Opinion Based on Fact, Circumstantial Evidence



Opinion Based on Fact, Circumstantial Evidence

&

The Obvious

-----Original Message-----

From: Dick Marple [mailto:armlaw@]

Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:58 PM

To: www@ , dgilbert-spidle@ , elggrande@ , dcg3@ , rjwg75@ , warren@ , itsenh@ , bob@ , neal.kurk@leg.state.nh.us , DLAWTON@ , letters@ , newlife@ , keeprepublic@ , meadrd@ , honour@ , enaile@ Cc: wabbott@

Subject: Corruption in the court system

Dear Mr. Abbott:

The following is a computer copy of Affidavit filed with the Secretary of State and other officers of government, documenting the captioned subject matter.

I ask that your commission investigate the entire history of affidavit documentation in this matter concerning the use of the judicial system as a means of criminal self-enrichment by the violators of oaths and the conspiracy to deny due process, resulting in the unlawful imprisonment of this inhabitant. The criminal element in government has justified its existence in the prolonging of unlawful actions, destroying two lawful businesses valued in excess of 2.5 million. This is considered by many RICO activity by the corporate state, ignoring Article 14 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, meanwhile the constitution sits on a shelf collecting dust.

Please acknowledge this document and advise what action you will be taking.

Thank you, Richard Marple, Sui Juris

All rights Reserved pursuant to UCC 1-103 and UCC 1-308

Commercial Affidavit of Truth

and formal complaint

Pursuant to Rule 37(5)(b)(1) re: reconsideration

James L. DeHart, General Counsel

New Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office

4 Park Street

Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Re: Jay M. Niederman

Dear Mr. Dehart:

This will acknowledge your letter dated January 11, 2005 wherein you assert that you are “not docketing and processing this matter as a complaint because after reviewing all the materials, I don’t find anything that WOULD SUGGEST Mr. Niederman engaged in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

I understand your assertion to be subjective and not responsive to any specific complaints enumerated in the self-explanatory affidavits of record which have not been addressed. This suggests that all documentation was not examined nor the import of the language of the documents on the record accorded the specific meanings and intent that the prima facie cases are entitled. Rule 8.4 Misconduct, of the respondent, as expressed in paragraphs (a)(b)(c)(d)(e), is self evident in all affidavits recorded in this matter and it is unreasonable that such can be overlooked.

The next paragraph starts with; “There was a dispute”. This affiant has invoked the doctrine of estoppels in all affidavits of record and your silence and failure to acknowledge the same suggests misfeasance in your evaluation of this grievance. Your letter appears to parrot the repugnant fraud and malfeasance and misinformation being expressed as malem in se by Anthony A. McManus, Esquire, (respondent in another grievance pending before your office), and his conspirators. In good faith I would caution all to contrast this affiant’s affidavits of record with the verbal fraud and misinformation offered by the respondent and his co-conspirators, all of which is in direct conflict with the documentation that is on record. The knowing, willful and intentional acts of the respondent with his co-conspirators, which may be characterized as semantic subterfuge and essentially sedition by syntax, have effectively deprived this affiant of his lawful remedy, recourse and his right to due process of law.

1-Therefore I demand that the contract, which it is asserted was signed by this affiant, be produced for the record. It is the contract that would provide subject matter jurisdiction for Mr. Niederman to process what is now a vexatious and false claim. The Affidavits of Truth, all signed under the penalty of perjury by this affiant, are documents filed with the Secretary of State and the Manchester District Court. This affiant denies under oath that any contract ever existed. This is a fact and is the truth! Further, there is no in personam jurisdiction on the record. Mr. Niederman’s purported small claim was against New Hampshire Fireworks, Inc., not A. Richard Marple. Accordingly I demand that all jurisdictional assertions be proved. See RSA 502-A:14 Civil Causes I,I,II wherein there is a limit of $1500.00 for all district courts. This is in comity with Article 20 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights and has NOT been amended and is the supreme law of this land. This is contrary to your assertion in line two, paragraph 8 of your letter. I am sure that as an attorney you understand the supremacy of the constitution and that only the people with 66 and 2/3 of those voting may amend the constitution.

2-Pursuant to RSA 382-A :3-501(2) repeated affidavit demands were made to both Mr. Niederman and the court for jurisdiction to be produced and placed upon the record. Absolute silence prevailed and affidavits of default were filed in good faith. You have asserted that I failed to appear. This is a grievous error confirmed by the Affidavit of Record dated March 14, 2002 which states it is written “special appearance” and “motion” pursuant to the “Instructions to the Defendant” and enumerated in RSA 491:8-a and challenges the jurisdiction of the court for not having subject matter (contract) , Mr. Neiderman was required by RSA 491:8-a to respond within 30 days with a “genuine issue as to any material fact”, ie: a contract signed by A. Richard Marple. Mr. Niedman failed to respond with his affidavit and thus violated any and all good faith intentions and activated the provisions of RSA 491:8-a, III (Summary judgment) which was clearly motioned in the Affidavit of Appearance on record. (supra) This obligation by the court was denied and this affiant denied due process of law and his claim for counter damages.

3-This affidavit demands a reconsideration of the decision made by you, James L. DeHart and provides for the docketing of this matter and investigation of all the recorded facts as well as the criminal prosecution of all found culpable in violating the law. Pursuant to Article 88, Part II, New Hampshire constitution this affidavit is a presentment of complaint against respondent Jay M. Niederman, who unlawfully and with malice and malfeasance, with the assistance of co-conspirators, effected the kidnapping of this affiant under the color of law, in violation of RSA 633:3 and concealed the felony committed by another, ie: misprision of felony. You, James L.DeHart are so noticed.

This affidavit complies with all known rules of evidence and Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 101, et seq. in particular, see rule 301. This Affidavit will be considered accurate and proved if not countered, point for point with proof confirming or denying same within 30 days of receipt by Secretary of state William Gardner.

Respectfully submitted,

A. Richard Marple. Sui Juris

11 Dartmouth Street

Hooksett, New Hampshire

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download