1 Your name

2 Your address
[City, ST ZIP Code]
3

5 [COURT NAME]
6

7
[PLAINTIFF'S NAME], Case No.: [Number]
8
Plaintiff,
9
NOTICE TO COURT
10 vs.
OBJECTION
11 DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION
[DEFENDANT'S NAME],
OF EVIDENCE THE
12
Defendant RESPONDENT WILLFULLY
13 VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT
14
PETITIONER’S STANDING TO
ALLOW THIS COURT’S
15 CONTINUAL SUMMARY
16 DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS
WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL
17
CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
18 THE COURT RELIED UPON
PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD
19
STANDING IN COURT
20 DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL
21
UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
22 CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF
23 MUST BE GRANTED
24

25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT

WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 1
1 NOTICE TO COURT OBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF
2
EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO
3

4 SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S

5
CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT
6

7
PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE COURT

8 RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN

9
COURT
10

11 DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)

12
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE
13

14
GRANTED

15

16
1. THIS OBJECTION IS IN RESPONSE TO A RECENT DISMISSAL BY
17

18 COURT WITHOUT CLARIFYING IN WRITING THE EVIDENCE THE

19
COURT HAS COME TO RELY UPON TO PROSECUTE THE
20
UNDERSIGNED.
21

22 2. THE UNDERSIGNED IS OBJECTING TO THE FACT THE DISMISSAL

23
OF THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL WAS CLEARLY
24

25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT

WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 2
1 WITHOUT CLARIFICATION OF REQUIRED EVIDENCE TO
2
SUPPORT CLAIM BY SHOWING AN INJURY IN FACT WAS
3

4 SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER.

5 3. A JUDGE WHO FAILS TO CLARIFY EVIDENCE IN WRITING IS

6
PROOF OF AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACT AND NOT A
7

8 NON-DISCRETIONARY MINISTERIAL ACT BY RELYING UPON

9 FACTS AND EVIDENCE, AND IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE

10
INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
11

12 TO PROSECUTE AND MUST DISMISS UNDER FEDERAL RULE

13 12(b)(6).
14
4. A JUDGE WHO ORDERS THE DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY BY
15

16 SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE ABLE TO CLARIFY IN WRITING

17 THE EVIDENCE HE OR SHE CAME TO RELY UPON TO SUPPORT

18
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
19

20 5. THE OBJECTION IS IN RESPONSE TO A DECISION THAT FAILED

21 TO GIVE A PROPER CLARIFICATION OF THE EVIDENCE THE

22
RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS OR PROOF THE
23

24 RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATED A DEBT AGREEMENT.

25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT

WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 3
1 6. THE COURT MUST CLARIFY IN WRITING THE RESPONDENT
2
WILLFULLY CAUSED THE PETITIONER AN INJURY IN FACT, AND
3

4 FURTHERMORE THE COURT MUST CLARIFY THE DATE THE

5 EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT TOOK PLACE AND DATE THE

6
EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE COURT BY THE
7

8 PETITIONER.

9 7. CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT IS

10
REQUIRED FOR THE PETITIONER TO HAVE STANDING AND
11

12 REQUIRED FOR THE COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO

13 PROSECUTE THE UNDERSIGNED.

14
8. THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT THE OPINIONS OF THE
15

16 UNDERSIGNED, BUT ARE ADJUDICATED FACTS BY THE SCOTUS

17 IN MATTER LUJAN V DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555

18
(1992) AND THEREFORE LAW THIS COURT INFERIOR TO THE
19

20 SUPREME COURT MUST COMPLY IT.

21 9. TO DENY THIS OBJECTION THIS COURT MUST CITE THE

22
EVIDENCE AND CITE THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION INTO THE
23

24 COURT.

25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT

WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 4
1 10. WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT INTRODUCED BY
2
THE PETITIONER, THEN THE PETITIONER IS WITHOUT STANDING
3

4 AND THE COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DISMISS THE

5 EFFORTS BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO REDRESS AND REMEDY THE

6
FALSE CLAIMS MADE BY PETITIONER.
7

8 11.THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR SCOTUS, IS

9 THE HIGHEST COURT ON THE LAND AND ITS OPINIONS MUST BE

10
HONORED BY ALL STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.
11

12 12. THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 4 SECTION 1 FULL FAITH AND

13 CREDIT CLAUSE IS REQUIRED TO HONOR THE PRECEDENCE SET

14
BY THE SCOTUS OR IT IS ACTING FOREIGN TO THE UNITED
15

16 STATES CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY ARTICLE 6 SECTION 2.

17 13. THE SCOTUS HELD IN MATTER LUJAN V DEFENDERS OF

18
WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992) THAT THERE IS A
19

20 CONSTITUTIONAL MINIMUM STANDARD A COURT MUST

21 COMPLY WITH TO PROPERLY REDRESS AND REMEDY A CLAIM

22
BROUGHT BY A PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER/CLAIMANT. THE COURT
23

24 MUST REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE

25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT

WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 5
1 SHOWING AN INJURY IN FACT OR THE PETITIONER LACKS
2
STANDING AND COURT IS UNLIKELY TO SUCCESSFULLY
3

4 REDRESS AND REMEDY THE CLAIM MADE BY PETITIONER.

5 14. FOR EVERY RIGHT DEPRIVED OR DENIED THERE IS A REMEDY.

6
WHEREBY, THIS COURT MUST COMPLY WITH THE SUPREME
7

8 COURT’S OPINION IN MATTER LUJAN V DEFENDERS OF

9 WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992 THAT COURTS MUST ENSURE
10
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MINIMUM STANDARD REQUIRING THE
11

12 PETITIONER TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE SHOWING AN INJURY IN

13 FACT CAUSED BY SOME CONDUCT OF THE UNDERSIGNED

14
RESPONDENT. ) [“Over the years, our cases have established that the
15

16 irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.

17 First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" Second, there must
18
be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—
19

20 the injury has to be "fairly. . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the

21 defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third
22
party not before the court." Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely
23

24 "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable

25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT

WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 6
1 decision.",LUJAN V DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555
2
(1992 ]
3

4 15. WHEREBY, WITHOUT CLARIFYING EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN

5 FACT IN WRITING, THIS COURT IS CLEARLY WITHOUT

6
JURISDICTION TO DENY THE UNDERSIGNED RESPONDENT’S
7

8 DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL AND IS WILLFULLY VIOLATING THE

9 RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT THAT ARE SECURED BY THE BILL

10
OF RIGHTS.
11

12

13

14 Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].

15

16

17 Your NAME

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT

WILLFULLY VIOLATED LAWS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER’S STANDING TO ALLOW THIS COURT’S
26 CONTINUAL SUMMARY DISMISSALS OF OBJECTIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING FULL CLARIFICATION
OF EVIDENCE THE COURT RELIED UPON PROVING THE PETITIONER HAD STANDING IN
COURTDEMAND FOR DISMISSAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED - 7