Annette K. Hand, Sui Juris
Donald G. Hand, Sui Juris
Citizens of New York state
c/o General Delivery
St. James [zip code exempt]
NEW YORK STATE
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without prejudice
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
THE DIME SAVINGS BANK ) Index No. #20987/96
OF NEW YORK, FSB [sic] )
) NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND VERIFIED
Plaintiff, ) OBJECTION TO QUALIFICATIONS
) OF REFEREE; NOTICE OF INTENT
v. ) TO REMOVE CASE TO COURT OF
) COMPETENT JURISDICTION:
ANNETTE K. HAND [sic], )
ET AL. [sic], ) Full Faith and Credit Clause;
) Due Process Clause; Seventh
Defendants. ) Amendment
______________________________)
COME NOW Annette K. Hand, Sui Juris, and Donald G. Hand, Sui
Juris, Citizens of New York state, expressly not citizens of the
United States ("federal citizens"), and Defendants in the above
entitled matter (hereinafter "Defendants"), to provide formal
Notice to all interested party(s), and to demand mandatory
judicial Notice by this honorable Court, pursuant to the Full
Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution for the United States
of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S.
Constitution"), of this, Defendants' formal Objection to the
qualifications of the one named KENNETH A. AUERBACH [sic]
(hereinafter "Mr. Auerbach"), previously appointed by ORDER of
this Court, dated March 24, 1997.
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 1 of 11
Mr. Auerbach has been appointed by this Court specifically
to ascertain and compute the amount due to the Plaintiff upon the
note and mortgage upon this action was brought, and to examine
and report whether the mortgaged premises can be sold in one
parcel. See ORDER dated March 24, 1997, as previously filed in
the official Court record of the instant case.
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
Mr. Auerbach exhibits the title of nobility "Esquire" after
his nomme de guerre (name all in CAPITAL LETTERS). Defendants
have recently acquired verifiable, newly discovered, material
evidence of the original Thirteenth Amendment (1819), which
prohibits the exercise of titles of nobility, and specifies two
penalties for their exercise: (1) permanent loss of citizenship,
and (2) permanent disqualification from ever serving in any
public office anywhere in the United States of America, including
the state zone and the federal zone. See attached essay entitled
"Esquires," which is incorporated by reference as if set forth
fully herein. The omission of any provisions in said amendment
for restoring citizenship or removing said disqualification means
that Congress intended the disqualifications to become permanent.
Confer at "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" in Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
Secondly, formal Notice is hereby given to all interested
party(s), and mandatory Notice is hereby demanded of this
honorable Court, of the federal regulations found at 31 CFR 51.2
and 52.2. Said regulations provide conclusive evidence of the
existence of separate and distinct de facto and de jure
governmental systems, working in parallel within New York state.
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 2 of 11
The de jure state governments [sic] are operating lawfully
under the Tenth Amendment in the organic U.S. Constitution;
whereas the de facto State Governments are operating under color
of federal municipal (federal zone) law, proceeding on the
rebuttable presumption that State Governments [sic] are
territories of the United States (federal government).
As Citizens of New York state who are not also citizens of
the United States ("federal citizens"), Defendants cannot be sued
in any de facto forums, because such suits deprive Defendants of
their fundamental Right to due process of law in courts of
competent jurisdiction. Said Right is guaranteed to Defendants
by the U.S. Constitution and also by the Constitution of New York
state (de jure government). See Fifth Amendment; International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, enacted by Congress with explicit Reservations (see
standing for "localities"). Defendants never waived Their
fundamental Right to due process of law. See Rule 38, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, in pari materia.
INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS
Defendants hereby provide formal Notice to all interested
party(s), and demand mandatory judicial Notice by this honorable
Court, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S.
Constitution, of the following additional documents which are
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth
fully herein:
1. Division of State Archives and Public Records, Terry
Ketelsen, State Archivist of Colorado, certification
dated February 9, 1996, of: EXCERPT. AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARTICLES I - XIV,
PAGES 25, 26, 26 AND 28. [see Article XIII [sic]]
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 3 of 11
2. LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, from the 4th of
March, 1789, to the 4th of March, 1815, including the
Constitution of the United States, the Old Act of
Confederation, Treaties, and Many Other Valuable
Ordinances and Documents: with Copious Notes and
References, reprint published by Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons,
Inc., 3011 Gulf Dr., Holmes Beach, FL 34217-2199, USA
(1989), pages 60 thru 74, 613. [see Article XIII [sic]]
3. Letter dated September 26, 1996, to Mr. Paul Andrew
Mitchell, 2509 N. Campbell, Number 1776, Tucson,
Arizona, from Robert W. Schroeder III, Special
Assistant to the Counsel to the President, The White
House, Washington.
4. The Constitution of the United States as provided by
the Special Assistant to the Counsel to the President
on September 26, 1996. [see Amendment XIII [sic]]
5. FOIA Request dated September 14, 1996, from Paul
Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state
and federal witness, to William J. Clinton, The White
House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
NOTICE OF INTENT
Wherefore, all premises having been duly considered,
Defendants hereby exercise their fundamental Rights, under the
First Amendment Petition Clause and Fifth Amendment Due Process
Clause, to provide formal Notice to all interested party(s) of
Defendants' intent to petition a court of competent jurisdiction
for a warrant of removal of the instant case, with all deliberate
speed, in which to demand, and enjoy, due process of law,
including but not limited to declaratory relief from a competent
and qualified jury of peers, pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.
VERIFICATION
We, the Undersigned, proceeding In Propria Persona and Sui Juris,
hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the
United States of America, without (outside) the "United States",
that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct,
to the best of Our current information, knowledge, and belief, so
help Us God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 4 of 11
Dated: May 15, 1997
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Annette Hand
______________________________________________
Annette K. Hand, Sui Juris
Citizen of New York state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
/s/ Donald Hand
______________________________________________
Donald G. Hand, Sui Juris
Citizen of New York state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 5 of 11
Esquires
by
John E. Trumane
all rights reserved
As the story goes, there is a painting somewhere in the vast
hallways of the Smithsonian museum which shows British soldiers
boarding a sailing ship, muskets in hand. The ship is in an
American port, and the soldiers are returning home after the War
of 1812.
There is a problem with this picture which may not be
immediately apparent to the casual viewer. Our history books
tell us that the British lost that war. History should also tell
us that the winners in a war usually (but not always) take the
guns away from the other side. So, why were these British
soldiers boarding their warship, guns in hand?
The answer to that question was provided to me by a common
law judge in the California Republic. He had recently presided
over a jury trial in which "titles of nobility" were the issue.
The jury was presented with evidence and arguments that the
"real" 13th Amendment did not ban slavery after the Civil War.
That amendment was really the 14th Amendment.
The "real" 13th Amendment was ratified by three-fourths of
the Union states before the War of 1812. It placed into the U.S.
Constitution a specific ban against titles of nobility, and
defined a penalty for those who accepted such titles. That
penalty was a loss of citizenship and a loss of eligibility for
public office.
My friend, the common law judge, explained to me that the
jury had reached a unanimous verdict that the ban on titles of
nobility had, indeed, been duly ratified as a lawful amendment to
the Constitution for the United States of America. By banning
titles of nobility and defining the penalty for using them, the
original 13th Amendment was specifically intended to keep bar
members out of public offices throughout America.
You may recall that the qualifications for serving in the
White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives all
have one thing in common: the would-be official must be a
"Citizen of the United States." Since the 14th (15th?) amendment
did not appear until 1868, the term "United States" in these
provisions means "States United," and "Citizen of the United
States" means "Citizen of one of the States United."
The U.S. Constitution thus contains a specific prohibition
against titles of nobility, and a specific penalty for their use,
i.e., the loss of citizenship and disability from holding public
office. The loss of citizenship means that a Person who was born
or naturalized a Citizen would lose that status and thereby
become an "alien" with respect to the United States of America.
Since the qualifications for serving in federal elective offices
all require citizenship, an "alien" is, by definition,
disqualified from eligibility for these offices (President,
Senator, and Representative).
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 6 of 11
In my conversation with the common law judge from
California, we next considered if it was possible, under the
original 13th Amendment, to restore citizenship by renouncing or
rescinding a title of nobility. A close examination of the
amendment's language did not reveal any such provision. In
matters of statutory construction (determining the real meaning
of statutes), there is a principle that the specific mention of
one thing is the specific exclusion of all things that are not
mentioned. In Latin, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. In
other words, what was omitted was intended to be omitted.
The original 13th Amendment does not contain any provisions
for restoring citizenship by renouncing or rescinding a title of
nobility. Evidently, if the framers of that amendment had wanted
citizenship to be restored to those who renounced their titles
(e.g. Esquire), then the amendment would have contained language
to make that possible. The absence of such language can be used
to prove, under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio
alterius, that it is not possible to restore one's citizenship
after accepting a title of nobility.
Now, the original 13th Amendment raises some very
interesting questions of law, or Law, as the case may be. If a
law school graduate should join the Bar in the state of his
domicile, he would join the elite company of "Esquires." In the
United States of America, this is the title commonly appended
after the name of an attorney (see Black's Law Dictionary, fifth
edition). If we are correct in our construction of the original
13th Amendment, then it is correct to say that "Once an Esquire,
always an Esquire."
If our up-and-coming Esquire should develop a successful
practice, it could (and often does) happen that s/he might
consider running for federal office, let's say the House of
Representatives. Would s/he be eligible for that office? The
Answer is NO, because the title of Esquire makes it impossible
for that person ever to be eligible for the offices of President,
Senator, or Representative. As a resident alien, that person is
definitely NOT eligible for election to those offices, nor is
that person eligible for naturalization. So, there is no chance
that such a person could ever hold such an office, under the
supreme Law of the Land.
Let's take this argument one step further. Assume, for the
moment, that John Q. Esquire does get elected to the House of
Representatives, by some quirk of circumstances (or intentional
cover-up). Would Mr. Esquire be a lawful occupant of that
office? Answer: NO. Would Mr. Esquire be capable of exercising
the powers and privileges of that office? Answer: NO. Would
Mr. Esquire be qualified to vote on the matters which came before
that august body? Answer: NO. If Mr. Esquire did attempt to
cast a vote on any of the matters which came before the House of
Representatives, his vote would be null and void ab initio (from
the outset). In other words, his vote would not be a vote at
all, would it?
How many Esquires does it take to nullify an act of
Congress? One? Two? Fifty-one percent? How many Esquires are
presently seated in Congress? Is it greater than fifty-one
percent? Is it greater than a quorum? Or does it really take
only one Esquire to spoil the whole barrel of apples? Maybe we
should reconvene that California common law jury and put this
question to them as well, because we now appear to have a really
big problem on our hands.
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 7 of 11
If the Senate and House of Representatives ever consisted of
members who were disqualified from serving there by reason of
their titles of nobility, then every single act of those bodies
was completely null and void from the beginning. As an Illinois
State Court once ruled, "it never became a law and was as much a
nullity as if it had been the act or declaration of an
unauthorized assemblage of individuals." (Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill.
160) A House or Senate consisting of Esquires for members is an
unauthorized assemblage of individuals, and ALL their legislation
is completely null and void.
Now ask yourself this question: Since the War of 1812, the
approximate time at which the original 13th Amendment surely
became Law, how many sessions of the House or Senate were
conducted by Members who had previously accepted titles of
nobility? If your answer is one hundred percent, then you are
probably right.
The shocking fact is this: Every session of the House and
Senate since 1812 has consisted of members who were attorneys
with the title of Esquire conveniently appended to the end of
their names. This means that every session of the House and
Senate since 1812 has attempted to pass legislation which was
null and void from its inception. Do you have any favorite laws
which come to mind?
How about the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917? There is
a magnificent collection of research by Dr. Eugene Schroder which
shows how our vaulted Congress amended this Act in 1933 in order
to define all Americans as enemies of the United States
government. Were these acts of Congress valid, if its members
were Esquires at the time of its passage? Answer: NO.
How about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? This Act of
Congress created our vaulted Federal Reserve system, and the debt
money system to which we are all shackled for life (it seems).
Was this act of Congress valid, if its members were Esquires at
the time of its passage? Answer: NO.
How about the 16th amendment proposal? This Act of Congress
sent the 16th Amendment out to the states for ratification in
1911. Another magnificent collection of research by Bill Benson
and Red Beckman shows how the 48 states completely botched the
ratification of that proposal. Now ask yourself the obvious
question: Was Congress authorized to issue that proposal in the
first instance, if its members were Esquires at the time of its
passage? Answer: NO.
How about the 17th Amendment proposal? This Act of Congress
sent the 17th Amendment out to the states for ratification at the
same time as the 16th Amendment proposal. It purported to
convert the election of U.S. Senators to a popular vote. Under
the "old" procedure, Senators were elected by the state
legislatures (resulting in much lower campaign costs). Was the
Congress authorized to issue that proposal in the first instance,
if its members were Esquires at the time of its passage? Answer:
NO.
If the 17th Amendment was never properly ratified, then we
surely have not had a lawfully convened U.S. Senate at least
since 1917. This, then, means that all the treaties which were
allegedly approved by the U.S. Senate since then are also null
and void. What about GATT? NAFTA? the Genocide Treaty? the
United Nations? Round and round we go; where it stops, nobody
knows? On the contrary, we stop in 1812, the year of our second
war with England. We have not had a lawfully convened Congress
at least since the year 1812.
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 8 of 11
Now, what about those British soldiers who were boarding
their warship, guns in hand, at the end of that war? Is it
possible that they were not really the vanquished, but the
victors? Didn't they just finish burning the Library of
Congress? Wasn't that where evidence of the original 13th
Amendment had been kept, under the watchful eyes of our
government record custodians who fled for their lives?
What those soldiers didn't know was that the original 13th
Amendment had "leaked" out to other states, whose record
custodians did not suffer the loss of their libraries. When
their official versions of the U.S. Constitution show a 13th
amendment which bans titles of nobility, and those very same
versions do NOT show any ban against slavery (which didn't pass
until after the Civil War), you begin to suspect that something
very strange is going on here.
There has not been a single act of Congress since 1812 which
has been properly enacted into law. Not a single one! So, you
can throw out your Internal Revenue Code, and along with it all
of your 50 United States Codes, and your Federal Reserve Act, and
your Trading with the Enemy Act, and your treaties, and your
federal regulations, and your resolutions and your Joint
Interdepartmental delegations of authority, because they had no
authority under the real Constitution for the United States of
America. NONE!
Attorneys beware.
# # #
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 9 of 11
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Donald G. Hand, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of
perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without
the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age, a
Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I
personally served the following document(s):
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND VERIFIED OBJECTION
TO QUALIFICATIONS OF REFEREE;
NOTICE OF INTENT TO REMOVE CASE TO COURT
OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly
addressed to the following:
BERKMAN, HENOCH, PETERSON & PEDDY, P.C.
Attorneys [sic] for the Plaintiff
The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB
c/o 777 Zeckendorf Boulevard
Garden City [zip code exempt]
NEW YORK STATE
Nathanson, Devack & Memmoli, L.L.P.
Attorney [sic] for Defendant
Key Bank of New York
c/o 820 Hempstead Turnpike
Franklin Square [zip code exempt]
NEW YORK STATE
Sylvain R. Jakabovics, Esq.
Attorney [sic] for Defendant
L. C. Commercial Corporation
c/o 230 Park Avenue, Suite 864
New York [zip code exempt]
NEW YORK STATE
Batzar & Weinberg, P.C.
Attorney [sic] for Defendant
European American Bank & Trust Company
c/o 184 Sunrise Highway, Box 427
Rockville Center [zip code exempt]
NEW YORK STATE
NYS Commissioner of Taxation & Finance
NYS Office Building
Veterans' Memorial Highway
Hauppauge [zip code exempt]
NEW YORK STATE
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 10 of 11
Mitchell N. Kay, Esq., Attorney [sic] for Defendant
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
c/o 7 Penn Plaza, 18th Floor
New York [zip code exempt]
NEW YORK STATE
KENNETH A. AUERBACH, ESQ.
c/o 77 Medford Avenue
Patchogue [zip code exempt]
NEW YORK STATE
Dated: __________________________________
/s/ Donald Hand
__________________________________________
Donald G. Hand, Sui Juris
Citizen of New York state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
[See USPS Publication 221 for addressing instructions.]
Verified Objection to Referee/Notice of Intent to Remove:
Page 11 of 11
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Dime Savings Bank v. Hand et al.