1 Your name

2 Your address
3
4 [City, ST ZIP Code]
5
6
7
8 [COURT NAME]
9
10 [PLAINTIFF'S NAME], Case No.: [Number]
11
12 Plaintiff,
13 vs.
14 NOTICE TO COURT
15
[DEFENDANT'S NAME],
OBJECTION NON-STATUTORY
16 COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
17 Defendant
18 WARRANTO PROCEEDING
19 CHALLENGING JURISDICTION
20 OF THE COURT TO ISSUE
21 ORDER OF SUPPORT IN
22
23
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
24
25 NOTICE TO COURT
26
OBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO

WARRANTO PROCEEDING

CHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO ISSUE ORDER OF

SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

1
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1
2
3
Comes now, [Type in your name] is an alleged defendant filing on record1 a
4
5
6 notice of motion for objection challenging jurisdiction of the court and challenging
7
8 the authority of the constitutional officer to preside over expedited processes by
9
10
requiring a separate writ of quo warranto proceeding before any expedited process
11
12
13 under 45 CFR 303.101 is initiated.
14
15 It is now on record before the court, [Type in your name] the alleged defendant is
16
17
a living man and a citizen of the state2
18
19
20 It is now on record before the court, [Type in your name] the alleged defendant is
21
22 invoking unalienable rights created by God and secured by the law of the land.
23
24
It is now on record before the court, [Type in your name] the alleged defendant is
25
26
domiciled within the boundaries of a state defined by the constitution and the

Supreme Court in matter Texas v. White, 74 US 700 - Supreme Court 1869, as “ a

political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries,

Record
Record means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an
electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form. 45 CFR § 301.1
2

state “In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just
noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution,
is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and
organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established
by the consent of the governed.” Texas v. White, 74 US 700 - Supreme Court 1869
2
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written
2
3
constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.”
4
5
6 The undersigned alleged defendant is refusing to consent to waiving inalienable
7
8 rights requiring that he shall not be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or
9
10
immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of
11
12
13 the land.3
14
15 Furthermore, due process of law must be safeguarded under Expedited Processes
16
17
45 CFR 303.101(c)(2)4 requiring a judgment by peers after a trial by jury. It is the
18
19
20 duty of the constitutional officer to safeguard
21
22
23
24
25
26

IT IS AN ADJUDICATED FACT “Not only must a challenge to the authority

of a judge or prosecutor be timely, but it also must be brought by a direct quo

“The words, "due process of law," were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning as
the words, "by the law of the land," in Magna Charta. Lord Coke, in his commentary on those
words, (2 Inst. 50,) says they mean due process of law. The constitutions which had been
adopted by the several States before the formation of the federal constitution, following the
language of the great charter more closely, generally contained the words, "but by the judgment
of his peers, or the law of the land."” Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.,
59 US 272 - Supreme Court 1856
4

§ 303.101 Expedited processes (c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes: (2) The due process
rights of the parties involved must be protected;
3
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 warranto proceeding. Ordinarily, this should first be presented to the circuit
2
3
court. State ex rel. Vance v. Wellman, 222 So.2d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA
4
5
6 1969).” AND THEREBYTHE DEFENDANT HAS MERIT TO
7
8 CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF THE JUDGE BY WRIT OF QUO
9
10
WARRANTO PROCEEDING
11
12
13
14 1. Take judicial notice of evidence of an adjudicated fact5 Arthur Lee
15
16
JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF the STATE ATTORNEY, etc.,
17
18
19 Defendants No. 5D08-710. Decided: July 25, 2008 District Court of Appeal
20
21 of Florida, Fifth District and thereby the undersigned has merit to file an
22
23
objection requiring a separate writ of quo warranto proceeding to
24
25
26 immediately challenge jurisdiction. 6

“Not only must a challenge to the authority of a judge or prosecutor be timely, but it also must
be brought by a direct quo warranto proceeding. Ordinarily, this should first be presented to the
circuit court. State ex rel. Vance v. Wellman, 222 So.2d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).” Arthur
Lee JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF the STATE ATTORNEY, etc., Defendants No.
5D08-710. Decided: July 25, 2008 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
6

“Not only must a challenge to the authority of a judge or prosecutor be timely, but it also must
be brought by a direct quo warranto proceeding. Ordinarily, this should first be presented to the
circuit court. State ex rel. Vance v. Wellman, 222 So.2d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).” Arthur
Lee JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF the STATE ATTORNEY, etc., Defendants No.
5D08-710. Decided: July 25, 2008 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

4
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 2. Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct.
2
3
830 Supreme Court (2018) 7 this state cannot cite a state law to prohibit the
4
5
6 use of a common law writ of quo warranto proceeding, because the Supreme
7
8 Court, the court of last resort has held that the Due Process Clause, among
9
10
other things, protects "those settled usages and modes of proceeding existing
11
12
13 in the common and statute law of England, before the emigration of our
14
15 ancestors,” and thereby the undersigned has legal merit to claim the right to
16
17
file an objection requiring a separate writ of quo warranto proceeding to
18
19
20 challenge jurisdiction and the lawful authority of the judicial actor or judge
21
22 surrogate.
23
24
3. Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S Ct 2502
25
26
(1980)8 that once jurisdiction has been challenged it must be proven and

thereby the undersigned has the legal merit to claim this court must prove

jurisdiction or it will default under federal rule 55 or a state law equivalent.

“The Due Process Clause, among other things, protects "those settled usages and modes of
proceeding existing in the common and statute law of England, before the emigration of our
ancestors," and which were brought by them to this country.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct.
830 Supreme Court (2018)
8

“ The law provides that once state and federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S Ct 2502 (1980)
5
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 4. Take judicial notice of the fact the undersigned is a man and thereby has
2
3
merit to support his claim that the court cannot presume the undersigned is a
4
5
6 person as defined under 28 USC Section 3002(10)9 that can be subjected to
7
8 legal process.
9
10
5. Take judicial notice of evidence of an adjudicated fact Texas v. White, 74
11
12
13 US 700 - Supreme Court 1869 the undersigned is a man, a citizen of the
14
15 state10 and thereby has merit to support his claim that the court requires his
16
17
consent to participate in expedited processes.
18
19
20 6. It is the understanding by the undersigned Defendant that any expedited
21
22 proceeding yielding a judgment not by peers is unquestionably a violation of
23
24
due process as defined by adjudicated fact Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken
25
26
Land & Improvement Co., 59 US 272 - Supreme Court 1856.11
9

28 U.S. Code § 3002 (10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a
corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public
or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.
10

11

“By the sixth and seventh articles of amendment, further special provisions were separately
made for that mode of trial in civil and criminal cases. To have followed, as in the state
constitutions, and in the ordinance of 1787, the words of Magna Charta, and declared that no
person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the judgment of his peers or the
law of the land, would have been in part superfluous and inappropriate. To have taken the
clause, "law of the land," without its immediate context, might possibly have given rise to
doubts, which would be effectually dispelled by using those words which the great commentator
on Magna Charta had declared to be the true meaning of the phrase, "law of the land," in that
6
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 7. It is the understanding by the undersigned Defendant that any expedited
2
3
proceeding yielding a judgment not by peers is unquestionably a violation of
4
5
6 Expedited Processes 45 CFR 303.101(c)(2).12
7
8 8. Take judicial notice of evidence of an adjudicated fact and Supreme Court
9
10
law Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 US 272 -
11
12
13 Supreme Court 1856 13 held any judgment not by peers causing the
14
15 deprivation of life, liberty, or property is unconstitutional.
16
17
9. Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact United States v. Prudden, 424
18
19
20 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970) that his property is protected by the fourth
21
22 amendment OR a state constitutional equivalent and thereby the undersigned
23
24
25
26

instrument, and which were undoubtedly then received as their true meaning. Murray's Lessee
v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 US 272 - Supreme Court 1856
12

§ 303.101 Expedited processes (c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes: (2) The due process
rights of the parties involved must be protected;
13

“By the sixth and seventh articles of amendment, further special provisions were separately
made for that mode of trial in civil and criminal cases. To have followed, as in the state
constitutions, and in the ordinance of 1787, the words of Magna Charta, and declared that no
person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the judgment of his peers or the
law of the land, would have been in part superfluous and inappropriate. To have taken the
clause, "law of the land," without its immediate context, might possibly have given rise to
doubts, which would be effectually dispelled by using those words which the great commentator
on Magna Charta had declared to be the true meaning of the phrase, "law of the land," in that
instrument, and which were undoubtedly then received as their true meaning. Murray's Lessee
v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 US 272 - Supreme Court 1856
7
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 must consent to have his income property seized without a warrant by any
2
3
wage garnishment or income withholding order issued by a IV-D agency.
4
5
6 10. Take judicial notice that an income withholding order issued by an IV-D
7
8 agency within the executive branch is a violation of the separation of powers
9
10
doctrine.
11
12
13
14
15 RELIEF
16
17
18
19 This court is sanctioned and limited by the state constitution and constitution for
20
21 the united States and thereby must provide relief of discharging this matter for the
22
23
court lacks the authority to force the undersigned claimed defendant to participate
24
25
26 in expedited processes that undoubtedly deprive inalienable rights secured by

written constitutions.

FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO IN WRITING

IS EVIDENCE OF THE COURT’S SILENCE CAN ONLY BE EQUATED

WITH FRAUD WHEN HAVING THE LEGAL DUTY TO SPEAK AND A

DEFAULT JUDGMENT WILL BE ENTERED BY THE CLERK OF THE

COURT UNDER FEDERAL RULE 5514

8
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].
10
11
12
13 Your Name
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment(d) Judgment Against the United States. A default
judgment may be entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the
claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court.
9
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -