For your use as you wish, for court and public distribution.
Use as your words, in whole or part.
The following is not copyrighted, or authored.
Certified mail, return receipt requested, #______________________
or, Served to _____________ on this date ______________, by __________.
For public record and court evidence.
I, ____________, of (town and address), have been accused by (named officer and title), of the crime of practicing medicine without a license.
The accusation is false and known to be false by (above named officer), who holds the legal duty to know the accusation is false.
The fraudulent accusation has been made with power of office, and color of law, damaging me, constituting a crime by (above named officer).
It is the known legal duty, the evasion of which is a crime, of any officer of the government and courts, especially a presiding officer, to initiate due process of criminal law, upon identifying evidence of a crime, such as the crime of using power of office or color of law to effect fraudulent criminal charges against a person so damaged.
The reasoning and proof of the fraudulent nature of the charges, follows.
I expressly reserve my rights under the common law, that is, the prevailing law not contradicted by any superior law, and claim the protection of said jurisdiction.
I do not acquiesce to any inferior law contradicted by any superior law, or to any jurisdiction of inferior law. If anyone perceived that I have willfully or otherwise lawfully, surrendered my rights under the protection of the common law, or have acquiesced to any inferior law, their perception was negligent or with criminal intent to damage. If the government or courts perceived any statements, actions, implications or inferences as my acquiescing to any inferior law, by any means, in the past, present or future, it was most likely a result of their traditional power-corrupted incentive, intent or craving to do so in defiance of reasoning and prevailing law. The effects of such perception must be immediately terminated, by law.
Any implication or inference of my willfully acquiescing to inferior law, effected by the commonly used excuses of lawyers/judges, was a result of their common deceptions, such as unrevealed contracts effected by common practices or implied required signatures on forms. I renounce any prior implication of such acquiescence, and reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, with full knowledge of said agreement, and furthermore I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or agreement.
At no time did any officer of the government or courts ask me if I was knowingly, willfully and voluntarily surrendering my rights under the prevailing law, and acquiescing to inferior law. While it is routine for dishonest government and court officers to use their myriad of inferior law excuses to claim or assume a citizen’s such surrender of rights, and acquiescence to inferior law, that repugnantly dishonest process is not applicable in my case, is inherently doomed, and shall eventually define the unforgivable perfidy of the lucrative American lawyer and judicial empire of this era. The extensive social damages of that legalistic ruse are inescapably accountable.
While I may be represented in court by a government licensed lawyer, who may perform his normal process under that inferior law license, because government has by many processes thwarted representation by common law council not limited by said inferior law process, I again emphasize that I acquiesce to no such limitations of my rights, or surrender of them. My rights shall not be subverted by inferior law licensed representation. I request a court under the exclusive jurisdiction of the common law. I reserve the right to subsequently file charges for criminal actions perpetrated by any officers of the court violating the common law, to include applying inferior law above superior law, for the duration of the respective statute of limitations.
I did not practice medicine without a license because I state that I did not act within those words or under the authority of the inferior law referencing those words.
I performed my action of assisting and comforting my colleagues of the female sex during their child birthing process, under the common law protecting my RIGHT to do so, and granting no authority to the government for denying or restricting a human’s, and especially a female human’s, RIGHT to assist and comfort a woman during her child birthing process, within those words.
Birthing is a process of nature, as is that of females assisting and comforting females during birthing, long preceding the government licensing process, despite the difficulty of male government officers understanding such concepts. Said males who are still using the inferior laws to demand raw licensing power over the common sense actions of females assisting and comforting other females, illuminate the embarrassing incompetence of males as administrators of law.
I recognize that the male dominated government is still incensed that females have recognized that females hold human rights, and that females hold more experience-related knowledge than males, in regard to the birthing process. However belatedly, this would be a good time for said male dominated government officers, including any foolishly male-emulating females craving said malicious government power, to surrender their craving for raw power that obviously defies common sense, reasoning and the common law.
The United States of America, with its States, are under the prevailing jurisdiction of the common law.
If any other inferior law involves any words relating to my assisting and comforting my colleagues of the female sex during their child birthing process, a process of nature, which could rhetorically make my actions unlawful in regard to the words rather than in any identifiable damage to an identified person, I do not acquiesce to that inferior law, and instead claim the protection of the laws, jurisdiction, authority and rights that protect the lawful nature of my actions as described in those laws.
I know what I did, and what I did not do, each of which in this case are described above. I assisted and comforted females. I did not practice medicine with or without a license. The descriptions as I herein stated them cannot be successfully disputed because the same basic action can be described with two arrangements of words, among others. I am placing my actions under the law that protects those actions as lawful. Because I performed the action, I hold the exclusive authority to identify my action with my choice of words if those words conform to the action, and in the absence of an identified person identifying a damage to them that was caused by my action, as recognized by prevailing law.
It is the known legal duty, the evasion of which is a crime, such as perpetrated by (above named officer) to know and apply only the prevailing law upon identification of two or more contradicting laws describing a single basic action or actions, or upon accepting a paid duty to know the prevailing law before applying any law.
Any prevailing authority of government, to select which of two or more contradicting laws, among countless such contradicting laws, that government or court officers can lawfully apply to protect the actions of their friends, and in contrast, to maliciously attack and damage persons less favored by said officers, such as applied to male doctors, in contrast to female midwives, would define the rule of kings holding court judge or prosecutor jobs, in defiance of the rule of written law. Such application of law is repugnant to the rule of written law above the rule of personalities.
This case may be used on CourtCorruption.com and elsewhere to better illuminate how males and certain of their employed females under economic intimidation use power of government office and inferior laws contradicted by superior laws, to deceive, intimidate and criminally defraud females of their rights, and keep many females in inferior social and economic circumstances. The increasing imperative to remove males from positions of government authority, because of their intellectual inability to understand the reasoning of law above the historic male craving for raw power over others, especially over females, becomes more evident with this case.
So that the government and courts, including the court of public opinion to which this case shall be uploaded, understand my understanding of the criminally fraudulent government accusation against me, and such accusation by any presiding court officer’s acceptance of this fraudulent case, and to demonstrate my respect for the courts, I graciously present the following reasoning and questions to assist said government and court officers, my fellow equal humans, in identifying the applicable prevailing law.
This gracious presentation of the related reasoning of common law illuminates the maliciousness and perfidy of said government and court officers for not prior demonstrating the common respect and decency of doing the same in regard to their perceptions. They held the opportunity and duty to administratively resolve, at less cost to public funds, any perceived non-conformance to the prevailing law. Because no criminal intent on my part can be rationally perceived, and no damaged persons have filed a criminal complaint, the use of costly criminal process without first acting as would a gentlewoman or gentleman to resolve a perceived contradiction, by process of reasoning, again illuminates the untenable nature of the currently male dominated government maliciously using law as a weapon to attack rather than to protect.
(above named officer)’s demonstrated “attack first and ask questions later” process and attitude defines his intellectual paucity, and that of his superiors and any court judge’s accepting his case.
“Practicing medicine without a license”, “practicing law without a license”, and “engaged in business without a license”, among certain similar charges of crimes, invoke classic and profoundly flawed inferior laws contradicted by superior laws, routinely used by corrupted prosecutors and court judges for self-serving goals and prejudicial attacks on political or social opponents, as known to wiser lawyers and courts. The proof follows.
If, among others, two people are in a State court room, of any State in the US, one being paid for his services and one not, are arguing a case of law, are observably and verifiably practicing law, and when asked what they are doing, they each expressly state that they are practicing law, and neither of them hold a lawyer’s, attorney’s or any other license to do so, and have not passed any related test or State bar exam to lawfully do so, have they criminally violated the law against practicing law without a license?
Is it the known legal duty of the local law enforcement agency and prosecutor to charge said two people with the crime of practicing law without a license?
The questions identify the legal competence of (above named accuser) for his accusations against me.
To verify the above, if two people are in a hospital or medical clinic room, of any State in the US, one being paid for her services and one not, are performing medical procedures, are observably and verifiably practicing medicine, and when asked what they are doing, they each expressly state that they are practicing medicine, and neither of them hold a doctor’s, nurse’s or any other medical license to do so, and have not passed any related test or State medical exam to lawfully do so, have they criminally violated the law against practicing medicine without a license?
Is it the known legal duty of the local law enforcement agency and prosecutor to charge said two people with the crime of practicing medicine without a license?
The above questions and their answers identify the criminally fraudulent action of (above named accuser), and identify the repugnant corruption of the American empire of lawyers and judges who are increasingly using such inferior laws to maliciously damage lawfully acting people, for personal ego gratification, prejudice, raw power and lucrative funding excuses of said prosecutors, their thus benefiting colleague defense lawyers, and judges.
In each case above, the two people so practicing, were law school students and medical school students, in openly verified fact and acknowledgment as practicing law and medicine, in rooms of said institutions, made available to them, one as a paid tutor of the other, and each in preparation for passing subsequent school exams corresponding to each perpetrator’s activities in the tutoring process. The words conformed to their actions and the purported controlling clause of the law against their actions.
Shall law school students and medical school students be charged with, burdened with the costly defense against, and convicted of, the crime of practicing their endeavors without a license, to therefore preclude their ability to practice for exams, and effect the criminal record that would preclude their subsequent eligibility for the licenses even if they could graduate from school without practicing the skills necessary to pass their school exams?
What answer conforms to common sense and the superior law, in contrast to the inferior law and the intellectual paucity displayed by (above named officer)?
What is the functionally illuminated answer of (above named officer), already on record by his actions, any court judge accepting this case, and the court of public opinion, including law school and medical school administrators, for public consideration of their reasoning ability and thus competence in their profession and other common life decisions?
If the law school students or medical school students, described above, or any other persons performing actions under different rhetorical descriptions found in contradicting laws, hold the authority to choose the words for their actions, that effect the protection of the lawful nature of their actions, as opposed to a government prosecutor holding the authority to dictate his choice of words and corresponding laws, then I claim that same right of said students and others.
If said students and others do not hold such right, what cause identified in the exact words of written law has consistently precluded government licensed lawyers, as prosecutors, from prosecuting the thousands of law school students who have “practiced law without a license” in preparation for law exams, or as tutors or graduate students with paid lab instructor jobs, or has consistently precluded police from arresting police routinely “selling unlawful drugs” on the streets during so called sting operations?
If two laws obviously contradict each other for the same action, one protecting people who damage no other person, and one giving a corrupted prosecutor and corrupted court judge an inferior law excuse to maliciously damage a person who damaged no other person, are the tax paid prosecutor and tax paid court judge impartially serving the public interest by keeping the prevailing law protecting the citizen’s action, as a functional secret, and revealing only the inferior law that maliciously damages the person who damaged no other person?
If it is unlawful to “engage in business without a license”, and a person engages in the business of trading his physical or intellectual labor for money to pay for the necessities of life, and because a license constitutes permission, which if grantable is deniable, is it not inherent to the meaning and thus utility of words and language, that the government therefore claims the power to not grant permission, and thus deny a person the right to lawfully earn a living, to thus by imperative starve him to death outside common shelter, or imprison him for attempting to rationally live, and thus illuminate the unmitigated ignorance, illiteracy and maliciousness of government and court officers who have not already removed such inferior laws from any possible lawful effect?
I work for a living under the common law protecting my right to do so, which is therefore not subject to any lawful government demand for a license, fee, permit, permission other demand.
The words hold their meaning.
If the words do not invoke the use of the law in one situation where every detail of the action at question in fact and by acknowledgment, matches the meanings of the words of that law, is the law obviously not so flawed that its application to other situations must be severely questioned by any competent or lawfully acting administrator of law?
In regard to the accusations against me, is any involved administrator of law competent or honest if they have not asked at least the following questions, and answered then in harmony with prevailing law?
I assisted and comforted my colleagues of the female sex during their child birthing process, a process of nature.
Questions and requests before the court, each presented under and within the jurisdiction of the common law:
Is it lawful to assist and comfort a female during their child birthing process, by those words conforming to the action described, without government permission or license?
Is it unlawful to assist and comfort a female during her child birthing process, without a government license?
Does the government hold the lawful authority to deny a female, assistance and comfort during the child bearing process?
Does the male dominated government hold the lawful authority to select who may or may not assist and comfort a female during the child bearing process?
Does the court hold the authority to deny me the protection of the common law?
Am I being denied the exclusive jurisdiction of the common law?
Does the unlawful use of power of office to effect process that damages a person, such as said use by (above named officer), constitute a crime for which criminal prosecution and penalty becomes a legal duty, and grounds for a court to order the perpetrator to fully compensate the accused for the full damages, including those of mental anguish?
Does (above named officer) hold the lawful authority to charge me with a crime described in an inferior law contradicted by a superior law?
Does (above named officer) hold the lawful authority to charge females with a crime described in an inferior law contradicted by a superior law?
I request the government and court to bring forward the person who claims to be damaged by my actions, to describe the damage my actions caused her in violation of prevailing law. I seek to face any accuser. I held no intent to damage any persons with my actions.
I request the government and court to bring forward the prevailing law that grants the government authority to demand that females acquire government permission, in the form of a license, to assist and comfort other females for any and each interest of females, including that of the birthing process.
In regard to the charges against me, what are my remedy and recourse?
Am I required to know the law to be protected by the law that is administered by the government officers who are paid for the duty to know the law and protect the people with the law?
Is the officer of the government or court, who applies a law at cost or damage to an accused person, legally liable to know the law, apply only the prevailing law, fully reveal the law upon request, and certify its prevailing nature, under penalty of law and under the statute of limitations for fraud and other felony crimes, upon request?
In regard to the charges against me, who is the damaged party, by name, and what are the verifiable damages?
In regard to the charges against me, what prevailing law or public policy specifically identified in the common law as such, uncontradicted by any superior law, has been contradicted or damaged by my actions as I described and performed them?
In regard to the charges against me, who, by name and title, is legally liable for revealing the related prevailing law in court, upon this request that it be so revealed, and for certifying it as prevailing, uncontradicted by any superior law, under penalty of fraud, malfeasance, evasion of a known legal duty, perjury to oath of office and other law describing crimes, upon this request that it be so certified?
Is the protection of the law in this nation predicated on the proverbial shell game that the modern gaggle of lawyers and court judges have made of law, wherein they summarily demand that the accused citizen or a sufficiently paid lawyer hunt among the myriads of millions of contradicting inferior case laws and inferior statute laws to find a law that most impresses the arbitrary whims of a court judge ruling by opinion with power of office, perhaps on a bad hair day for the judge, and that most closely, by arbitrary perceptions of close, contradicts the prosecutor’s arbitrary choice of laws, or is said protection of law based on the tax paid legal duty, the evasion of which is a crime, of government officers to apply only the prevailing law, to thus identify a reasoning government ruled by written law, rather than a malicious government ruled by insatiably greedy, power-craving lawyers and judges?
Am I required under the common law, to answer any question of the court, beyond my identification, for any accusation of a crime I am alleged to have committed?
Is a government licensed lawyer who might represent me in court, beholding to the orders of the court, and thus to its presiding officer (the judge), above and instead of the demands of the prevailing law or rights of his client?
Have any prosecutors and judges applied the wrong laws, such as inferior laws contradicted by superior laws, and thus damaged people in violation of prevailing law?
Is a lawful duty, the evasion of which is a crime, invoked when a citizen requests that a government officer accusing said citizen of a crime, reveal the full law being applied, not merely a legal reference, and certify it as prevailing, uncontradicted by any superior law, under penalty of fraud and other laws?
Bring forward the evidence that I unlawfully practiced medicine without a license, instead of lawfully assisted and comforted colleague females during their child birthing process, and the prevailing law, so that I may review the evidence and law to affect a remedy or recourse to avoid an unnecessary, costly court case.
There will be other questions and requests.
The above is offered for open public use, in part or whole, as any individual’s words, in their name, by DougBuchanan.com. You may ask any questions of the above and more.