Bomb Drop at Symposium (Case against Global Treasonous Election Fraud)

IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Cause No. 17-6553
[supremecourt.gov]
Paintiff/Appellant/Petitioner,
V.
Angela J Townsend, et al

"To falsify information by a judge is indisputably fraud. ". . [J]f it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.., even if it is holding a
piece of paper that says it is a chicken" (Wild v. Fregein Construction, 68 P.3rd 855
(2003)).”

It is indisputably fraud to claim that the document giving you authority is the document that gives you the permission to ignore it while employing it for criminal purposes, such as to use aggression, in the form of fraud, to disarm your targeted victims.

Metaphoric Reasoning According to Common Law Principles in a Court of Law

Suit 1
Attack by aggressor using aggressive fraud to disarm defenders, defenders who may discover the facts that document the attack before it begins, while it is in progress, and as it is likely to develop dynamically in time and place, the aggressor promotes an obvious, self-evident, self-contradictory false statement, a confession of guilt during a false accusation, a falsely asserted accusation asserted in the form of accusation, a false accusation made by the treasonous fraud during the crime, in time and place on the lawful public record, forensically preserved as it was recorded.
Roman Civil Rules V common law
Accuser V Defender
Obey Absolutely V Disobey On Moral Principle

That above is a Metaphorically Reasoned out use of a common law Court of Law, following due process of law, and next is another case, a separate case, a case brought forward by the treasonous fraud case listed above, as the Counter Suit is CAUSED by the initial treasonous crime exemplified above.

Counter-Suit 2
Defense by the defender uses defense in the form of accurate accounts of the attack by attacker as the attacker uses claims of authority while disobeying the authority claimed during the treason by fraud perpetrated by the treasonous fraud while in progress of the crime, as well as evidence of that crime as it happened from the start of it, as it continued to this moment, and as it is likely to continue on into the foreseeable future, as indicated by the existing, and soon to be discovered, evidence of guilt produced exclusively by the guilty individual named in the suit.
common law V Roman Civil Rules
Accuser V Defender
Fraud Found Factually as to Rules and Law V Do Not Question Absolute Obedience

There then are the first attack in Suit 1, and then Suit 2 is the counter attack defending against the initiator of attack which was intentionally crafted to disarm enslaved victims into subsidized slavery of The People under Treasonous Frauds Liberal use of Roman Civil Rules. Next is the beginning of Suit 1, the Attack on common law, using common law as the vehicle intending to persecute the criminal attack.

Suit 1 Initial Attack by False Accusation by False Accusers
Roman Civil Rules V common law, (Suit 2 on deck, delayed in time and place)

Opening Statement Offense
Roman Civil Rules V common law
Accuser V Defender

To the People, I the accuser in this case and I speak.
I speak openly, on my own authority, and I agree that all responsibilities of initiating this attack, are charged to me, for my decision to initiate this attack, in this form of false accusation, where I rely upon the victim’s weakness, defenseless, gullibility, which affords me all the power I need to get away with this false accusation, while I move it through from malevolent desire to malevolent fruits forming in the injury of my targeted victims, and any other measures of power I may consume at their expense, without them afforded any defense whatseover.

I mean to Speak, by my choice of words, to that specified jury specifically, as that jury represent The People as a whole, representing The People that I address:

To The People, I the accuser, and other representatives of my accusing party, we the false accusers, in this official record, in this Court of Law, are those collectively agreeing to represent The State:

The State accuses, a fact that matters, in the matter involving members of The State Counterfeiting voices of the Collective People, as we do so, in time, and place, on the public record, the record recording our treasonous fraud as it happens, according to us, in our false accusation here and now, on into forever, since we disarm our targeted victims thereby.

I offer Statements Stating the facts in this case, for your adjudication as jurors, as The People, as you judge the evidence I present, as to both law and fact.

I understand that my Statements are True and that these True Statements State the facts in this case, as I see them. It being a certain position at law that the accuser may be biased towards facts that prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the facts prove the accused to be guilty in fact, and therefore the matter is placed before the judgment of The People, who all of you 12 independent, unbiased, jurors are, as selected randomly, without obvious bias, as representatives of The People as one collective voice.

I accuse you of disobedience before us. (The People assembled, the jury, all of them, do not hear this, not yet)

The offense asserts as fact, the following evidence of an assertion as to law, in our opinion as to the guilt of the common law accused, as the accused is caught daring to defend the natural law principles of defense, as proven in codified law, dating back to Mathew 7:12, which is the Golden Rule, which has been carried forward through thousands of years, intact, as more than a noun, it is an actionable process that evolved into due process of law, conducted in common law Courts of Law, and later in Roman Civil Rules Courts of Blind Obedience to Falsehood Without Question.

The Judge, in the form of a Jury, wakes up, and responds when provoked during the opening statement , going on, and on, and on, ad nauseum infinitum. A member of the jury interrupts the progress of the opening statement of false accusation, and that volunteer juror volunteers to assert jury privilege, as representatives of the whole people, this juror interrupts according to this jurors assement of the trial as it progresses.

A jury commands the arrest of the flow of information flowing from the source of it, the juror objects to the continued expansion of messages offered into the record by the accuser as the accuser falsely accused a named victim of false accusation, in a Court of Law.

The Juror States:
“Get to the point, please, this is a serious matter, and as time is wasted, further delay in this matter will likely result in more injury to The People as individuals, those closer to the injury first, those furthest from injury last, those still potentially traveling into injury, undefended, powerless until something is done within natural laws to prevent more injury, by someone, somewhere, somehow.

The Juror continues, demanding outright:

Assert!
Place your assertion now.
Place your assertion now, into the record for posterity, for The People as a whole.
Do so now.
I, as acting juror, find your opening statement to be less that to-the-point, so move onto your assertion as the accuser, the Roman Civil Lawyer, representing The State.

Yes, I will.
I the Roman Civil Rules Lawyer will now Assert the Accusation
This, I testify, knowing full well, and with malice aforethought, accuse.
I accuse on the Public Record in a lawful cause to act in defense.
The accusation now stated against the disobedient common law advocates, is stated as such.
I accuse the accused of disobedience.
The State, which is I, as accuser States, I am a member of Roman Civil Rules, and as an active member in individual form, my assertion is asserted as a Criminal Complaint, against the accused member of the members of due process of law, which proceeds according to common law, exemplified in this very case, that the named member is guilty of disobedience.

We as members of The State further assert:
Do not question the order to Obey those who are Demanding Blind Obedience to Falsehood Without Question. If you do, you are guilty of doing so, a fact that matters in this case.

Opening Statement Defense
Roman Civil Rules V common law
Accuser V Defender

I, acting as representative of defense, volunteer as defender, and I firmly assert the following:
That the fact of naturally requiring defense, in particular against the Roman Civil Lawyer’s assertion, hereby asserted by the accuser, presents itself as this attack follows its course into the targeted victims mind, causing terror in the mind of the target, were the target ever to give credit to such a self-evidently false, self-confessing, statement of treasonous fraud against The People as individuals, as well as The People as a whole lot of individuals.

Break from Case 1.

Question:
What would the judge do, meaning what would the individual jurors do, voluntarily, as they command jurisdiction at law, as to fact and law, as the evidence is stated thereby, in the above metaphor, afforded you? This is not simply a rhetorical question. See the evidence, judge for yourself.

Moving on to the counter to the attack by Treasonous Fraud, utilizing common law, in defense against Roman Civil Rulers building Empires based upon Absolute Obedience to Falsehood Without Question.

Case II before The People (jurors) and Roman Civil Rulers (defenders of offense by treasonous fraud)

common law V Roman Civil Rules
Accuser V Defender
Fraud Found Factually as to Rules and Law V Do Not Question Absolute Obedience

Opening Statements Accuser

As the accuser accusing guilt of Treasonous Fraud, I the accuser state that the accused is an active member supporting fellow Roman Civil Rulers, each having an individual name, I assert that their willful steps outside of the rules they enforce constitutes Treasonous Fraud as a self-evident fact that matters in this Treasonous Fraud case involving the very people doing it while they are doing it.

The accused proves his guilt according to the rules forbidding him to put into motion the actions that demonstrate guilt while the guilty perpetrates the actual crime in time and place, those rules being the rules the guilty one also claims to be the source of the guilty one’s power to perform the illegal act, thereby proving the fact of guilt in the contradictory fact that it says the guilty act cannot be done by the same rules the guilty one claims to be his source of authority to do what he claims cannot be done.

Your honor, the jury, this is beyond absurd, it is guilt in fact, on the official record preserved as antiquity, as stare decisis, as precedent, as human memory, of humans, by humans, for humans, for the prosperity of posterity thus armed with expedient defensive information leading to actionable defensive measures.

In effect the guilty one has created two sets of rules, breaking the honor of The People as a whole, doing onto someone else that which he himself prohibits others to do to himself.

Opening Statements in defense against the charge of Treasonous Fraud

Obey, we count upon your natural tendency to choose an easier path when confronted with an unwelcome discovery of a warrant warranting the receiver of the warrant, the warranting of action in defense against an attack by Treasonous Frauds which demands of their targets not to see the ongoing attack upon them. The accused claims, absurdly, that the targets of Treasonous Fraud are not allowed to think that it is Treasonous Fraud in fact.