TO THE OFFICE OF THE HEAD OF F.B.I. {special unit- for treason of inferior courts}


TO THE OFFICE OF THE HEAD OF F.B.I.

\INSTITUTIONS IN HARMONY/

{special unit- for treason of inferior courts}

{Title 18 US Code Section 2381

Dwane Eugene Kirkland

UCC 1-207 1-308 w/o Prejudice

bill of rights advocate /

witness/

self claimed

Constitutional officer.

Investigator/

1115 S 3rd Street

Hamilton MT 59840

406-369-5405/406-369-0482

officerkirkland@icloud.com

Plaintiff

Stanley John Roberts

U.C.C. 1-207

1-308 w/o prejudice

Claimed Beneficiary

-------------------------------------

10/27/18 03:21:01 PM/406-207-5002

Cause No TK 2017-1351

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT


****

Defendants

Judge M reardan

STATE OF MONTANA,CITY OF

HAMILTON corporation

223 South Second Street

Hamilton Mt 59840

(406)363-6823

Melanie D* Isidoro

Karen S. Mahar, Hamilton City Attorney

300 S. Second street Hamilton Mt 59840

406-36-7999

Request to investigate findings

According to the law - failed to protect provisions or failed to protect rights - even though given time to correct the errors and warning of criminal intent of collusion upon the plaintiff. The defendants together refused to take the written provisions to the courts duty to protect the plaintiff- the court moved forward sweeping under the carpet thrown it in the trash- and meeting in star chambers- without public or allowed witness- THEY THE DEFENDANTS LISTED to collude on the main issues- violating the basic bill of rights at a state level and federal level. And declaration of MT rights. THE JUDGE DURING COURT PROCEDURES INCRIMINATED HIS SELF BY STATING THAT HIS COURT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE CONSTITUTION.

Comes now that we the people the private person Stanley Roberts request that the FBI investigate the procedures of the inferior court treason of the lower courts by the breaking down of the laws of the provisions Constitutional provision by the committed acts of treason by sedition {Count 1Title 18 US 241,242, 1628, 2183. and other tiles under title 42 US} {see attached records of excluded paperwork}

Criminal Complaint – UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS BY THE LISTED PARTIES

1/ excluding evidence discovery of provisions. REFUSED

2/ Failed to protect provisions. BY MOVING FORWARD BY PASSING CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.

3/ failed to record court procedures- even though plaintiff has own records. NOT ALLOWING ON RECORD OR STRICKEN OFF RECORD.

4/ failed to have court in a public hearing. Had court in a private court hearing away from public. MANIPULATING COURT HEARING TO LAST OF DOCKET IN PRIVATE NO PUBLIC WITNESS.

5/ failed to appoint a competent attorney that would protect violation of provisions and failed to. ask requested questions by the plaintiff-what the plaintiff requested and then the colluded attorneys excused and filed a motion to recuse there self- recuse here self. Then judge made attorney stand by for trial. MORE THAN ONE ATTORNEY DID NOT WANT TO QUESTION THE CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS. REFUSED TO DO WHAT PLAINTIFF WANTED FOR PROVISIONS VIOLATIONS OFF POLICE OFFICER.

6/ attorneys and judge listed defendants colluded to by EXCLUDING THROWN AWAY IGNORING DISCOVERY FINDING OF PROVISION VIOLATIONS without legal determination of burden of proof jurisdiction and dismissal complaint all submitted paperwork by witness.

7/ Ignoring the Miranda rights, and probable cause in question. REFUSED TO ANSWER IN QUESTION OF RIGHTS READ BEFORE ARREST. OR OF TAKEN OF BLOOD BY TACTICAL MILITARY METHODS. SCARED TACTICS TO AND OVER PLAINTIFF.

8/ failed to comply to the request of the remedy and recourse of invoking Constitutional rights. REFUSED ALL CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY AND CLAIMED AS THE BENEFICIARY AND IT PROTECTIONS REQUIRED BY LAW.

9/ failed to protect the oath of office and the supremacy clause. REFUSED TO OBEY THE OATH AS TO PROTECT THE CLAIMED PLAINTIFFS PROVISIONS- AT ALL LEVELS.

10/ violating there own statues codes of limitations of a speedy trial and the due process clauses. VIOLATED TIMELY MANNER FOR SPEEDY TRIAL. IGNORED *

11/ failed to let plaintiff to speak to protect his self or allow objections on the matter of a fair due process. VIOLATED THE 5TH AMENDMENT AND THE 1ST AMENDMENT OF LIFE LIBERTY AND THE DUE PROCESS OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL.

12/ COLLECTED ILLEGAL EVIDENCE BY THE EFFECT OF THE POISONOUS TREE INDOCTRINATION TO HAVE A EVIDENCE HEARING OVER ILLEGAL COLLECTED EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.




BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONTRACT--CRIMINAL CHARGES

FAILURE TO PROTECT PROVISIONS IS A CRIME

Provisions of claimed contract clearly cannot be ignored. This would be a crime itself by not protecting the supreme law of the land that you are to protect. Count 1-Title 18 US Code Sec. 2381: In the PRESENCE of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in an open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.

Count 2- Title 5 US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706: Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law. By ignoring the discovery and thresh-hold questions pertaining to the due-process denied, and appointed attorneys and judges under collusion to violate the separations of powers.

Therefore, a conflict of interest for civil records- the listed judge and parties make money across the bench for every infraction and unconstitutional acts that are enforced -have equity of $18 (eighteen dollars) for every $40 (forty dollars) that comes across the bench of collusion. Conflict of interest/civil v criminal/court state trying to create a crime or convert provisions into a crime.

By stealthy state regulations and codes and statues that are in conflict with the plaintiff’s provisions under the protection’s that are guaranteed by the Constitutional contract, under agreement between the American people and the government. Powers delegated to the listed violators judges and lawyers and police officers- for ignoring provisions they swear to protect either by intent or error.

The listed parties ARE ALLEGED that committed treason by sedition- Count 1 charge – and Count 2 charge - sedition by breaking down the Constitutional laws. Those who do this have no judicial immunity. Title 18 US Code Section 2381. If upon conviction they are subject to a $10,000 fine-10 years in prison or both and if theft is results life in prison.

Who says so? Owen v. Independence 100 vol. supreme court reports . 1398 ; (1982) Main v. Thiboutot100 vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502:(1982)--deprivation under the color of law. Officers have no immunity when violating Constitutional rights from liability. SEE ATTACHED SELF RECORDS OF PAPERWORK AND DISCOVERY OF PROVISIONS THAT THE COURTS ARE TO PROTECT BUT REFUSED TO. SEE ATTACHED STATEMENTS.

THE LISTED DEFENDANTS ALONG TOGETHER Excluded ALL documents that would mitigate or litigate the OUTCOME OF A UNFAIR ILLEGAL TRIAL WITH OUT CONSENT of the plaintiff involved with this matter. Refusing to give equal equal protections of the law.

By violating the 14th Amendment and all provisions listed in complaint and further not giving a fair due process under the 7th Amendment-And of course not a speedy trial. Clearly the judge did not protect the oath that he promised to preserve and be bound to and did not protect the provisions brought to his attention. No provisions can be denied or diminished.

Due to the facts of discovery -by actions - He denied the listed provisions and continued in favor of violating the plaintiff rights. DURING COURT PROCEDURES THE JUDGE SAID MONTANA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE SUBMITTED PAPERWORK.

No one has immunity when violating or breaking down the laws they swear to protect especially when they have taken a oath under delegated powers granted by the people they serve. CLEARLY THE JUDGE AND LISTED DEFENDANTS VIOLATED OATH{Under Article 6 paragraph 2}

The supremacy clause -TREASON BY BREAKING DOWN SUPREME LAWS.- BY SEDITION BY constructive fraud. The undersigned being first duly sworn upon oath states the following facts showing obstructing of the plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. By the listed parties provision misconduct, criminal collusion, and breaking down the laws claimed.

Breach of Constitutional Contract that is to be safe guarded by the judge, and secured in by the locke 9th Admendment at a state and federal level. {See attached paperwork ignored and tossed away* dismissal grounds*complaint of taken off record*} {objection for legal determination*}


{September 25 , 2018 ; 16:34 } LAST PAPERS FILED BEFORE TRIAL*

{Objection no legal determination of jurisdiction}

To who it may concern the plaintiff Stanley John Roberts who filed a claim and paperwork according to due process clauses in a timely manner- made it clear of the protection of the provisions.

He the beneficiary of the Constitutional contract is entitled to. Under the Constitutional Contract he claimed. Now in question again.

How come the listed defendants {City of Hamilton}{Judge M Reardon}{State of Montana} parties involved {prosecuting attorneys}{Melanie D* Isidoro} {Karen S. Mahar}moves forward without a legal determination.

That the plaintiff filed for a dismissal and grounds and jurisdiction -now demands the burden of proof to the prosecuting attorney once again- by the facts and law. According to investigation of burden of proof, shifting it to the attorney, Stanley has made it clear.

The paperwork should be answered, and no further threat of plea agreement trying to scare Stanley into a unknown contract of regulations, statues codes of the Uniform commercial codes that the lower courts operate under.

Judge M reardon CITY JUDGE - Karen S. Mahar- Melanie D Isidoro- we appreciate your opinion but it is strictly opinion. IT’S not facts or a legal determination of the latter- the higher latter supreme law. We do not appreciate the writ assist of a plea bargain that is apparently a bill of attainder and a threat to Stanley John Roberts who is not aware of the latter or the due process in the timely manner.

Due to the facts of not answering the paperwork and you not proven the burden of proof of the jurisdiction in question. That most judges would give 10 days to answer. But however- its been over 70 days- and is against your own statues and limitations. according to actual law supremacy law should be dismissed. {trial must commence within 70 days} Title 1 of the speedy trial act of 1974,88 Stat. 2080. {18USC SS 3161-3174} 18 USC s 3161(b)} {full report if requested in a timely manner}

We see no reason to go forward at all, but for you to either answer the paperwork Stanley John Robert filed or request for an dismissal, with respect, even though obstruction of a speedy trial violation and possible collusion by not obeying the law of the oath to protect the plaintiff provisions.

When a judge or a prosecuting attorney fails to protect the provisions its actually a criminal act and can be charged, under title 18 US 241,242, 1628, 2183. We request for you to dismiss and obey the law. The attorney and judge and all parties should know the law and cant ignore the law.

If one breaks down the supreme law this is sedition by treason. We pray due to the facts that your writ of assist bill of pain and direct tax shall go away. {According to article 1 section 9, and 10 in the plaintiffs contract} SEE attached written statement from {Stanley John Roberts }{and the resubmit dismissal and grounds**}thank you for your candid work.


The claimed beneficiary, __________________________________________.


Witness findings,______________________________________________.




{Seal}



Views: 25

Comment

You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service