another appeal request
had been recieved, which was signed by Brentin V. Evitt,
Chief Adminstrative Appeals Staff. In 2009 several phone
calls were made to the US Department Of Justice. After
repeated efforts, I was able to speak with a person claiming
to be Mrs. Brentin V. Evitt, which resulted in her telling me
very rudely to just Sue the Government of the United States,
and ended the call.
Madam Secretary Clinton, I point out that the records of
this country which are not critical to the national security of
this country or considered to be risk factors are considered
to be public records, the property of We The People. To
breach this property designation is to breach the property
in which is sovereign, and this action in itself is an attack on the
sovereignty of the United States, therefore the stipulation that
possession of pretensive sovereignty is a breach which is
currently active status, is accurate. This is pointed out for the
purpose of acknowledging International Jurisdiction pertaining
to the sovereignty of the US.
Madam Secretary Clinton, this ordeal has been very
languishing to my person. What is it that the US is hiding?
Who has made the slanderous claim that I would intend to
harm someone pertaining to these records? How many years
is this alleged investigation to go on? Has someone tampered
with the records? Has someone made false and slanderous
allegations in which I am not allowed to respond to?
Indications from my perception are that the US Department Of
Justice itself has been compromised, and I am not able to
concieve any method this breach could have been performed
other than an interior infiltrator.
An aspect being attempted to ascertain is the potential
providing of false information in the form of any and all alleged
anonymous tips which may be determinally classified as
utilizing law enforcement personnell as an instrument of malice.
I find it hard to believe as credible that the Saraland Police
Department chose to just assume that I was the perpertrator
of theft of ATM machines, or computers in which I have
reciepts for. It is the belief of the victim that the police may
have been acting upon false information provided in the form
of an anonymous tip, and the victim also believes that public
records being any type of information alleging wrong doing as
to being lawfully challenged as accurate or inaccurate. To
withold this information when requested is to potentially further
victimize any given victim of false information, essentially
willfully victimizing a person with a knowledge of bias based
on this false information, as well, doing so with public property
as being conducted by a public servant. The victim contends
this type of action to be a violation of sovereignty, resulting
in a possession of pretensive sovereignty.
One example of the records I am searching for is I would
like to know why Mary Simpson was not arrested for false
information by the City Of Saraland, Alabama after making the
false allegations that I had raped her and held her captive. The
female reffered to was given a key to the victims apartment
as she was staying with the victim, was not forced in any way to
conduct any type of action, and provided consent to sexual
relations. Another type of record that I am looking for is I would
like to see all the reports of criminal activities in which I
reported to the FBI of Mobile, Alabama, as well as what they
did or did not pursue, and why. I believe I am entitled to these
records in accordance with the Freedom Of Information and
Privacy Act, and the US Department Of Justice has made it
abundantly appearant that it has no intention of complying with
the laws it has been established to enforce. Witholding these
records only serves to protect the guilty, and I do not believe it
is the intent of the US Department Of Justice to do that, yet,
that is exactly what has already occured. As I have repeatedly
sought Justice within the US Department Of Justice, and I
have encountered nothing other than resistance, I now seek
a higher court for Justice.
The Hague informs me that yourself, Madam Secretary
Clinton, the key ambassador of this country, are those that
properly serve as liazons between the International Court Of
Justice and the United States Of America. The Hague has
been sent a notice that ours is a country comprised of "We
The People" and that all of "We The People" have the right
to represent this sovereignty when special conditions apply.
It is now being claimed that being victimized by espionage
within the Judicial Branch, combined with Justice Department
failure of reported pursuance, the sabotaging of the Balance
Of Powers in this country constitutes special conditions
resulting in "Personable" applications of "People", which in
this case is the case as this case is Constitutionally effective
and therefore promts resulting actions for the other two
branchs' compliance maintaining the defined balance.
On Frebruary 8, 2011, is the date in which The Hague
dated the notice of advisement that proper channels of
sovereign representation are to be established as to be
presented before The International Court Of Justice. This
is the reason I am writing you now, to request the allowance
of acknowledgement in regards to ehausted efforts of
proper channels within the United States Department Of
Justice. It is intended that the pursuit of criminal actions
conducted victimizing my person be addressed as well
as punitives sought.
Criminal Charges Being Presented:
*Obstruction Of Justice
*Espionage against We The People of The United
States
*Willfull Invocation of excessive punnishment
*Unlawful incarceration of a person
*Possession Of Prestensive Sovereignty
*Willful violation of the Freedom Of Information Act
*Invocation of vigilante law enforcement
The criminal conduct of enforcing the will of one's own
law rather than the will of the written law in this country is
self evidently classified as vigilante as well as other
classifications pending specific conditions of applicable
circumstances. In regards to the punitives sought for
my person being victimized by the US Department Of
Justice, they are as follows:
For not allowing an accused to enter a defense:
$16,000,000.00
For Unlawful Incarceration:
$89,000,000.00
For Imposing Fiscal Hinderance:
$85,000,000,000.00
For Witholding Public Property From The Public:
$2,000,000.00
Detailed Explanations Of Punitives Sought:
For not allowing the accused to enter a defense in
propriety to any constitutional defense here in the USA
is to any given person their constitutional rights to pursue
alloted rights granted within the Judicial Branch of our
government, and is a breach of sovereign properties,
refusing to allow any given accused with the desire to
pursue utilization of the Judicial Branch rights to keep
our other two branch's in check. Providing the victim
with the remorseful emotions inherint with the knowledgable
practicing as the US three branch's of government to be
false in nature has a scarring effect, and questions ones
loyalty and where it lies. Protecting any individuals that
jeopardize the branchs' as a whole has provided the victim
with the realization that the US is nothing more than a fraud
in which the victim has contributed a lifetime to being a part
of. Realizing that the sabotaging of the balance of powers
here in the US is a domestic espionage, as the US itself
adheres to the allowance of this espionage to occur,
resulting in what the victim believes to be of a constituted
International Jurisdiction regarding what may very well be an
action of International Espionage in presenting this pretensive
sovereignty resulting from these actions that were taken on
the part of the US. The victim believes this amount to be
generous on the victims part, meaning that the victim believes
a potentially larger sought punitive would not be out of order.
For unlawful incarceration by proxy of finding the victim guilty
of a crime in which in fact did not occur according to the victim
as well as states' evidence, the amount of $1,000,000.00 per
day of captivity is being sought. The victim believes this
amount to of an inflictive amount as to seek actual
punnishment.
For Imposing Fiscal Hinderance in the non-allowance of We
The People, victim included, to pursue fiscal growth in
utilizing the Judicial Branch rights in regards to constitutional
pursuance, and pursue said fiscal growth resulting from this
Judicial Branch rights application which would have been able
to produce said fiscal growth if indeed the US had
recognized the US constitution and practicalities of the
Judicial Branch rights of the victim without the internal
resistance encountered, the fiscal growth of no less than
$5,000,000,000.00 USD per year could have been produced
by the victim, and this is the amount being sought. Reference
for this amount has been derived from a single checkpoint
into the US, and the amount of USD value as established by
the US Drug Enforcement Agency. This is believed to be a
generous amount on behalf of the victim, meaning the victim
could cite more than just a single checkpoint into the US to
serve as potential fiscal production. The unchecked actions
of espionage is contended by the victim to establish liability
for this fiscal production loss, as the US possessed
knowledge the espionage occured and took no action.
For witholding public property from the public by proxy of
alleging that the victim is of a danger to any un-named party
by taking actions to supress the facts by implimenting
harmful means is found by the victim to be slanderous as
well as character damaging. There is no real way to measure
this type of damage, however, the victim is seeking the
amount of $80,000.00 per month that the US has maintained
that the victim is not entitled to records belonging to We The
People based on this reasoning.
Madam Secretary Clinton, it is also being sought that the
United States release in document the stipulated allowance
of the said accused, Stephen Breckenridge Oliver, to be
allowed to enter any constitutional effective defense from
resolving date forward.
In reference of reasoning to Mr. Oliver being classified as
accused, it is of the contented belief that Mr. Oliver as a result
of not being allowed to enter a defense of referenced crime,
even though has already served time of sentence and has an
inherint immunity resulting from "Double Jeopardy" prohibition
application, the defense intended to be ruled upon has still not
yet been heard, and therefore remains effectively accused
regarding legal constituative effects of digest.
The consideration of possession of Marijuana being an
action essentially not illegal is classified definitive pending
the defense which was not allowed to be entered resulting
from the espionage conducted of sabotaging the balance
of powers.
If the United States is able to produce a legitimate standing
of reasoning within the allowed acknowlegements of the rights
of the accused, or the illegitimicies of *current legal
applications of enforced laws within the spectrum of the
presented argument of Constitutional effectiveness, the
accused will cease pursueance of sought punitives,
however, the accused sternly contends the argument
being presented has Constitutional Liberties which bears
within the Constitution, and production of contrary is most likely
not a legitimate possibillity.
Madam Secretary Clinton, I await your return
correspondence on this matter. Thank You.
______________________________________________
Stephen B Oliver August 5, 2011
SRS-117
* - (current)- Present conditions being presented reffering to
violations conducted as an acceptable standard,
and applied to as the normal standard, as willful
neglect of pursuance.
P.S. - Just a side note here. Are you aware that a submission
has been made by Mr. Stephen B Oliver to the Nobel people
regarding the acknowledgement of the fifth state of Matter?
The states of matter are 1-Solid, 2-Liquid, 3-Gas, 4-Plasma,
5-Micro. Although this really isn't pertinently relevent to this
case, this displays the "Breakthrough" capable mindset of
the accused. Included in the fifth state of matter are sound,
light, and a very broad spectrum of matter. This is of the mind
state of the person presenting these charges, the mind state
being it's not my fault if others are not completely informed, or
are ovelooking things concerning what they are talking about.
As well, should anyone make the slanderous allegation that I
chose not to enter any evidence, I look forward to reviewing
the arrest report as this is most certainly considered as false
information. Do you have any recommended media contacts?
I really don't care about the media, however, I can see it will
probably be neccessary.
Counselor, should you choose to aid in this endeavor, you will be considered in my eyes to be a true vailiant hero. The preservation of the United States must meet all enemies, foreign and domestic, and must fight on all grounds in which a compromise exists. Although your award will be a 30% measure, your help is considered priceless.
Thank You for taking the time to review this content, and please consider your choice carefully as the preservation of the US Constitution is the true stake in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Stephen B Oliver
