[cdn.michaeljlindell.com]

Unpacking the above Bill of Complaint

States listed as Plaintiff

That is Blank

This is a vital part of this data imparted from me to you. I am an independent individual and therefore I am on an equal footing at law with any other independent individual at law, so long as the law in question is the common law based upon natural law as codified in such documents as:

1. Mathew 7:12, published in numerous Bibles, also known as The Golden Rule

2. Defiance, from antiquity, this is the same as a declaration of independence

3. Declaration of Independence, this is a modernized, collective version, of an individual defiance

4. Bill of Rights, this is a failed attempt to over-rule the treasonous fraud known as The Constitution of 1789

5. Writ of Quo Warranto
   This a device brought forward by a Plantiff demanding proof of authority authorizing the defendants authority. The burden of proof is demanded from the defendant who is asserting counterfeit authority: treasonous fraud.

If I have lost anyone at this point, then that only proves the case of treasonous fraud, beyond reasonable doubt, arriving on the scene in the form of ignorance of the law, which is known to be no excuse for those guilty of outlawry. It is likely that not one in a billion people with get the word play employed in that one word: outlawry. My point, or my motive, for using that word, in context, is to inspire curiosity from the source of it, which is an independent individual mind, in an individual soul, and an individual body.

A State in a Union of States forensically demands a hearing on the merits, something called oyer and terminer, see:

"A critical key to achieving federal constitutional compliance is to resurrect quo warranto and other common law writs. This involves reasserting and strengthening the original All-Writs Act and repealing or declaring unconstitutional legislation, such as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and those Rules of Judicial Procedure, that have restricted the jurisdiction of federal courts to accept these writs and grant a fair hearing ("oyer" ) and a decision on the merits ("terminer" ) on such demands."

Oyer and Terminer, or a demand (not grant) for a fair hearing based upon the facts that matter in the case, or the merits meriting a cause of action (in defense) at law: common law.

Oyer and Terminer predates, or comes before, Standing Doctrine.

A case before a so-called Supreme Court, at law, is a demand to bring the case before a Criminal Trial Jury or explain why the case has no merits, after hearing the merits in a case brought before an Independent Grand Jury.

I just unpacked the case. This is all treasonous fraud, it is thereby warranting a quo warranto demand for evidence of authority at law, to which there are no legs, other than treasonous fraud, to stand on.

How many people can’t see this? What does it prove that almost no one can see this clear and present danger to life and everything brought forward with life, all the good, and all the bad, all are in danger, while the treasonous frauds get away with counterfeiting the law.

How should the Complaint Read? How should the Federal Treasonous Fraud Case be written for cause?

We the representatives of the victims of California (or any Independent State that is a working Republic) bring to the Federal Court the matter of Federal Election Fraud, and as representatives of the victims of California (each named as plaintiffs, all of whom sign and enter into the record affidavits as to fact and law) the named prosecutors (anyone with or without a badge or license capable of litigating their collective case) prosecuting the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, who are the accusers, who are the victims, each with their individual affidavits as to fact and law, demand a hearing based upon the merits, to bring to a criminal trial, in a trial by jury case, in a Court of Law, the named defendants, or their representatives defending the named defendants on their behalf, as directed by the named defendants according to common law, the law of the land.

Since it is likely that millions of victims, in fact exist, the affidavits naming each and every plaintiff would not fit on one page. The wording above is that which a dumb ass worker who spent his life working construction in construction markets, can muster, on his (my own) authority at law, these are not the words of a trained member of The Bar Association.

The Bar Association membership is in place to Bar access to the law of the land. We do as we please, you do as you are told.

That is evidence of treasonous fraud itself, that Bar Association. That is self-evidently factual, but only to someone whose mind is independently capable of arriving at the facts in the case and the law governing mankind. To those who are successfully Barred from the law of the land, these words are incomprehensible. If that is you, then you drank too liberally from the collective ocean of cool-aid known as Treasonous Fraud.

Let that be a lesson.

The Supreme Court, so-called, at the Federal Level, is itself a treason on its face, a self-evident usurpation of the law of the land, but the exercise here is to use actual law to expose it, resulting in a quo-warranto issued and either rejected (confession of guilt) or heard on the merits of the case, in a Court of Law.

To suggest that the members of The Supreme Court, so-called, would be placed in power to judge of their authority to be in power, again, confesses the nature of this ongoing treason. We do as we please, you do as told by US.

Would the members of The Supreme Court reject the demand for a hearing on the merits as to Federal Election Fraud? Would The Supreme Court members then confess their Treason, warranting the demand of a Quo Warranto?

They have already confessed their malevolence in that case with Texas. That is prim-facie evidence of treason.

Precedent:

Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power.

All the licenses to murder ever created, and used to murder, do not excuse the murder in anyone’s mind other than fellow murderers.

Mens rea

Those on the Supreme Court could have given up doing their part in the past Federal Election Fraud, and they could have heard the case on its merits, they collectively chose not to, confessing their treason.

Why would that not be a treason case?

Are you beginning to grow an independent path to your own independent moral conscience?