Fed-Demand for Examination of Fraud

7/28/2019 Fed-Demand for Examination of Fraud

1/45

In The United States District Court

For

The Western District Of Missouri

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ] Dean Whipple, Trustee

(Fictitious Party) ] Fernando J. Gait an, Trustee

Plaintiff ] Robert Larsen, Trustee

]

v. ] Case No. 10-00131-01-CR-W-FJG

] (Cestui Que (Vie) Trust)

Denny-Ray: Hardin ]

(Real Party of Interest) ] Eric H. Holder, Jr., Executor

Beneficiary ] Brian Casey, Executor

] Anita Burns, Executor

Demand For Examination For Fraud On The Court

COMES NOW, Denny-Ray: Hardin, sui juris, in the common law jurisdiction of "Equity" to demand

this trust be examined for evidence of fraud on the court by the administrators named above. The

"Trustees" and "Executors" are actively engaged in "Conspiracy against rights" to deny the "Beneficiary"

due process of law in violation of the "Constitution for the united States of America". The administrators

have violated the Public's Trust and engaged in "Proscutorial Misconduct", "Professional Misconduct",

"Judicial Misconduct", "Extrinsic Fraud" and "Fraud on the court" to deny due process of law required by

the 5th Amendment. Denny-Ray: Hardin demands an impartial examination of these frauds.

Statement of Jurisdiction

All courts of the "Republic of the United States of America" operate under the "Constitution for the

united States of America" as a "Cestui Que (Vie) Trust", also known as a Body Corporate and Estate and

therefore Corporate Personality administered by Executors and their Administrators for the Heirs and

1


2/45

Beneficiaries of the Estate (Ecclesiastical Cannon 1570). As the Constitution is the deed of the Cestui

Que (Vie) Trust, a person can never be an Heir to it, only a beneficiary (Eccesiastical Cannon 1573). As

an "American National" with residence in the "Republic of Missouri", Denny-Ray: Hardin is a

"Beneficiary" of the "Constitution for the united States of America" and entitled to all rights, privileges

and immunities of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust. All Executors and administrators are duty bound by "Oath

of Office" to act as "Trustees" and administer the Cestui que (Vie) Trust for the benefit of the"Beneficiaries" of the Estate, as clearly required by Articel VI of the "Constitution for the united States of

America". Failure to do so, is clear "fraud on the court" and "breech of contract" for employment as an

administrator.

"Right to Examination" and "Definition of Terms"

("Extrinsic Fraud' is that which prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction or gives it merely

colorable jurisdiction.") The classic definition of "extrinsic fraud" refers to situations where theunsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case... as by keeping him away fromcourt... (quoting UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66, 25 L. Ed. 93 (1878)).This case goes on to state,"... the term "fraud" is applied to every artifice made use of by one person forthe purpose of deceiving another." "...defines fraud to be any cunning deception or artifice used tocircumventor deceive another."

In LONG v. SHOREBANK DEVELOPMENT CORP. 182 F. 3d 548, 561 (7th Cir. 1999), [22-24]"A void judgment", that is one entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties, the subject-matter or lack inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can beattacked at any time, in any court either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly beforethe court."

"Fraud on the court" consists of conduct (1) on part of officer of the court, (2) that is directed tojudicial machinery itself, (3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, that is positiveaverment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court." DEMJANJUK v.PETROVSKY, 10 F. 3d 338 (1993).

"In cases where fraud upon the court is unearthed prior to the entry of final judgment, courts almostalways dismiss the case, if plaintiff was the party that perpetrated the fraud, or enter a default judgment ifthe defendant committed the fraud." CORBELL v. NORTON 226, F. supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2002).

"Frauds Upon The Court"

Facts:

1. Frauds of Magistrate Robert Larsen:

2


3/45

A. Magistrate Robert Larsen signed a "Search Warrant" without a signed statement of probable cause

in violation of the 4th Amendment in clear "fraud on the court".

B. Magistrate Robert Larsen has repeatedly failed to state his jurisdiction on the record and has

proceeded without jurisdiction in clear "fraud on the court".

C. Magistrate Robert Larsen has removed records from the court's record to keep facts of this case out

of the court in clear "extrinsic fraud".

D. Magistrate Robert Larsen has a clear conflict of interest for hearing this cause of action and is

acting in clear judicial misconduct to deny due process of law in violation of the 5th Amendment.

E. Magistrate Robert Larsen is engaged in "Conspiracy against rights" with "Executors" Brian Casey

and Anita Burns to deny Denny-Ray: Hardin his rights to a fair trial in clear "extrinsic fraud".

F. Magistrate Robert Larsen has entered fraudulent entries into the court's record to cover-up his acts

of fraud on the court and closed court to Denny-Ray: Hardin (Beneficiary).

G. Magistrate Robert Larsen has forced Denny-Ray: Hardin to contract with Anita Burns to allow her

to perpetrate fraud on the court.

H. Magistrate Robert Larsen entered fraudulent statements in his recommendation to Chief Judge

Fernando J. Gaitan to seek imprisonment of Denny-Ray: Hardin and deny him a trial in clear "extrinsic

fraud".

I. Magistrate Robert Larsen has no jurisdiction and has committed acts of "Treason" in this cause of

action.

J. Magistrate Robert Larsen has violated the Public's Trust and his "Oath of Office" by refusing allfacts, law and evidence in clear "fraud on the court" and defiance of the "Constitution for the united

States of America".

K. Robert Larsen has violated the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll and all law to

"kidnap Denny-Ray: Hardin by Fraud" and hold him "hostage" in clear fraud on the court.

2. Frauds of Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan:

A. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan received facts, law and evidence of lack of jurisdiction and

proceeded to commit Denny-Ray: Hardin to prison without trial for a 4 month observation in clear

"fraud on the court".

B. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has allowed Magistrate Robert Larsen to deny Denny-Ray:

Hardin due process of law and protection of law to persecute him without a complaint signed under the

penalty of perjury.

3


4/45

C. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has no jurisdiction and has committed acts of "Treason" in this

cause of action.

D. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has violated the Public's trust and his "Oath of Office" by refusing

all facts, law and evidence in clear "fraud on the court" and defiance of the "Constitution for the united

States of America".

E. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has violate the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll

and all law to "Kidnap Denny-Ray: Hardin in fraud" and hold him "hostage" in clear fraud on the court.

F. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has held Denny-Ray: Hardin without trial for over 230 days thus

violating the "speedy trial Clause" of the "Constitution for the united States of America" in clear

"extrinsic fraud".

3. Frauds of the Cleric (Clerk of the Court):

A. The Cleric has created a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust without an injured party or contract in clear "fraud

on the court".

B. The Cleric has unlawfully appointed Fernando J. Gaitan as "Trustee" of the Constructive Trust No.

10-00131-01-CR-W-FJG.

C. The Cleric has allowed Magistrate Robert Larsen to close court to the "Beneficiary, Denny-Ray:

Hardin" to deny him due process of law in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trustalso known as the "Constitution for the united States of America"

D. The Cleric has failed to properly administer the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust and refused to collapse it as

required by Ecclesiastical Cannon Law also known as Commercial Law.

E. The Cleric has violated an Eccesiastical Deed Poll, a Deed of Ecclesiastical Dishonor, an

Ecclesiastical Deed of Protest and an Ecclesiastical Deed of Salvage and Possession to unlawfully

maintain a "CQV Trust" of no value and is attempting to collect in clear "fraud on the court".

4. Frauds of the Assistant United States Attorney Brian Casey:

A. Brian Casey has unlawfully commenced this cause of action without an injured party, damage to

property, signed complaint or contract in clear "fraud on the court".

B. Brian Casey has presented fraudulent statements to the "Grand Jury" to unlawfully obtain an

"Indictment" without a signed complaint in clear "Fraud on the court".

4


5/45

C. Brian Casey is a "foreign agent" unlawfully commencing and prosecuting an "American National"

in the name of a "Foreign State" (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) in violation of the 11th

Amendment of the "Constitution for the united States of America".

D. Brian Casey is unlawfully administering the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust by unlawfully attacking and

"American National" and denying the Beneficiary his rights under the Trust, Trust laws and Commercial

Laws.

E. Brian Casey is actively conducting a "Conspiracy against rights" 18 U.S.C.A. 241 with Robert

Larsen, Fernando J. Gaitan, Anita Burns, FBI Agent VanSickle and the Cleric to deny the Beneficiary his

rights, privileges and immunitties in the Constructive Trust No. 01-00131-01-CR-W-FJG.

5. Frauds of Federal Public Defender Anita Burns:

A. Anita Burns has acted in clear "fraud on the court" by claiming the "STATE OF MISSOURI"

declared Denny-Ray: Hardin delusional in her motion for mental evaluation of 5/13/2010.

B. Anita Burns is actively engaged in "proscutorial misconduct" with Brian Casey and Robert Larsen to

imprison an "American National" without due process of law in clear "fraud on the court".

C. Anita Burns has refused to challenge the criminal acts of Robert Larsen, Brian Casey, FBI Agent

VanSickle and United States Marshals who are canducting "Conspiracy against rights" 18 U.S.C.A. 241

of the Beneficiary Denny-Ray: Hardin.

D. Anita Burns refused to present Denny-Ray: Hardin's objections to the Mental Evaluation Hearing

and conspired with Robert Larsen, Brian Casey and FBI Agent VanSickle to deny him his rights of

subpoena of witnesses and presentation of evidence in clear extrinsic fraud on the court.

E. Anita Burns has refused to act on behalf of Denny-Ray:Hardin and has been a constant obsticle to

filing the truth on the record. Anita Burns was terminated 5/13/2010 and has fraudulently claimed to

represent the Beneficiary ever since.

6. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a fraudulent Plaintiff acting as an injured party without a

signed statement of probable cause complaint signed under the penalty of perjury or lawful jurisdiction

for criminal prosecution.

7. All Executors and Administrators of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust have failed to provide Denny-

Ray:Hardin with the rights, privelages and immunities of the trust.

5


6/45

Arguments

1. Arguments against Robert Larsen:

A. Magistrate Robert Larsen signed a "Search Warrant" without a signed statement of probable cause in

violation of the 4th Amendment in clear fraud on the court. Evidence: Court Record #08-SW-00133-

REL

Authorities Relied Upon

"4. State courts, equally with Federal courts, are under an obligation to guard and enforce every right

secured by the Federal Constitution." MOONEY v. HOLOHAN 294 U.S. 103-115, 79 L.Ed. 791.

The 4th Amendment states no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. Without a complaint

signed under penalty of perjury, no probable cause can be lawfully established. Robert Larsen claimingauthority to issue a warrant without probable cause is clear "fraud on the court". Robert Larsen denied

Denny-Ray: Hardin his 5th Amendment right to due process of law to require probable cause to issue a

warrant.

B. Magistrate Robert Larsen has repeatedly failed to state his jurisdiction on the record and has

proceeded without jurisdiction in clear fraud on the court.

Evidence: Docket entries #7, #35 and #38.


Magistrate Robert Larsen has been repeatedly challenged to state his jurisdiction on the record as

required by the 15 Statues at Large. The following are some of the cases ignored by Robert Larsen:

"Jurisdiction once challenged, can not be assumed and it must be proven." MAINE v. THIBOUTOT,

100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

"In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, if the record does not show upon its face the facts

necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed." NORMAN v. ZIEBER, 3 OR at

202-03.

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an

inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. U.S. v. TWEEL, 550 F.2d 297.

6


7/45

Because Magistrate Robert Larsen has been repeatedly asked orally and petitioned by Judicial Notice

to state his jurisdiction and he has remained silent the record reflects no jurisdiction in this cause of

action. Therefore, Robert Larsen has proceeded in this cause in clear "fraud on the court" without lawful

jurisdiction. Sanctions have been imposed without jurisdiction.

"No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." STANDARD v. OLSEN, 74 S. Ct. 768;

Title 5 U.S.C. Sec. 556 and 558.

July 27th 1868, 15 Statues at Large, Chapter 249, Section 1, ""Acts concerning American Citizens in

a foreign state, expatriation, is what is broken when jurisdiction is demanded and is not met with an

answer."

C. Magistrate Robert Larsen has removed records from the court's file to keep facts of this case out of

court in clear extrinsic fraud. Evidence: Judicial Notice (Date stamped 5/12/2010)

Defendant's Response to Motion for Detention (Date Stamped 5/13/2010) Habeas Corpus (Refused to be

docketed)


Magistrate Robert Larsen removed these filed documents from the record in clear "Conspiracy against

rights" 18 U.S.C.A. 241 with the Cleric. Not only is this conspiracy against rights but also a felony crime

under 18 U.S.C.A. 2071 for mutilation of court files. For a Magistrate to claim the authority to remove

documents from a Public Record is clear fraud on the court. The "JUDICIAL NOTICE OF

CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS" Docket entry #38 clearly outlines all the frauds of Robert Larsen to

obstruct justice.

D. Magistrate Robert Larsen has a clear conflict of interest for hearing this cause of action and is acting

in clear Judicial Misconduct to deny due process of law in violation of the 5th Amendment.

Evidence: Docket Entries #7, #35 and #38


On May 10th, Denny-Ray: Hardin orally outlines the conflict of interest by Robert Larsen issuance of

a "Search Warrant" without probable cause. Docket Entry #7 clearly reflects this challenge. Because

Denny-Ray: Hardin informed Robert Larsen he would be subpoenaed to trial in this cause of action.

Denny-Ray: Hardin believes Robert Larse has a personal interest in this cause of action that is a clear

conflict of interest. By Robert Larsen refusing to recuse himself and remaining on the case, his

impartiality is clearly questionable.

7


8/45

Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a) "...requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which

her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." TAYLOR v. O'GRADY, 888 F 2d 1189 (7th Cir.

1989). This case goes further and states, "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not

file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated

circumstances."Id.

Docket Entry #35, Judicial Notice, denied by Robert Larsen on September 30, 2010. And Docket

Entry #38, Judicial Notice denied by Robert Larsen October 18, 2010. These were both filed with the

Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan outlining the conduct of Robert Larsen. Entry #35 challenged jurisdiction

and was simply denied. Entry #38 outlined the "Judicial Misconduct" and criminal acts of Robert Larsen,

again Robert Larsen simply denied the facts, law and evidence.

"A judge is not the court." PEOPLE v. ZAJIC, 88 Ill. App. 3d 477, 410 N.E. 2d 626 (1980)

Denny-Ray: Hardin believes Robert Larsen is biased and prejudicial and engaged in "fraud on the

court". Robert Larsen has removed documents/filings required to be answered by the plaintiff. Robert

Larsen has denied facts, law and evidence without being answered by Plaintiff. Robert Larsen is

obstructing the judicial machinery so it can not perform its impartial task of adjudicating this case.

"Fraud on the court" should, we believe, enbrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to

subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial

machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for

adjudication and..." Moore's Federal Practice 60.38 (2) (1983).

Denny-Ray: Hardin believes he is being denied due process of law required of all courts by the 5th

Amendment. By Robert Larsen removing the obligation of Plaintiff to prove the allegations, answer

jurisdiction challenges, rebut facts, law and evidence capable of vindicationand making determinations

without findings of facts and conclusions of law. Robert Larsen is clearly denying due process of law.

The 5th Amendment clearly states no person will be deprived of life, liberty or property without due

process of law. Robert Larsen is clearly not providing this common practice. By the prosecutor not being

held to establish proof of his allegations Denny-Ray: Hardin is guilty without trial or due process of law

and been confinded overm 230 days without evidence of guilty being produced.

"It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has

received justice." PFIZER INC. v. LORD, 456 F 2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972). The Supreme Court has rules

and affirmed the principle that, "Justice must satify the appearance of justice." LEVINE v. UNITED

STATES, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960).

Denny-Ray: Hardin does not believe he is receiving justice, he believes he is being railroaded by

Robert Larsen and those aiding and abetting him.

"Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is in violation of the U.S. Constitution."

UNITED STATES v. SCIUTO, 521 F. 2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996).

8


9/45

E. Magistrate Robert Larsen is engaged in "Conspiracy against rights" with the Executors Brian Casey

and Anita Burns to deny Denny-Ray: Hardin his right to a fair trial in clear extrinsic fraud.

Evidence: Docket Entries #7, #13, #15, #19, # 23 and #29.


Denny-Ray: Hardin has appeared in court 3 times in relation to this cause of action. The first was May

10, 2010 where he challenged the jurisdiction of Larsen and was denied. Docket Entry #7 clearly shows

Robert Larsen denied every lawful challenge without rebuttle from Brian Casey. This docket entry cleary

shows the biased and prejudicial conduct of Robert Larsen to refuse a lawful judge, jurisdiction, to recuse

himself and order Denny-Ray: Hardin to prison in violation of the "Bail Reform Act of 1984" that clearly

states pretrial confinement is the last resort only after all other options have failed.

From May 10, 2010 to May 13, 2010 Robert Larsen, Brian Casey and Anita Burns acted in clear

"Conspiracy" to keep Denny-Ray: Hardin from trial. Docket Entry #13 of Brian Casey, Docket Entry #15

of Anita Burns were both filed May 13, 2010 as "Motions for Determination of Competency". This was

decided by Anita Burns prior to meeting Denny-Ray: Hardin. Denny-Ray: Hardin terminated Anita Burns

and told her not to file anything on May 13, 2010. Based upon Anita Burns's "fraud" 18 U.S.C. 1001

Denny-Ray: Hardin has been in prison over 230 days without trial or due process. Anita Burns fraudulent

claimed Denny-Ray: hardin was determined "delusional" by the "STATE OF MISSOURI" when in fact

the state mental health specialist refused to make that determination. It is clear Robert Larsen utilized

these motions to deny all due process of law as clear stated in Docket entry #19.

"Conviction for Conspiracy requires proof of (1) an agreement with another person to break the law,(2) knowledge of the essential objectives of the conspiracy, (3) knowing and voluntary involvement in the

conspiracy and (4) interdependence among the alleged conspirators." UNITED STATES v. VAZIRI, 164

F. 3d 556 (10th Cir. 1999).

The "Conspiracy against rights" 18 U.S.C.A. 241 is clearly to Kidnap 18 U.S.C.A. 1201 Denny-Ray:

Hardin and take him "hostage" 18 U.S.C.A. 1203. In November 2008, Brian Casey and Robert Larsen

unlawfully conspired to issue a search warrant without a signed statement of probable cause. Anita Burns

became the 3rd of these conspirators willing to break the law by fraud on the court. The primary objective

was to get Denny-Ray: Hardin in prison without giving him due process of law. On September 9th a

Mental Competency Hearing was to be held as clearly shown in Docket Entry #29. Denny-Ray: Hardin's

oral motion for witnesses to be subpoenaed, in accordance wi8th 18 U.S.C. 4247(d) was denied by RobertLarsen.Anita Burns refused to subpoena witnesses, file objections to the findings of Dr. Dwyer or enter

objections on the record. This shows clear knowing and voluntary involement in this conpiracy by Larsen

and Burns. Denny-Ray: Hardin wrote to Chief Judge Fernado J. Gaitan on September 16th outlining all of

his objections to the unlawful proceedings that took place in the Mental Competency Hearing on

September 9th. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan ordered Denny-Ray: Hardin to 4 months in a Federal

Medical Center for observation to determine if he is delusional. This "Conspiracy of Kidnapping" 18

9


10/45

U.S.C.A. 1203(c) has succeeded in putting Denny-Ray: Hardin in prison without due process of law,

taken his liberty by fraud and deprived him of life in violation of the 5th Amendment.

This "Conspiracy" would not have succeeded without the participation of all conspirators. If Anita

Burns and Brian Casey had not Motioned the court, it would not have ordered an evaluation. If Robert

Larsen had not ordered an evaluation, Dr. Dwyer could not have determined that Denny-Ray: Hardin's

beliefs in the Constitution might raise to the level of delusion. Dr. Dwyer then recomends a 4 month

evaluation to see if Denny-Ray:Hardin is delusional. Robert Larsen then holds a mock hearing where no

cross examination is allowed, no witnesses are allowed, no objections are allowed and reports to Gaitan

that a 4 month evaluation is warranted. Gaitan being informed of all the frauds on the court orders the

evaluation. The 4th element of conspiracy "interdependence among the alleged conspirators" is clear to

see without each person's participation the objective could not have been achieved.

"An attorney's loyality to the court, as an officer thereof, demands integrity and honest dealing with

the court, and when he departs from that standard he prepetrates a "fraud on the court" within saving

clause of rule governing relief from judgment and order." Fed. Rules Civ. Pro. Rule 60 (b) (1,3) 28

U.S.C.A.

The letter and "Rights v. Corruption, Part III" posted in the court's docket some two months after the 4

month evaluation was ordwered by Gaitan shows the conspiracy against rights clearly for all to see.

Denny-Ray: Hardin asserts he was denied a mental competency hearing within 18 U.S.C.A. 4247(d)

because he passed all the tests given by Dr. Dwyer and was only questioned because of his beliefs in the

Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land as clearly stated in Article VIO. Since, Denny-Ray: Hardin

has learned the Constitution is a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust that all administrators are bound to support by

oath of office.

Denny-Ray Hardin now terminates Anita Burns as his "Executor" and nullifies the contract of

"Trustee" Robert Larsen. Denny-Ray: Hardin now claims his body, and exercises his right to act as

"Beneficiary". As Beneficiary, Denny-Ray: Hardin refuses all offers of contract by the Trustees Robert

Larsen and Fernando J. Gaitan.

"Party can not be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized. Free consent is an

indispensable element in making contracts." Alexander v. Bothsworth 1915.

F. Magistrate Robert Larsen has entered fraudulent entries into the Court's record to cover-up his acts

of fraud on the court and closed court to Denny-Ray: Hardin (Beneficiary).



Since the Docket Sheet clear states there are no complaints filed in this cause of action, there can be no

probable cause to issue a warrant claimed in Docket Entry #10. Denny-Ray: hardin has repeatedly

10


11/45

demanded a copy of the warrant and been refused to date. Just another example of Robert Larsen's fraud

on the court. No Warrant exists.

Docket Entry #11 claims Denny-Ray: Hardin consented to custody in clear fraud on the court. After

Robert Larsen removed "Defendant's Response to Motion for Detention" filed May 10th, on May 12th

Robert Larsen claims Denny-Ray: Hardin consented to custody in clear fraud on the court.

Docket Entry #16 Robert Larsen claims to deny all pro se filings of Defendant. This in effect closed

court in clear fraud on the court in violation of 28 U.S.C.A. 452. The "Demand to open court" outlines the

criminal acts of Robert Larsen, Docket Entry #33 that was clearly denied by Docket Entry #34.

"Part Fraud is all Fraud" The entire record crated by Robert Larsen, Fernando J. Gaitan, Brian Casey

and Anita Burns is Fraud on the court. The record speaks for itself.

G. Magistrate Robert Larsen has forced Denny-Ray: Hardin to contract with Anita Burns to allow her

to perpetrate fraud on the court.

Evidence: Docket Entry #19.


"While the Constitution guarantees to the Defendant in a criminal case, the right to be heard by

counsel, it also allows him to be heard "by himself" and where he elects to appear for himself rather than

by an attorney, he can not be compelled to employee counsel or accept services assigned by the court".

PEOPLE v. SHAPIRIO 188 MISC. 363. ALSO SEE; JOHNSON v. ZERBEST 1938, ARGERSINGER v.

HAMLIN 1972 AND UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ 2006.

Magistrate Robert Larsen has violated Denny-Ray: Hardin's right to "contract" 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 and

Articel I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Missouri. This is clear "interference with civil rights" 42

U.S.C.A. 1985. The Code of Judicial Conduct 28 U.S.C.A. 1654 allows all people their right to represent

one's self.

Every act of Anita Burns has been to aid and abet frasud on the court or extrinsic fraud of Robert

Larsen. Robert Larsen has acted upon Anita Burns's motiopn to put Denny-Ray:Hardin in prison. Anita

Burns has refused to object to the fraud of Robert Larsen and cooperated in conspiracy. Robert Larsen has

repeatedly denied all 1st Amendment petitions claiming Anita Burns is counsel.

The law is clear, "Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized. Free consent

is an indespensable element in making valid contracts." ALEXANDER v. BOTHSWORTH 1915.

By forcing contract on Denny-Ray: Hardin and utilizing that obligation to legalize "fraud on the court

and extrinsic fraud, Robert Larsen has clearly obstructed the judicial machinery of the court to deny

Denny-Ray: Hardin all due process of law.

11


12/45

FOR THE RECORD: Denny-Ray: Hardin did not and does not consent to any contract to be

represented by Anita Burns, in any capicity, and refuses all offers of contract by Robert Larsen "Trustee"

of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust.

FOR THE RECORD: I, Denny-Ray: Hardin, Beneficiary authorize the "Trustee" Robert Larsen to

handle the accounting and dissolve this constructive trust. I now claim my body so I am collapsing the

CQV Trust, which you have charged, as there is no value in it.

Robert Larsen you have committed fraud against all laws!!!!!!!!!!!

H. Magistrate Robert Larsen entered fr4audlent statements in his reccomendation to Fernando J. Gaitan

to seek imprisonment of Denny-Ray: Hardin and deny him trial in clear extrinsic fraud.

Evidence: Docket Entries #29 and #32.

Magistrate Roberty Larsen has acted in clear fraud on the court claiming "On September 9, 2010 I held

a competency hearing." Docket Entry #32 page 2.

"The convening of a hearing presupposes that evidence will be introduced during such proceeding. The

word [hearing] contemplates not only the privilege to be present when the matter is being considered but

[also] the right to present one's contention and to support the same by proof and argument." BROWN v.

BROWN 161 Colo. 409, 422 P.2d 634 (1967).

The Clerk's Minutes, Docket Entry #29, clearly shows a hearing was not held because witnesses weredenied. It clearly states, "Defendant's oral motion to subpoena witnesses and continue the hearing are

denied." 18 U.S.C.A. 4247(d) clearly states, "The person shall be afforded an opportunity to testify, to

present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who

appear at the hearing."

I requested three witnesses be subpoenaed by my counsel Anita Burns, the "STATE OF MISSOURI

that stated I was delusional, my mental health specialist from Moberly Correctional Center and Dr.

Dwyer. Anita Burns refused to issue these subpoenas because her fraud on the court, that I was declared

delusional would be exposed. This was clear "ineffective assistance of counsel".

Robert Larsen further created fraud by claiming "During the hearing, both parties stipulated to Dr.

Dwyer's report (Tr. at 2)." Denny-Ray: Hardin in a letter to Chief Judge Gaitan dated September 16, 2010

stated all his objections to the report of Dr. Dwyer, refused to be stated by Anita Burns and refused to be

heard by Robert Larsen. Further evidence of the conspiracy against rights to declare Denny-Ray:Hardin

incompetent without benefit of a hearing required by 18 U.S.C.A. 4247(d).

"There can be no practical difference, whether a party be defrauded out of a judgment by the collusion

of his attorney, by having his testimony stolen, or witnesses kept from the court, or whether by any other

12


13/45

device, artifice or frudulent scheme of the opposite party or attorney, which ordinary prudence and

foresight could not guard against, he is prevented from presenting his cause or defense and is therefore

tricked out of a judgment." UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON 98 U.S. 61-71(1878).

This is clear "extrinsic fraud" by Anita Burns, Robert Larsen and Fernando J. Gaitan to deny A

hearing required by law.

I. Magistrate Robert Larsen has no jurisdiction and has committed acts of treason in this cause of action.



Point B clearly established that Robert Larsen has proceeded in this cause of action without

jurisdiction.

"When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or

acts of treason."

U.S. v. WILL 449 U.S. 200,216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2ND 392, 406 (1980)N COHEN v. VIRGINIA,

19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821).

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without

jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically

disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggests that he is then engaging in

criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and

interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity.

J. Magistrate Robert Larsen has violated the Public's Trust and his "Oath of Office" by refusing all

facts, law and evidence in clear fraud on the court and defiance of the "Constitution for the united States

of America". Evidence: Every order issued, by Robert Larsen, in this cause of action.


Magistrate Robert Larsen has accepted a "Public Office" of "Trust" and taken an "Oath of Office" that

he would support the Constitution for the united States of America. 28 U.S.C.A. 453 clearly states, "Each

justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the

duties of his office:

13


14/45

I, ___________ _________ do solemnly sware (or affirm) that I will administer justice withoiut

respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially

discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as __________ under the Constitution and laws of

the United States . So help me God."

The facts, law and evidence contained in this case clearly show Robert Larsen is not performing the

job he is being paid for and is defrauding the Public of his salary. Based upon this case Robert Larsen is

not only violating the Constitution and laws of the United States by deceiving the Public that he is an

impartial officer of the court, while breaking every law he is required to uphold. He has clearly violated

the "Public's Trust"

" [423] The most solemn transactions and judgments may, at the instance of the parties, be set aside or

rendered inoperative for fraud. The acts of being a party does not stop a person from obtaining in a court

of equity relief against fraud. It is generally parties that are the victims of fraud. The court of chancery isalways open to hear complaints against it, whether committed in pias or in or by means of judicial

proceedings. In such cases the court does act as a court of review, nor does it inquire into any

irregularities or errors of proceeding in another court; but it will scrutinize the conduct of the parties; and

if it finds that they have been guilty of fraud in obtaing the judgment or decree, it will deprive them of the

benefit of it, and or any inequitable advantage, which they have derived under it."McDANIEL v.

TRAYLOR, 196 U.S. 415, 25 S. Ct. 369 (1905).

Denny-Ray: Hardin believes all orders of Robert Larsen are based upon the assumption of a contract

that Denny-Ray:Hardin has agreed to be represented by Anita Burns. On May 13th in open court Denny-

Ray: Hardin terminated Anita Burns in open court, on the record and before witnesses. Robet Larsen

forced this incompetent attorney into this cause of action and claims her presence his justification for

denying all filings of Denny-Ray: Hardin, I content this is "Fraud on the court", "extrinsic fraud" and

"conspiracy against rights" by Robert Larsen and those aiding and abetting his treason. In this common

law court of equity, Denny-Ray: Hardin claims to have been injured by the criminal acts of this cause of

action.I do not consent to any contract in this cause of action. All claims of contract are fraud on the

court.

K. Robert Larsen has violated the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll and all law to

kidnap Denny-Ray: Hardin and hold him hostage in clear fraud on the court.

Evidence: Robert Larsen has been hired as an administrator of the "Constitution for the united States

of America".


14


15/45

"A Constitution is a particular Form of Deed of an Temporary Testamentary Trust, also known as a

Cestui Que (Vie) Trust forming a Trust Corpus, also known as a Body Corporate and Estate and

therefore Corporate Personality administered by Executors and their Administrators for the Heirs and

Beneficiaries of the Estate." (Ecclesiastical Cannon 1570).

As an Administrator/Trustee of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, Robert Larsen is lawfully required by

"Oath of Office" to support the Constitution and laws of the United States. Robert Larsen has violated the

sacred trust and rejected all law governing his conduct.

"Ecclesiastical Cannon 1555" cl;early states, "An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll is permitted to be issued

when an inferior Roman Person rejects the rule of law and seeks to assert an untenable and illogical

position of superior rights over devine law."

Therefore, because Robert Larsen has violated all law governing his conduct, his public office, his

ministerial duties and administrative obligations, an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll was filed in this trust under

Ecclesiastical Cannon Law 1564.

Robert Larsen's Court has been seized by him to operate against all law. Robert Larsen has becomedelusional that he can violate the Public's Trust, his Oath of Office, the Constitution and laws of the

United States, the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, Ecclesiastical Cannon Law, all laws of commerce (UCC

Regulations), human rights under the United Nations and God's Law. Robert Larsen is clearly suffering

from delusions of grandure that he is the law, rather than a public servant required to administer law in an

impartial and fair manner.

Summation

Through these violations of law, Denny-Ray: Hardin has been "Kidnapped" by fraud of Robert Larsen

and held "Hostage" over 230 days without consent, warrant, complaint signed under penalty of perjury or

due process of law required by the 5th Amendment of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust. I ask how many have

been violated by Robert Larsen in his capacity of Magistrate? But better yet, How many more will be

violated before he is removed from Public Office? I pray justice will be swift to protect the innocent.

2. Arguments against Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan:

A. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan received facts, law and evidence of lack of jurisdiction and

proceeded to commit Denny- Ray: Hardin without trial for a 4 month observation in clear fraud on the

court. Evidence Letter of 9/16/2010 and "Rights v. Corruption, Part III".


15


16/45

This letter and record were posted in this cause of action some two months after Denny-Ray: Hardin

was sent to a "Foreign State" for evaluation. Fernando J. Gaitan believes like Robert Larsen that

jurisdiction does not have to be stated or proved. Fernando J. Gaitan received Docket Entry #35,

challenging jurisdiction and Docket Entry #38 establishing "Constitution in Crisis". Rather than supervise

Magistrate Robert Larsen, Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan allowed Robert Larsen to deny facts, law and

evidence and continue his unlawful conduct.

"Personal involvement in deprivation of Constiotutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but

defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to

remedy wrong after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional

practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation.GALLEGOS v.

HAGGERTY, N.D. OF NEWYORK, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988).

Fernando J. Gaitan has been repeatedly informed of the fraud, criminal acts, violations of

constitutionalrights and violations of law by Robert Larsen and remained silent. As chief Judge Fernando

J. Gaitan received; 1) Docket Entry #33 Demand to Open Court; 2) Docket Entry #36 Judicial Notice,

Notice That; 3) Docket Entry #38 Judicial Notice of Constitution in Crisis; 4) Letter of September 9, 2010and 5) "Rights v. Corruption Part III". These 5 pleas to the Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, begging for

his assistance in stopping the conduct of his subordinate Magistrate Robert Larsen were ignored. Chief

Judge Fernando J. Gaitan ignored all facts, law and evidence presented and sustained Robert Larsen's

reccomendation for 4 month evaluation.

Fernando J. Gaitan agrees with Robert Larsen that Denny-Ray: Hardin was not entitled to call

witnesses in a mental evaluation hearing under 18 U.S.C. 4247(d).

Fernando J. Gaitan agrees with Robert Larsen that Denny-Ray: Hardin is not entitled to due process of

law required by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Fernando J. Gaitan agrees with Robert Larsen that Denny-Ray: Hardin is not entitled to a speedy trial

and it is acceptable that he has been held over 230 days without a trial in violation of the speedy trial

clause of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Fernando J. Gaitan agrees with Robert Larsen that they do not have to state their jurisdcition on the

record and can act in treason in their "Public Offices".

Fernando J. Gaitan as cChief Judge has the duty and responsibility to remedy the wrongs of his

subordinate Magistrate Robert Larsen who he referred the constructive trust to, according to Docket Sheet

Page 1. By not stopping the criminal acts of Robert Larsen, Fernando J. Gaitan became an active

participant in those crimes, this is his true character.

In November 2008, Denny-Ray: Hardin filed Affidavits of criminal complaint against Brian Casey,

Robert Larsen and FBI Agent Vansickle for "Bank Robbery" 18 U.S.C.A. 2113. Three Affidavits were

filed with Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, the final one charging him with "Misprison of Felonies" 18

U.S.C.A. 4.Denny-Ray: Hardin believes Fernando J. Gaitan has become a conspirator in this cause of

action and his guilt is established by his lack of action to stop the criminal acts clearly established by

facts, law and evidence. Silence when there is a duty to act can only be equated to fraud.

16


17/45

By his lack of action to stop the conspiracy clearly shows his participation in it. For a judge to ignore

and break the law in a public office is clear fraud on the court, for a judge to refuse facts, law and

evidence is clear denial of due process of law. By keeping a defendant locked in prison and away from

court is clear extrinsic fraud.

B. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has allowed Magistrate Robert Larsen to deny Denny-Ray: Hardin

due process of law and protection of law to persecute him without a complaint signed under penalty of

perjury.

Evidence: Docket Entries #35 and #38


"Under both Hawii and Federal law a judgment may be attacked for fraud upon the court at any time

and courts have inherent equity power to set aside judgments whenever their enforcement would be

unconcionable because of fraud on the court." Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b), Haw. Rules Civ. Proc.

Rule 60(b).(Quoted: IN RE GENESYS DATA TECHOLOGIES, INC. 204 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 2000)).

Rule 3 of the Federal rules of Criminal Procedure require a complaint to be signed under penalty of

perjury before a Magistrate. As clearly stated on the Docket Sheet , Page 2, there are no complaints in this

cause of action. Therefore, rather than being prosecuted for a crime, Denny-Ray: Hardin is being

persecuted, terrorized, tortured and abused by Robert Larsen and Fernando J. Gaitan for exposing their

criminal conduct in November 2008.

There are two lawful jurisdictions for prosecuting a crime. First is "Common Law Jurisdiction" that

requires an "injured party", because no complaint is present no "Common Law Jurisdiction" can be

achieved. The second id "Admiralty Jurisdiction" that requires a copntract be present for "Subject Matter

Jurisdiction". Denny-Ray: Hardin does not consent to any contract in this cause of action. Therefore no

"Admiralty Jurisdiction" can be achieved.

Without the presence of an "injured party", "damage to property" or a "contract", the "Indictment" is

evidence of fraud on the court by Robert Larsen conviening a "Grand Jury" allowing fraudulent

evidencen to be presented without a signed complaint envolking the penalty of perjury, Robert larsen has

clearly denied Denny-Ray: Hardin due process of law, lawfully required by the 5th Amendment. Because

these facts have been presented to Fernando J. Gaitan a pattern of racketeering activity seems to bepresent. By Fernando J. Gaitan allowing Robert Larsen, Brian Casey and Anita Burns to engage in

"Kidnapping byn fraud" and "conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law" Fernando J. Gaitan is

controling the criminal acts and allowing them to operate.

"In racketeering prosecution, existance of a RICO enterprise was established by sufficient evidence as

to ongoing organization with decision-making framework as a mechanism for controlling the group,

17


18/45

function as a continuing unit and existence seperate and apart from pattern of racketeering activity." 18

U.S.C.A. 1962(c) (Quoted in UNITED STATES v. SANDERS, 928 F. 2d 940 (10th Cir. 1991).

" The court may be an enterprise within the meaning of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act." 18 U.S.C.A. 1961 et seq. (Quoted in AVERBACH v. RIVAL MANUFACTURING,

809 f. 2D 1061 (3rd Cir. 1987).

Because Robert Larsen is acting without jurisdiction to persecute an "American National" in what can

only be described as a "personal vendetta". And Fernando J. Gaitan having been repeatedly informed and

refused to act is clearly established as the decision making force of this conspiracy against rights. It can

only be assumed that these public servant have seized their "Public Offices" to operate them as their

personal power base to engage in organized crime or treason and interference with interstate commerce.

C. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has no jurisdiction and has committed acts of treason in this cause

of action.

Evidence: Docket Entries #7, #23, #35 and #38.


In Arguments against Robert Larsen, Point B, clearly establishes that Robert Larsen has proceeded in

this cause of action without jurisdiction. Because Robert Larsen has failed to establish jurisdiction in this

cause of action, no jurisdiction exists for Fernado J. Gaitan, either.

"When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or

acts of treason." U.S. v. WILL 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L Ed 2d 392, 406 (1980), CHOEN

v. VIRGINIA 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821).

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution , or if he acts without

jurisdiction, he is engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically

diqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggests that he is then engaging incriminal acts of treason qand may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and

the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

18


19/45

Docket Entry #23 clearly shows Chief Judge Fernando J.Gaitan was named a Fiduciary on May 24,

2010. Under 28 U.S.C.A. 455(a), (b)(1) &(4) and (d)(3), Fernando J. Gaitan was disqualified from this

cause of action by law. Therefore, after he was lawfully disqualified he signed the order committing

Denny-Ray: Hardin to prison without jurisdiction in a clear act of treason. This disqualification can not be

waived under 28 U.S.C.A. 455(e). Therefore, there is no possibility Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has

jurisdiction in this cause of action. All of his acts are clearly fraud on the court.

D. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has violated the Public's Trust and his "Oath of Office" by refusing

all facts, law and evidence in clear fraud on the court and defiance of the "Constitution for the united

States of America".


Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has accepted a "Public Office" of "Trust" and taken an "Oath of

Office" that he would support the Constitution for the united States of America. 28 U.S.C.A. 453 clearly

states, "Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before

performing the duties of his office:

I, ____________ ____________ do solemnly sware (or affirm) that I will administer justice without

respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially

discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the

United States. So help me God."

Article VI of the Constitution requires every judge be bound by oath of support for the Constitution.

The conduct of Fernando J. Gaitan clearly shows he does not support any law and is operating the Public

Office in violation of all law. This case is clear evidence of the facts and laws, ignored by Fernando J.

Gaitan . For him to operate a Public Office in this manner is clear fraud on the court.

E. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has violated the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll

and all law to kidnap Denny-Ray: Hardin and hold him hostagem in clear fraud on the court.


Fenando J. Gaitan has been hired as an Administrator of the "Constitution for the united States of

America".

19


20/45

"A Constitution is a particular form of Deed of Temporart Testamentary Trust, also known as a Cestui

Que (Vie) Trust, also known as a Body Corporate and Estate and therefore Corporate Personality

administered by Executives and their Administrators for the Heirs and Beneficiaries of the Estate."

Ecclesiastical Cannon 1570

Fernando J. Gaitan is the Administrator/Trustee of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust and lawfully bound by

oath of office to administer the trust in compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The Court's records clearly show Fernando J. Gaitan has violated the sacred Trust and rejected all law that

governs his conduct.

"An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll is permitted to be issued when an inferior Roman Person rejects the rule

of law and seeks to assert an untenable and illogical position of superior rights over devine law."


Therefore, because Fernando J. Gaitan has allowed Robert Larsen to violate all law governing his

condu7ct, his public office, his ministeral duties and administrative obligations. And because Fernando J.

Giatan has willfully neglected his duty as Chief Judge to correct these wrongs, carry out his fidicuary

obligations and administer justice in accordance with law. An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll was filed in this

trust under Ecclesiastical Cannon Law 1564.

Fernando J. Gaitan has clearly demonstrated repeatedly that he will not administer the duties of his

Public Office and has allowed the Western District of Missouri to become a Racketeering enterprise

under his supervision. His guilt is not his actions personally, but refusiong to take action when informed

of criminal conduct, by his subordinates. Failure to stop a conspiracy against rights shows clear

participation in it, and responsibility for damages for injuries inflicted 42 U.S.C.A. 1987. As Chief Judge

it is his responsibility to correct the wrongs of his subordinate magistrate, a duty he has cklearly and

willfully neglected.

F. Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has held Denny-Ray: Hardin without trial for over 230 days thus

violating the speedy trial clause of the "Constitution for the united States of America".


By Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan referring this case to Magistrate Robert Larsen, he is accountable

for every violation of law created by Robert Larsen.

"4. State Courts, equally with Federal Courts, are under an obligation to guard and enforce every right

secured by the Federal Constitution." MOONEY v. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103-115, 79 L.ed. 791.

The Constitution for the united States of America clearly establishes the right of every defendant to a

speed trial. Common knowledge dictates that a trial must be conducted within 180 days. By Robert

Larsen refusing to arraign Denny-Ray: Hardin, he has attempted to incarcerate an "American National"

for life without trial. Denny-Ray: Hardin has now been incarcerated over 230 days without warrant,

20


21/45

without complaint, without arraignment, without due process and without jurisdiction being lawfully

established. Because due process of law required by the 5th Amendment is not present, Denny-Ray:

Hardin has been kidnapped 18 U.S.C.A.1201 and taken hostage 18 U.S.C.A. 1203. Kidnapping in relation

to Conspiracy against rights carries mandatory life. This cause can no longer be brought to trial because

the speedy trial clause of the Constitution elasped over 50 days ago. Robert Larsen's criminal acts to deny

due process of law is now the knowledge of Fernando J. Gaitan and his participation in this conspiracy amatter of public record.

Summation

How much longer must I suffer in prison before these Administrators will lawfully perform their

duties? When government seeks to intimidate the people it is duty bound to serve and protect it is called

"domestic terrorism". Because magistrates and judges within the United States have created this common

practice of terrorizing the public. Perhaps the United States Government should arrest and prosecute these

terrorist before spending our tax dollars to fight terrorism in foreign lands. Otherwise, the government is

clearly hypocritical for claiming to fight terrorism while promoting and protecting it in the United States

of America.

3. Arguments against Cleric (Clerk of the Court)

A. The Cleric has crated a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust without an injured party or contract in clear fraud on

the court.

Evidence: Docket Entry #1


This case was fraudulently established without a complaint signed under the penalty of perjury in

violation of the 5th Amendment. Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a complaint

be signed under oath before a magistrate. A grand jury can only issue an indictment based upon acomplaint signed underpenalty, obviously Brian Casey has lied to the grand jury fraudulently claiming to

have a complaint to support the indictment. Therefore, there can be no "Common Law Jurisdiction"

established and no injured party. For this reason, every witness is fraudulently claiming the right to

prosecution without establishing themselves as injuries parties.

The Cleric (Clerk of the Court) assigned this "Constructive Trust" number 4:10-cr-00131-FJG-1 and

appointed Dean Whipple as "Trustee", whom assigned Fernando J. Gaitan as "Trustee", who referred the

21


22/45

trust to Robert Larsen as "Trustee". The Cleric then appointed Brian Casey as "Executor" and

fraudulently assigned "DENNY RAY HARDIN" Defendant a "Fictitious Party". The "Executor" then

took the trust before the "grand jury" to obtain an "Indictment" of the defendant. The Cleric then

fraudulently appointed a second "Executor" Anita Burns to administer this trust as "Beneficuary" in clear

fraud on the court. Under "Trust Law" a "Beneficuary" can not be an "Executor", "Administrator" or

"Trustee".

Denny-Ray: Hardin refuses to be recognized as "dead", refuses to be recognized as a "legal fiction"

(DENNY RAY HARDIN) and refuses to be recognized as a "trust". Denny-Ray: Hardin only acts as the

"Beneficuary" with no clout or liability.The "Trustees of the Constructive Trust" Dean Whipple,

Fernando J. Gaitan and Robert Larsen are liable for the "DENNY RAY HARDIN TRUST". Likewise the

"Executors" Brian Casey and Anita Burns are responsible to pay the trust they have frauidulently

charged.These Administrators of the "DENNY RAY HARDIN TRUST" are now identified in this

Constructive Trust. Denny-Ray: Hardin does not consent to any offers of contract with any of the

Administrators of this trust, and has not willingly entered into any contract with them to date.

The Cleric has fraudulently created a "Constructive Trust" and utilized it to arrest Denny-Ray: Hardinwithout his permission.

"Under Commercial law- dating back to the code of Ur-Nammu 2100 BCE, Use of another's property

without permission put one in dishonor and makes him liable for any debts."

Denny-Ray: Hardin now claims his body that has been unlawfully seized by this trust and the cleric.

B. The Cleric has unlawfully appointed Fernando J. Gaitan as "Trustee" of the Constuctive Trust No.

01-00131-01-CR-W-FJG.


The Cleric has unlawfully appointed Fernando J. Gaitan as "Judge" aka "Administrator" aka "Trustee"

of the DENNY RAY HARDIN TRUST". The Cleric has created the "Constructive Trust" Number 4:01-

cr-00131-FJG-1 without a "complaint" signed under penalty of perjury lawfully required by Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 3. The Cleric has fraudulently established a "Foreign State" "UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA" AS A "Fictitious Party" acting in clear violation of the 11th Amendment, as Plaintiff of

this cause of action. No "American National" is subject to any case commenced or prosecuted by a

"Foreign State". The "Beneficuary" has been fraudulently brought before the court as a "legal fiction",

when Denny-Ray: Hardin is clearly the "Beneficuary" immune to such prosecution.

"Any conduct of this kind mentioned would tend to prevent a fair trial on the merits, and thus deprive

the innocent of his rights. So if a judge sits when disqualified from interest or consanguiinity; if the

22


23/45

litigation be collusive; if parties be fictitious; if real parties affected are falsely stated to be before the

court; the judgment recovered may be set aside or its enforcement restrained, etc." UNITED STATES v.

THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61-71 (1878).

C. The Cleric has allowed Magistrate Robert Larsen to close court to the Beneficuary (Denny-Ray:

Hardin) to deny him due process of law in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust

also Known as the Constitution for the united States of America.

Evidence: Docket Entry #16


The Cleric has acted in clear "Conspiracy against rights" 18 U.S.C.A. 241 with Robert Larsen to

violate 28 U.S.C.A. 452 that states, "Court always open: powers unrestricted by expiration of sessions.

All courts of the United States shall be deemed always open for purpose of filing proper papers, issuing

and returning process and making motions and orders."

Because the Cleric is the creator of the Constructive Trust and is attempting to collect on a trust of no

value, "Conspiracy to defraud" is the common objective of the Administrators.

"7. Generally it is sufficient for purpose of a single conspiracy finding that a conspiator knowingly

participated with the core conspirator in achieving a common objective with knowledge of the larger

venture." UNITED STATES v. VAZIRI, 164 F.3d 556 (10th Cir. 1999). "6. Conviction for conspiracy

requires proof of (1) an agreement with another person to break the law, (2) knowledge of the essential

objectives of the conspiracy, (3) knowing and voluntary involvement in the conspiracy and (4)

interdependence among the alleged conspiractors."Id.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution allows all the right to petition for the redress of grievances.

The Cleric and Robert Larsen conspired to deny Denny-Ray: Hardin his right to petition the court.

Denny-Ray: Hardin was held for a mental evaluation and attempted to file Habeas Corpus under 18

U.S.C.A. 4247(g) which the Cleric refused and failed to file. Habeas Corpus was submitted under Article

I, Section 9 of the Constition for the united States of America which Robert Larsen and the Cleric agreed

to break. Thus establishing the first essential for conviction for conspiracy the agreement to break the law.

Robert Larsen and the Cleric has already determined to remove all filings of Denny-Ray: Hardin and

had removed; 1) Answer to Indictment; 2) Answer to detention; 3) reservation of rights; 4) exhibits of

Defendant and others establishing the essential objective was to keep Defendant's filings out of the

Court's Record. Thus establishing the second essential knowledge of objective.

Because Magistrate Robert Larsen removed the documents and the Cleric removed the docket entries

clear knowing and involvement voluntarially in the conspiracy the third element is present.

The fourth element came when the "Office of the Cleric" refused to file documents presented by

Denny-Ray: Hardin's "Power of Attorney"thuis showing interdependent action amongst the conspirators.

23


24/45

Denny-Ray: Hardin has clearly been denied due process of law in violation of the 5th Amendment of

the Constitution for the united States of America by this "conspiracy".

D. The Cleric has failed to proerly administer the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust and refused to collaspe the

trust as required by Ecclesiastical Cannon Law also known as commercial law.


"An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll is permitted to be issued when an inferior Roman Person rejects the rule

of law and seeks to assert an untenable and illogical position of superior rights over devine law."



"A valid Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be sealed in the blood of the Trustee of the True Trust

issuing it by using their thumbprint with the blood signature covered by clear plastic or tape from direct

exposure for the following fundamental reasons:

(i) The blood of the Trustee of the True Trust and the content of the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll prove the

fraud and error of the continued existence of any Cestui Que (Vie) Trust in assuming the body is "dead";

and

(ii) The infusing of the blood of the Trustee onto the paper breathes life into the paper, creAting an

instrument superior in standing than even an inferior Roman Papal Bull. Therefore, if the document is

dishonored, then all documents ever issued by any sociey under Roman Law must also by definition be

null and void; and

(iii)The use of blood in this manner perfects an unbreakable deed and contract. Therefore, if any inferiorRoman Court that usurps it openly admits that contract law under inferior Roman law no longer exiosts.

Because of the refusal of the facts, law and evidence in this cause of action an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll

has lawfully been served by Registered mail under Ecclesiastical Cannon Law 1564.


"No reference to these cannons, One Heaven or Ucadia are required on an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll as

the instrument is between a True Person, the Devine Creator and the official of the inferior Juridic Person

who dares defy and usurp their own laws."

Because the Cleric has been lawfully served: 1) Ecclesiastical Deed Poll, 2) Deed of Ecclesiastical

Dishonor, 3) Ecclesiastical Deed of protest and 4) Ecclesiastical Deed of Salvage and Possession. And

still is operating the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust and holding Denny-Ray: Hardin in prison.


"When a Roman Slave under inferior Roman law repudiates a valid Ecclesiastical Deed Poll then by

definition all acts under taken with the assumed authority of Sacred Rota by any clerk, protonotary,

24


25/45

prothonotary, penipoentiary or minister are null and void, including and not limited to any warrants,

summons, orders, decrees."

Therefore, FOR THE RECORD, There is no longer any contract law in the "United States of America"

The Cleric and Robert Larsen and Fernando J. Gaitan of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI has made it null and void. Therefore there can be con

contract authorizing their possession of my person. Denny-ray:Hardin does not consent to any contract

with these administrators acting in dishonor.

E. The Cleric has violated an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll, a Deed of Ecclesiastical Dishonor, an

Ecclesiastical Deed of Protest and an Ecclesiastical Deed of Salvage and possession to unlawfully

maintain a CQV Trust of no value and is attempting to collect in fraud.


The Cleric is the "Trustee for the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust owned by the State and it is s/he who is

responsible for appointing the trustee and the executor for the constructive trust -- that particular case.

So the Cleric appoints the judge as trustee (the one to administer the trust) and appoints the prosecutor

as executor of the trust. The executor is ultimately liable for the charge because it is s/he who brought the

case to court (created the constructive trust) on behalf of the state which charged the CQV Trust. Only an

executor/prosecutor can iniate/create a constructive trust and weall know the maxim of law; "Whoever

creates the controversy holds the liability and whoever holds the liability must provide the remedy." This

is why all attorneys are mandated to bring their cheque-books to court because if all goes wrong for

them... meaning either they fail to transfer their liability onto the alleged defendant, or the allegeddefendant does not accept their liability, then someone has to credit the trust account in order to off set the

debt. Since the prosecutor is the one who issues bogus paper and charges the trust it is the

prosecutor/executor who is in the hot-seat. Denny-Ray: Hardin is the "Beneficuary" and refuses all

contracts and liability of this constructive trust.

Points A-D clearly show a "Scheme and artifice to defraud" 18 U.S.C.A. 1346 "to deprive another of

the intanigble right of honest services."

"To analyze possible fraud upon the court, proper balance between the interest underlying finality and

allowing relief due to inequitable conduct makes it essential that there be a showing of consious

wrongdoing that can be properly characterized as a deliberate scheme to defraud, before relief from a

final judgment is appropriate; the same principle and requirement applies in context of dismissing actions

and entering default judgments based on fraudulent conduct by a party." COBELL v. NORTON, 226 F.

Supp 2d 1,3 (D.D.C. 2002).

For the Cleric to fraudulently claim the authority to deny all law to maintain this Cestui Que (Vie)

Trust is clearly Fraud on the court with malice, intent and knowledge to defraud Denny-Ray: Hardin in

this conspiracy.

25


26/45

Summation

Ecclesiastical Cannon Law requires this case be dismissed and Denny-Ray: Hardin be released from

prison. The Constitution, United States Codes and case law project this cause is fraud on the court. As a

nation we are seeking good government that has been lost to the greed of attorneys and public servants,

who have violated the spirit and principle of law, to established they are the law. Public Officials have

lost the respect of the people, becasuse they chose only to serve those who they deem worthy of their

attention. But as Public Officials their duty is to serve each and every American equally, fairly and

impartially. Until this basic standard is restored, justice will not exist in America.

4. Frauds of Assistant United States Attorney Brian Casey:

A. Brian Casey has unlawfully commenced this cause of action without an injured party, damage to

property, signed complaint or contract in clear fraud on the court.

Evidence: Docket Entry #1.


Based upon the Docket Sheet page 2, there are no complaints filed in this cause of action. This case

began with an "INDICTMENT" Docket Entry #1 without an injured party who claims injury or damage

to property. No contract is in dispute, because Denny-Ray: Hardin has not contracted with anyone in this

cause of action. Therefore, Brian Casey has unlawfully created this constructive trust and charged it in

clear fraud on the court.

This case began in November 2008 when Brian Casey "conspired against rights" 18 U.S.C.A. 241 with

FBI Agent Nathon VanSickle to obtain a serach warrant without a signed statement of probable cause in

violation of the 4th Amendment. Robert Larsen issued court record #08-SW-00133-REL with no

complaint signed under penalty of perjury. Since a "Magistrate is a glorified park ranger his signing this

warrant is lawfully challenged as well. Of course Affidavits of criminal complaint were filed against the

conspirators, with Fernando J. Giatan who refused to act upon complaints in clear "Misprison of felonies"

18 U.S.C.A. 4.

26


27/45

Today in America, the vast majority of prisoners have been prosecuted without complaints signed

under penalty of perjury. The purpose of the complaint is to lawfully establish an injured party that has

been personally injured or his/her property damaged. Without this complaint, lawfully required by Rule 3

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, no criminal prosecution can be lawfully conducted. Assistant

United States Attorneys have established the "common practice" of criminal prosecution without an

"injured party".This is conducted under the "fraud" of representing the "UNITED STATES OFAMERICA" as "Plaintiff". The "Common Law" principle of "If there is no injured party there is no

crime." has been suppressed in favor of "Everyone, but attorneys and government officials, can be

prosecuted for any crime." Therefore, Brian Casey is a criminal who has injured Denny-Ray: hardin by

his conduct, but is immune to prosecution through corruption. Yet Denny-Ray: Hardin is being

prosecuted with no-one willing to sign a complaint under penalty of perjury. This fraud is not only

present in this case, but every case in America being or has been prosecuted without an "injured party".

Denial of Denny-Ray: Hardin his right to prosecute Brian Casey, Robert Larsen and Nathon VanSickle

is clearly extrinsic fraud by Fernando J. Gaitan. Allowing these criminals to prosecute without an injuredparty is clear fraud on the court. "Injuries" are ignored in the courts while commercial crimes are

vigeriously prosecuted to the full extent of the law, for the profits of attorneys. Corporations have rights,

the American People have none. This fraud has been devised by the courts and its officers.

B. Brian Casey has presented fraudulent statements to the "Grand Jury" to unlawfully obtain an

"INDICTMENT" without a signed complaint in clear fraud on the court.


Of course, Denny-Ray: Hardin could, if given due process of law, request a grabnd jury transcript

within Rule 16(a)(3).

Rule 16(e)(2)(E) the court may authorize disclosure--(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a

ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occured before the grand jury. Ibelieve the Assistant United States Attorney Brian Casey and FBI Agent VanSickle have "lied" and made

"False declarations before the grand jury and court" 18 U.S.C.A. 1623 to obtain an "INDICTMENT"

through "FRaud" 18 U.S.C.A. 1001 and "Perjury" 18 U.S.C.A. 1621. Denny-Ray: Hardin isentitled to

these witnesss' statements to the grandjury under Rule 26.2(a)

Assistant United States Attorney Brian Casey and FBI Agent VanSickle are "foreign agents" 22

U.S.C.A. 611 acting in clear "fraud" by prosecuting in the name of a "foreign state" in violation of the

27


28/45

11th Amendment. Therefore unless the transcrips clearly show the "foreign agents" testified they are

attacking an "American National" in violation of the Constitution, then they have clearly made, "false

declarations before the grand jury and court" 18 U.S.C.A. 1623.

"An attorney, as an officer of the court, must disclose that which he is required by law to reveal."

UNITED STATES v. CRAWFORD, 707 F. 2d. 447 (1983).

Because the "INDICTMENT" clearly shows that the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (Fictitious

Party) claims "DENNY RAY HARDIN" (a legal fiction) has violated law and Brian Casey and Nathon

VanSickle have arrested and brought Denny-Ray: Hardin

(a real party in interest) before the court to answer this "fraud" 18 U.S.C.A. 1001 clear "Perjury" 18

U.S.C.a. 1621 has been committed before the grand jury. The "Arguments" for the Cleric Point B, clearly

shows Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan has been appointed as "Judge" aka "Administrator" aka "Trustee"

of the "DENNY RAY HARDIN TRUST" and is therefore responsible to answer the "INDICTMENT".

Denny-Ray:Hardin is the "beneficuary" and has no clout or liability and will not accept any.

Because Brian Casey created the fraudulent statements of the "INDICTMENT" and signed it as thecreator, without a complaint signed under penalty of perjury. He is the witness against Denny-Ray:Hardin

and must be made available for cross examination. Brian Casey and Nathon VanSickle have acted in clear

"fraud on the court" by claiming to have a lawful indictment when in fact they have an indictment of

fraud and perjury.

"A conviction obtained by the introduction of perjured testimony violates due process if the

prosecution knowingly solicited the perjured testimony or the prosecution failed to correct testimony it

knew was perjured." UNITED STATES v. VAZIRI, 164 F. 3d 556 (10th Cir. 1999)

"[3] Disciplinary Rule 7-102(B)(2) provides that, when a lawyer... receives information clearly

establishing that... [a] person other than his client has perpetrated a fraud upon the tribunal [, he] shallpromptly reveal the fraud upon the tribunal." Under this rule, an attorney's ethical duty to report a fraud

on the court is triggered once he receives information clearly establishing the existance of a fraud on the

court." IN RE GRIEVANCE COM. OF U.S. DIST CT. D. OF CONN. 847 F. 2d 57 (2nd Cir. 1988)

Because Brian Casey is the "Executor" the remedy of the "fraud on the court" falls upon him to

correct. Without a complaint signed under penalty of perjury the "INDICTMENT" has no supporting

evidence. Because all evidence of FBI Agent VanSickle falls under the "Fruit of the Poinsious Tree

Doctrine" and will be suppressed in due course. Brian Casey now has the option of having this fraud

dismissed with prejudice or continue this fraud with malice, intent and knowledge of criminal conduct.

"In cases where fraud on the court is unearthed prior to the entry of final judgment, courts almostalways dismiss the case, if the plaintiff was the party that perpetrated the fraud, or a default judgment if

the defendant committed the fraud." COBELL v. NORTON, 226 F.Supp. 1,3 (D.D.C. 2002).

C. Brian Casey is a "foreign agent" unlawfully commencing and prosecuting an "American National"

in the name of a foreign state" (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) in violation of the 11th Amendment

of the "Constitution for the united States of America".

28


29/45

Evidence: Docket Entry #35 and #36.


By denial of due process of law, required by the 5th Amendment, in all criminal prosecutions, BrianCasey has been allowed to proceed after the truth was filed in this cause of action. Docket Entry #35 was

denied by Robert Larsen in Docket Entry

#36. The case was defeated by this "Judicial Notice" which was evaded by Robert Larsen not requiring

Brian Casey to establish "Jurisdiction". Robert Larsen proceeded without jurisdiction in clear fraud on the

court. Robert Larsen, Fernando J. Gaitan, Brian Casey and Anita Burns have continued to operate this

trust, though clearly the case has no merit or jurisdiction to proceed.

ALL COURTS OPERATING UNDER

1) TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AS CODIFIED IN TITLE 50 u.s.c.

2) TITLE 28 U.S.C. CHAPTER 176 FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

AND

3) FED. R. CIV. PROC. 4(j) UNDER TITLE 28 u.s.c. 1608 making the COURTS "FOREIGN STATES"

TO THE PEOPLE BY CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE.

In relative part, " Denny-Ray: Hardin the living breathing flesh and blood Sovereign man, giving

JUDICIAL NOTICE, that the Plaintiff/court lacks jurisdiction to hear, convict or bring any case against

the Defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j), 12(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)as well as the

4th, 5th, 9th 10th, 11th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution whereby Defendant is not subject to a

"foreign state"." This "Judicial Notice" is now brought forth in its entireity for adjudication.

If any tribunal(court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a sovereign and subject-matter, the

case must be dismissed." LOUISVILLE v. MOTLEY, 2111 U.S. 149, 29 S. Ct. 42.

Robert Larsen has denied Denny-Ray: Hardin his right to be heard under the "Rules of Evidnece"

Judicial Notice Article II Rule 201 (e).

Unless Brian Casey can defeat this Judicial notice with facts, law and evidence, then the ciourt clearly

lacks jurisdiction over the "American National" Denny-Ray: Hardin.

"The law provides that once state and federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven."

MAIN v. THIBOUTOT 100 S.Ct. 2502 (1980).

D. Brian Casey is unlawfully administering the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust by unlawfully attacking an

"American National" and denying the Beneficuary his rights under the trust, trust law and commercial

laws.

29


30/45


As the Executor of the Trust, Brian Casey is the "enforcer" of the Constitution for the united States ofAmerica. Under Trust Law the "Trustee" is the liable party, in this case Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan.

Brian Casey is not enforcing the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust (Constitution for the united States of America)

for the benefit of the Beneficuary (Denny-Ray: Hardin). Brian Casey is unlawfully administering the trust

for the benefit of the "Trustee". By not allowing the Benficuary his rights, privileges and immunities

under the trust, the "Trustee" has violated the "Trust", and the "Executor" has failed in his responsibility

to enforce the trust.

Therefore, the Judge is the "Trustee", the prosecutor is the "Executor" and Denny-Ray: Hardin is the

"Beneficuary". Denny-Ray Hardin authorizes you to handle the accounting and dissolve this contructive

trust. I now claim my body, so I am collasping the CQV Trust which you have charged, as there is no

value in it.

The "Trustees" and "Executors" have committed "fraud" against all laws in this cause of action.

E. Brian Casey is actively conducting a "Conspiracy against rights" 18 U.S.C.A. 241 with Robert

Larsen, Fernando J. Gaitan, Anita Burns, FBI Agent VanSickle and the Cleric to deny the Beneficuary

his rights, privileges and immunites in the Construct Trust Number 01-00131-01-CR-W-FJG.

Evidence: Docket Entries #13, #15 and #18.


"Conviction for Conspiracy requires proof of (1) an agreement to break the law, (2) knowledge of the

essential objectives of the conspiracy, (3) knowing and voluntary involvement in the conspiracy and (4)

interdependence among the alleged conspirators." UNITED STATES v. VAZIRI, 164 F.3d 556 (10th Cir.

1999).

Brian Casey, FBI Agent Vansickle and Robert Larsen first agreed to break the law in November 2008

by the issuance and exercise of a Search Warrant without a signed statement of probable cause. When the

illegal search was lawfully challenged, the Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan became an active participant

to cover-up the criminal acts of the conspirators, to violate the 4th Amendment of the Cestui Que (Vie)

Trust they were appointed to administer. All have shown the first requirment of a conspiracy, the

willingness to break the law.

Based upon the conduct of these administrators the objective of the conspiracy is to kidnap Denny-

Ray: Hardin and throw him in prison without due process of law in violation of the 5th Amendment.

Denny-Ray: Hardin has been in CCA Leavenworth, FTC Oklahoma City, CCA/FCI Littleton Colorado,

30


31/45

FTC Oklahoma City, CCA Leavenworth, FTC Oklahoma City, and FMC Butner, North Carolina since

May of 2010. By "extrinsic fraud" Denny-Ray hardin has not been arrigned, prosecuted, tried or

sentenced for any crime and has spent over 230 days in Federal Prison without due procewss of law in

violation of the 5th Amendment and denied a speedy trial required by the 6th Amendment. The second

essential of a conspiracy knowledge of the essential objective is established.

"The classic definition of "extrinsic fraud" refers to situations where the unsuccessful party has been

prevented from exhibiting fully his case... as by keeping him away from court...(quoting UNITED

STATES v. THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66, 25 L. Ed. 93 (1878)).

This conspiracy has the voluntary involvement of: 1)Brian Casey Docket Entry #13; 2)Anita Burns

Docket Entry #15; 3)Robert Larsen Docket Entry #18 and the commitment bogus papers of Fernando J.

Gaitan. All these adminitrators have declared Denny-Ray: hardin incompetent for the single purpose of

attempting to establish jurisdiction where none is present. Denny-Ray: Hardin is not "dead", is not a

"legal fiction" and is not a "Trust". Therefore, these administrators are knowingly working in conspiracy

to make Denny-Ray: Hardin incompetent so they can administer their bogus trust. Each administrator has

knowingly and voluntarially participated in this conspiracy thus establishing the 3rd element.

The 4th element of a conspiracy, independant action on the part of the conspirators is established by

their conduct. Brian Casey and Anita Burns had prepared her "motion for mental evaluation" prepared in

3 days without meeting Denny-Ray: Hardin. Anita Burns had prepared her "motion for mental

evlauation" and presented it on May 13th the same day as Brian Casey. Denny-Ray: Hardin terminated

Anita Burns for this "Proscutorial Misconduct" and Robert Larsen refused Denny-Ray: Hardin his right to

represent himself. Robert Larsen then refused bail, refused to arraigne Denny-Ray: hardin and ordered the

evaluation that has held Denny-Ray: Hardin for 9 months now without due process of law. Based upon

the reccomendation of Robert Larsen, Fernando J. Gaitan ordered the evaluation in clear participation in

this "conspiracy against rights" 18 U.S.C.A. 241, "Kidnapping" 18 U.S.C.A. 1201 and "Hostage Taking"

18 U.S.C.A. 1203. For these Public Administrators to engage in these criminal acts is "extrinsic fraud"and "fraud on the court". This is clearly criminal conduct unser 18 U.S.C.A. 1349.

Summation

It is the duty of the Executor/Prosecutor to enforce the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust (Constitution for the

united States of America)and to prosecute the "Trustee" aka "Judge" aka "Administrator" for the violation

of the trust. But Brian Casey does not act responsibly in his public office of "Assistant United States

Attorney", he has become "drunk with power" and sees his "Public Office" as a means to hurt, abuse,

torture, harm and persecute the Public who pays his salary. When we no longer trust our "Public

Officials" to administer justice equally and fairly then we have lost our just society. Today in America,

there is no longer justice, it has been replaced with "power addiction". Justice today is administered by

one's ability to pay and even then the majority still go to prison. If the United States Government would

prosecute Attorneys and Judges for their violations of law our prisons would be over-flowing. Reform of

the "Department of Ju

Fed-Demand for Examination of Fraud

Documents