CERTIFIED COPY Case Number: 7-15-4- Authors/Creators: Daniel Clayton Wood, Sui Juris Deborah Ann Boehm, Sui Juris Brian Edward Steiner, Sui Juris Joseph Micheal Grimm, Sui Juris Address Email: Phone Number! Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, Arizona Daniel Clayton Wood, Sui Juris CaseNo: CV 2023-093987 Joseph Michael Grimm, Sui Juris Deborah Ann Boehm, Sui Juris Original, Writ Brian Edward Steiner, Sui Juris; , Teta ised ee ara Matter of Neccessity for the Saints of Almighty God, Plaintiff(s), | Furtherance of Justice Aes Notice of Claim of Unconstitutionality of Acts and Statutes THE STATE OF ARIZONA LEGISLATURE., THE STATE OF ARIZONA PRESIDENT OF T! gt SENATE, WARREN PETER: ET. | [ARCP-RULE 26] AL., THE STATE OF ARIZONA | SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, BEN TOMA ET. AL., Defendant(s) Trial by Grand Jury Demanded Notice of Constitutional Questions Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent and Notice to Agent is Notice to PrincipleAuthorized King James Version, Genesis 1:1, 27-Almighty God “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States- We the People “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and seoure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” ‘The Preamble of Arizona Constitution We the People “We the People of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities Come Now, on and for the record, Plaintiffs) herein, saints of the Almighty God, Danie! Clayton Wood, Joseph Michael Grimm, Deborah Ann Boehm, and Brian Edward Steiner hereby file this petition for a Constitutional Challenge to Legislative Acts and Statutes for Original Writ and in support thereof, will show unto the United States and “The State of Arizona” this Court of Record as follows: Plaintiff(s) sui juris, being saints in the family of Christ and having profound reverence for Almighty God, are grateful for His goodness and blessings. Plaintiff(s) do bold All Political Power. By having this great authority, Plaintiff(s) do hereby invoke and stand on God's law/Natural law, Common law, the 50 State Constitutions and the United States Constitution. Plaintiff(s) lawfully have all the power originating and invested in them, no matter the process or joned. form i.e.: written, expressed and/or implied, etc. Plaintiff(s) invoke the laws herein mé above and do not consent or authorize the United States and/or any Arizona Superior Court, to act or perform under any Administrative Legislative, Judicial or Executive Act, statute, code, policy © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023or rule other than the mandatory provisions provided in the United States and Arizona Constitutions. This is strictly a matter of necessity for the People. It is essential for the Judicial branch to return to its original jurisdiction by resuming its distinction from all other branches, as seen in the Arizona Constitution Article 3 This United States and The State of Arizona Court of Record will find settled law in the case of [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491, which reaffirms, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”] No rulemaking or legislation shall interfere with any arguments and matters in this Original Writ, as this is a Judicial matter. Government officials have been given notices and affidavits informing them that the People’s Individual Constitutional Rights and electoral process are being trespassed, due to repugnant Legislative acts, statutes, rules, codes, policies and by way of maladministration. A list of these Legislative acts and statutes are as follows: [Federal and Arizona Administrative Act, Administrative Procedures Act, and the help America vote act of 2002 (HAVA)], and [Arizona Revised Starutes under Title 16 Chapter 4 Article 4]. These legislative acts and statutes are a trespass and require a Constitutional Question to provide remedy for harm done to the People. Defendant(s) and its agents/agencies currently are acting in “absolute breach” of the trust indenture of the United States and Arizona Constitutions. Plaintiff(s) bring this “emergency” matter of Constitutional Question, out of necessity for the People in order to make null and void the unconstitutional legislative acts and statutes, as a remedy for this trespass, The Plaintiff(s) come individually as “Trust Protectors” and are in-faet lawful inhabitants of the United States and Arizona, Plaintiff(s) demand the furtherance of justice in this United States and Arizona Constitutional Court of Record, and under Common Law. Take notice of 1 U.S. Code § 112 ~ Statutes at Large]. Defendant(s) and all other government officials are required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States and under the (US. Statute 1] that an. oath [shall be administered in the form following, to wit: “I.A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that Iwill support the Constitution of the United States.”] This oath binds all government officials to protect and maintain the individual rights of the People of the United States and the 50 States. Plaintiff(s), after in-depth research, failed to find a record or certificate that any oath has been executed to wit. © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023This Original Writ is a matter of necessity and is essential in addressing Arizona’s unconstitutional electoral process. Arizona’s electoral process has caused a state and national “emergency” due to the “absolute breach” of the United States and Arizona Constitutions. Arizona’s Legislature have been given notices and affidavits informing them that the People’s Individual Constitutional Rights, toa proper electoral process, are being trespassed and that government officials enacted, unconstitutionally, the (help America vote act of 2002 (HAV:A)] and the (Arizona Revised Starutes under Title 16 Chapter 4 Article 4]. The United States Congress enacted /H.4V/A], a publishing clearinghouse, in order to financially incentivize the States to accept funds through a federal program. Take Judicial notice, as seen in United States Congress, (Public Law 107-252, Help America Vote Act of 2002] by its own admission reads as follows: [An act to establish a program to provide fuunds to States to replace punch card voting systems, fo establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections, and for other purposes."] The State of Arizona’s legislature codified /HAVA] by enacting [Arizona Revised Statutes] which further allowed the state’s 15 counties to enter into unconstitutional contracts with corporations. These corporations own and operate the systems/machines or devices as required by [HAVA and Arizona Revised Statutes]. The same corporations, along with unconstitutional contracted agreements with Arizona’s goverment (State and Counties), remove the People’s electoral process by requiring corporation's own personnel to manage the voting systems/equipment prior to, during, and after election day. Due to corporations’ use of proprietary property and/or confidential information, per unconstitutional contractual agreement, the People of Arizona are unable to observe Arizona’s proper electoral chain of custody of the People's ballot. The State of Arizona's government and corporations use of voting systems removes the People’s ability to observe the counting of ballots, there subverting the chain of custody, We have no guarantees that votes for A, B, and C, which were entered into the voting systems, were not switched to X, Y, and Z. Unconstitutional contracts between The State of Arizona’s government (State and Counties) and corporations interfere with Arizona’s free and ‘equal elections. This has caused the People of Arizona to be disenfranchised. All Arizona © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023,elections are to be Held by The People. This subverted electoral process leaves the People to believe government officials are no longer elected by the People. Instead, they are selected by government lobbyist groups, bureaucrats, corporations, etc. As a result, there are in-fact irregularities in the Arizona electoral process and allegations of bribery. Government officials have failed to protect the People from invasion and insurrection. In a speech on April 12, 1900, in the House of Representatives, John A. McDowell said, referring to elections not held by the People, “It demoralizes the legislature, corrupts legislators, prevents necessary legislation, ccauses the people to have less regard for our political systems and public officials.” Government officials have created tyranny/trespass, which is a great harm and injustice to the individual People of this State and Nation. Furthermore, the “executive” branches, both state and federal, by way of the [“Administrative Act”] and the [“Administrative Procedures Act” ] disregard the fundamental principles of law, the United States and State(s) Constitutions, Maxims of Law, Common Law and the People of Arizona's Constitutional Due Process. Plaintiffs) have first-hand knowledge of the facts and have seen and have experienced first-hand how the [Federal and Arizona Administrative Act and the Administrative Procedures Act] allowed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branch and its child agencies to unconstitutional create, expand, and re-delegate official powers. Government officials, having received by Notice(s) andlor Affidavit(s) which point out their trespass, maladministration, and usurpation of office, are violating the Constitutions. The current unconstitutional (Federal and Arizona Administrative Act and Administrative Procedures Act] shall be terminated and shall be declared null and void. ‘The current (Federal and Arizona Administration Act including the Administrative Procedures Act] are functioning as, and allowing, maladministration, usurpation of powers, and trespass against the People, These Legislative Acts are not Constitutionally granted by the People or to any Administrative agency or sub-agency. These “Agencies” have acted outside the boundaries of the voluntary political sub-division(s). These boundaries are to be individually distinct and separate branches, as indicated in the framing set forth as agreed upon in the Arizona Constitution. The Arizona Constitution is an “expressed” contract trust indenture, accepted by ALL government agents, who have voluntarily agreed to be trustees and servants of and for the People of the United States and Arizona. These Legislative Acts usurp the Arizona © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023Constitution, giving rise to the following question at law. “By what Constitutional Authority have the People of Arizona granted this Power and assumed Authority”? Simply and inherently, NO agency or agent has any authority granted to them, nor have the People of Arizona expressed and granted such authority, to any entity other than the powers that are granted in the framing of government in the Arizona Constitution. All other assumed powers and authority outside the Arizona Constitution are in fact by law Null and Void and are a trespass, making them a crime. Jurisdiction and Venue Authorize King James Version — Daniel 7:27 “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom és an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 32 “The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.” Maxim of Law: 4e. “A delegate cannot delegate; an agent cannot delegate his functions to a subagent without the knowledge or consent of the principle; the person to whom an office or duty is delegated cannot lawfully devolve the duty on another, unless he be expressly authorized so to do.” [9 Coke, 77; Broom, Max. 840; 2 Kent, Comm, 633; 2 Steph. Comm. 119.] Charles A. Weisman, Maxims of Law, Weisman Publications, Burnsville, Minnesota, 1990. See Preface. Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. MAXIM, An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being a correct statement of the law, or as agreeable to natural reason, Coke defines a maxim to be “conclusion of reason,” and say's that is so called “quia maxima ejus dignitas et © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023certissima auctoritas, et quod maxine omnibus probetur” Co, Litt. 11a. He says in another place: “A maxime is a proposition to be of all men confessed and granted without proof, argument, or discourse.” Id. 67a, “Maxims of Law, like any other fundamental laws, always hold true and yield the same results under the same conditions.” Maxims of Lan 666. Jurisdiction is a power introduced for the public good, on account of the necessity of dispensing justice. (10 Coke, 73a] Black’s Law Dictionary, 3 Edition. Sui Juris- Lat, Of his own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship. Having capacity to manage one"s own affairs; not under legal disability to act for one’s self. (Story, Ag. §2.] 1, As a matter of necessity, Plaintifi(s), coming Sui Juris in this Unite States and The State of Arizona Court of Record, bring forth this petition for an Original Writ of a Constitutional Challenge to a Federal Act and Arizona Statutes. Jurisdiction is proper in The State of Arizona. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to United States Constitution Article 3, Article 4 Section 4, and under Article 6. This jurisdiction is Constitutionally mandated for this Arizona Court of Record as seen in Arizona Constitution Article 6 Sections 1, 3, 5(1)(6), 17, 25, 26, 30(A) and Article 2 Section 3 2. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to the United States Bill of Rights 1", 5, 7%, and 9* Amendments. 3. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Arizona's Declaration of Rights Article 2 Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 20, 21, 23, 28, 32, and 33. Arizona Constitution Article 7 Sections 1,2, 7, i, and 12, Arizona Constitution Article 28 Section 2 and 4. Arizona Constitution Article 22 Section 21 4. Common Law jurisdiction is necessary and essential for the People of United States and Arizona, this Constitutionally mandated Court of Record shall be the rule of decision in all © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023courts of this state pursuit to [4.R.S. 1-201. Adoption of common law; exceptions. and [A.R.S. 12-122. General power of the superior court]. 5. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to [4.R.S. 12-102(4). Jurisdiction and duties. ] and [A.R.S. 12- 123(B). Jurisdiction and powers} 6. Venue is proper pursuant to Arizona Constitution Article 3 and Article 6. 7. Venue is proper pursuant to [4.R.S. 12-401). Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section “A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.” Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 2 “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” 1. Plaintiff Daniel Clayton Wood, Sui Juris, is a resident of Pinal County, Arizona. 2, Plaintiff Deborah Ann Boehm, Sui Juris, isa resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. 3. Plaintiff Brian Edward Steiner, Sui Juris, is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona, 4, Plaintiff Joseph Michael Grimm, Sui Juris, isa resident of Pima County, Arizona. 5. Plaintiffs suffered injury by Trespass when The State of Arizona Legislature and its 15 counties boards of supervisors held unconstitutional elections, since 2002, by the enacting of [Arizona Revised Statutes Title 16 Chapter 4 Article 4 Sections 16-441; 16-442; 16-442.01; 16- 443; 16-444; 16-445; 16-446; 16-447; 16-448; 15-449; 16-450; 16-451; 16-452]. As a result of The State of Arizona Legislatures actions, government officials have subverted the People’s right to hold elections in The State of Arizona. These statutes have unconstitutionally permitted The © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023Siate of Arizona and the government officials of its 15 the ability to enforce these statutes and to enter into unconstitutional contracts with corporations, for the use of voting systems. The government officials overseeing the electoral process have violated multiple sections of the Arizona Constitution by permitting corporate entities to interfere with the right of suffrage, thus trespassing against the rights of the People. 6, Defendant(s), The State of Arizona (Alleged) Legislature, was formed to enact legislation, Arizona Constitution Article 4 Section 1 and Arizona Constitution Article 3. 7. Defendant(s), The State of Arizona (Alleged) Legislature, must provide the People of The State of Arizona with a Republican form of goverment. In the Arizona Constitution, the People established in Article 2 Section 3 “The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land to which all government, state, and federal, is subject.” Defendant(s) enacted (Arizona Revised Statutes under Title 16 Chapter 4 Article 4], which are repugnant to the United States and Arizona Constitutions. 8. Defendant(s), The State of Arizona (Alleged) Legislature, allowed The State of Arizona and its Counties government officials, by way of these statutes mentioned above, to enter into unconstitutional contracts with corporations. This is pursuant to The State of Arizona (Alleged) Legislature adopting the [help America vote act of 2002] by codifying the [Arizona Revised Statutes under Title 16 Chapter 4 Article 4,] See: Arizona's Constitution Article 14 Sections 4, 5, 18, and 19, Defendant(s) are required to protect and maintain the Peoples Constitutional Electoral Process from corporations and any foreign entities. III. Constitutional Challenge to Statutes and Acts Authorize King James Version ~ Deuteronomy 4:13 “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even the ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.” Maxim of Law © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023Sp. The main object of government is the protection and preservation of personal rights, private property, and public liberties, and upholding the law of God. -American Maxim Whereas in Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution mandates that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” Black's Law Dictionary, 2° Edi Republican Government- “A government in the republican form; a government of the people; a government by representatives chosen by the people.” [Vahorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 308 (1795)] “In America the case is widely different: Every State in the Union has its constitution reduced to written exactitude and precision, What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental Jaws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme Jaw of the land; it s paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature, The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, 10 © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void.” ‘Whereas in Article 7 Section 1 of Arizona Constitution mandates “All elections by the people shall be by ballot, or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, that secrecy in voting shall be preserved.” Whereas in Article 7 Section 7 of Arizona Constitution mandates “In all elections held by the people in this state, the person, or persons, receiving the highest number of legal votes shall be declared elected.” ‘Whereas in Article 2 Section 21 in The State of Arizona Constitution mandates “All elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” Take notice: that the People of Arizona established in the Arizona Constitution that our elections are to be Held by the People. The People also made it mandatory that no powers (government or corporations) shall interfere with the People’s right of suffrage, Since 2002, the rights of suffrage to the People of Arizona's have been subverted by corporations. This subversion was due to The State of Arizona and the federal government enacting the /help America vote act of 2002] and [Arizona Revised Statutes under Title 16 Chapter 4 Article 4]. ‘The People of Arizona no longer have access to free and equal elections, leaving them disenfranchised due to the lack of a Constitutional Electoral Due Process. ‘Whereas on May 17, 2023, plaintiff Daniel Clayton Wood filed a Remonstrance by Affidavit with The State of Arizona Senate President, Speaker of the House, Arizona Supreme Court, Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. This remonstrance brought forth a list of grievances to The State of Arizona Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches, These grievances addressed violations of the United States and Arizona Constitutions. Within the remonstrance is a request for government officials to provide cry © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023constitutional provisions that would give them the authority to allow government officials to enter into unconstitutional contracts with corporate powers, that allow these powers to interfere with the People’s right of suffrage. The Remonstrance by affidavit stands uncontested and stands as a matter of fact until proven otherwise. Plaintiffs) seek compensation per unconstitutional contract in the affidavit(s) and notice(s) provided and admitted as exhibits. See: United States 7* Amendment, Whereas the United States Congress enacted [Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002] and The State of Arizona Legislature adopted (HAVA) by enacting [Arizona Revised Statutes under Title 16 Chapter 4 Article 4, Sections 16-441; 16-442; 16-442.01; 16-443; 16-444; 16-445; 16-446; 16-447; 16-448; 16-449; 16-450; 16-451; 16-452]. These statutes allow The State of Arizona and its 15 counties government officials to enter into unconstitutional contracts with Corporations, LLC’s, Third Parties, etc. These unconstitutional contracts allow the corporations to use voting systems/machines in The State of Arizona Electoral Process. Maricopa County for example has unconstitutionally contracted with Dominion Voting System, Inc., ERIC. Inc., Runbeck Election Services, etc. These voting systems/machines require many operational components for them to be functional. Some of the voting systems components include EMS Hardware, Dominion Hardware and Software, Third Party Software, ImageCast Central Scanner (ICC), Linux Operating Systems, E-pollbook, XEON CPU's, AuditMark, Artificial Intelligence, Algorithms, etc, These voting systems with hardware, software, programs, and components require highly trained staff personnel to operate and maintain these systems prior to, during, and after election day. This disenfranchises the People of Arizona as it subverts the chain of custody of observing the People’s ballot. ‘Whereas shown in the example of the unconstitutional contract between Maricopa County and Dominion Voting Systems, Inc,, it states the following: “requires support for the entire pilot election process from early voting through tabulation and canvassing, These services are outlined as follows: System Support Services - Dominion is responsible for all aspects of the initial implementation of the voting system. Dominion shall provide all “Project Management” and “Implementation Activities” onsite with “experienced Customer Relations Manager and the technical resources that are familiar with the unique requirements, processes and procedures 2 Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023applicable to Maricopa County”, The Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Arizona unconstitutionally contracted with Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. therefor removed the Peoples ability to hold their own elections ‘Whereas the unconstitutional contracts between The State of Arizona and its 15 counties have clauses for Intellectual Property Infringement Indemnification which interfere with the People of Arizona proper Constitutional Electoral Process. The unconstitutional contract's use of patent, copyright, trade secret, or similar intellectual property right subverts Arizona’s elections chain of custody, by subverting the People’s ability to observe the ballot, prior to, during, and after the People’s election day. All elections in The State of Arizona are to be held by the People. Constitutional Questions are as follows: 1. Is the /help America vore act (HAVA) of 2002] Constitutional? 1.1 By what Constitutional authority did the United States Congress have to enact [HAVA] an unconstitutional federal Act? 1.2 By what Constitutional authority does the federal government have to interfere with the People of The State of Arizona Right of Suffrage? 2, Where in the Arizona Constitution is The State of Arizona Legislature permitted to enact [Arizona Revised Statutes under Title 16 Chapter 4 Article 4]? 3, Under what provisions in the Arizona Constitution did the People grant The State of ‘Arizona legislature the power to allow clected and eppointed government officials to enter into unconstitutional contracts with corporations, which interferes directly with the People’s Electoral Process? 4, What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact [4.RS. 16-441]? 2B © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 20234.1 Where in The State of Arizona was The State of Arizona Legislature given authority to allow electronic or electromechanical vote recording and balloting equipment to become effective to use in The State of Arizona's electoral process? 4.2 By what Constitutional authority did The State of Arizona Legislature grant the Executive Branch (Seoretary of State) authority over The State of Arizona and its 15 counties election processes? 5, What provisions in the Arizone Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact /A.R.S, 16-442]? 5.1 By what Constitutional authority did The State of Arizona Legislature grant the Secretary of State the power to form a committee which complies with the /help America vote act of 20027? 5.2 By what Constitutional authority did The State of Arizona Legislature permit the governing bodies of the Arizona counties, cities, or towns to provide the experimental use of electronic voting systems/machines? 6. What provisions in Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact [4.R.S. 16-442.01? 6.1 By what Constitutional authority did The State of Arizona Legislature enact the stavute pursuant to [4.R.S. 16-442]? 7. What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact /A.RS. 16-4437? 7.1 By what Constitutional authority did The State of Arizona Legislature permit all Arizona state, county, city or town elections, agricultural improvement districts elections and primary elections, ballots or votes may be cast, recorded, and counted by voting or marking devices and vote tabulating devices? 8. What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact [A.RS. 16-4447? 14 © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 20239, What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact [A.R.S, 16-445]? 10, What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact [A.R.S. 16-446]? 10.1 By what Constitutional authority did The State of Arizona Legislature permit electronic voting systems consisting of a voting or marking device in combination with vote tabulating equipment, to provide to facilities for voting for candidates at both primary and general elections? 11, What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact (A.RS. 16-447)? 11.1 By what Constitutional authority did The State of Arizona Legislature instruct the boards of supervisors of The State of Arizona and its 15 Counties, to provide at cach polling place, a device that complies with /help America vote act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 252) 12. What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact [4.RS. 16-4487? 13, What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact [4.RS. 16-449]? 14, What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact /4.RS. 16-450)? 14.1 By what Constitutional authority did The State of Arizona Legislature permit the boards of supervisors of The State of Arizona 15 counties, or the governing board of other subdivisions, the power to use Arizona taxpayer's funds in order to own or lease devices to tabulate ballots cast in any election? 15 © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 202315, What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact /A.R.S. 16-451)? 15.1 By what Constitutional authority did The State of Arizona Legislature permit the boards of supervisors in The State of Arizona 15 counties, to enter into lease agreements or lease purchase agreements for the use of vote tabulating equipment? 16, What provisions in the Arizona Constitution granted The State of Arizona Legislature the authority to enact (A.R.S, 16-452)? 17. When the People’s private ballots are entered into voting systems/machines prior to, during, and after election day, is it constitutional for the people to be unable to observe the counting of ballots within the voting systems? IV. Remedy Authorized King James Version- Revelation 12: 10-11 “And [heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night, And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” ‘Maxims of Law: 64ff. A court can only declare what the law is, and whether consistent with the law of God, and the fundamental or constitutional law of society. [The State v. Post, 20 N.J.L. 368, 370 (1845)] 94f. Remedy signifies the judicial means for enforcing a right or redressing a wrong. [Walters v. City of Ottawa, 88.N. E, 651, 654, 240 II. 259.] 94x, Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. (Schechter v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 528] 16 © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023[Vanhorne’s Lessee v, Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.] “If any act of the legislature is repugnant to the Constitution, its, ipso facto, void; and itis the duty of the court so to declare it.” [lbid. Flecther v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87; 2 Cond. Rep. 308.] “The Constitution fixes the limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit in which it must move. Whatever say be the case in other countries, yet here there can be no doubt that any act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is absolutely void.” Summary for Remedy Government and the People by Joseph Ragland Long, 1922. p. 33 “In the words of Washington, the courts are "the keystone of our political fabric," of, as Woodrow Wilson expressed it: "Our judiciary is the balance wheel of our entire system.” ‘The federal Constitution provides that "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Jaw and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.” This seems to confer upon the federal courts express authority to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress, for certainly the question whether a federal statute conflicts with the federal Constitution, is a question arising under the Constitution if any question can be such. At any rate, it was well understood in the constitutional convention of 1787 that the courts would have this power. This was the view of practically all contemporary statesmen of importance. Thus, Alexander Hamilton said: "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution, ... Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice in no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts " James Madison saic contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution voi "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves would be considered by the judges as null and " Oliver Ellsworth, afterward Chief Justice, declared that: "If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is voids and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void." These three men were members of the constitutional convention which v7 Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023framed the Constitution. John Marshall, in 1788, before the Virginia ratifying convention, said: “Lf they [the United States] were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. They would not consider such a law as coming under their jurisdiction, They would declare it void." ‘The great public service of determining the constitutionality of statutes is rendered by the courts in a purely incidental way in the performance of their judicial duty of settling controversies between individuals, A case is presented in which some right is claimed under a statute; the existence of the right depends upon whether or not the statute is valid. The court tests the statute in the constitution, which is the supreme law, and if the statute is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the court pronounces the statute void, and declines to enforce it.” Whereas a matter of necessity, Plaintifi(s) do lawfully demand judicial process and notice be taken in all subjects and matters in this Original Writ by using the essential fundamental laws and principles seen in the historical text, history and tradition of the United States and this Arizona Republic Whereas a matter of necessity, it is the duty of this Unites States and Arizona Constitutional Court of Record to declare the (help America vote act of 2002 (HAVA)] null and void. ‘Whereas a matter of necessity, it is the duty of this United States and Arizona Constitutional Court of Record to declare all [Arizona Revise Statutes under Title 16 Chapter 4 Article 4] null and void. ‘Whereas such other relief to which the Plaintifiis may show themselves to be entitled. It does not require a sergeant at law to see that these civil cases are ripe with miscarriage of justice, misprision of felony, trespass leading to treason, It is our duty to the Father, God Almighty most high, that we bring it to your conscience, the guardians of His will. Plaintiff(s) herein accept and acknowledge the “dominium plenum” granted to each of them by the Father 18 © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023Almighty God, furthermore criminal complaints shall be submitted against officers, agents or any persons who have and continue committing trespass, maladministration, fraud, and the absolute breach of contract by knowingly enacting and carrying out unconstitutional acts against the People, herein being the Plaintifits) Plaintiffs) accept the oaths of all trustees, servants, officers, agents and persons alike and bind them to it, reminding them they have a sworn or affirmed duty and obligation to Plaintiff(s) as the People of Arizona, making you liable for the actions of your subordinates. Your acceptance has bound your soul to eternal damnation if you should ever break Gods law and is now witness to your acts and deeds. This matter is to be extinguished and settled in the common law with “no respect of persons.” The People have spoken, now it is done, through His chosen saints, in the peace, love, and name of Christ, AMEN! Dated: the 18" day of August, in the year of our Lord, 2023. This my solemn asseveration with God the Father as our witness. By a living soul in the form ofa man, one of the people created by God, the trinity of heart- mind-soul with my court of conscience, this instrument was prepared as my freewill act and deed, Executed below under my hand and seal (seal) TOV ANN HOLSINGER Dy Notary Baal, stale af Aizona Autograph Ba Lifercd Steve) Witness: Autograph Commission # 576398 Notary as Jurat Certificate J 19 © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023State__ Aci zo. County Subscribed and swom to (or affirmed) before me _Joy Ana Holsineer Onthis__1@_ day of just 2023 eine me, soe Cente = A Notary Public personally appeared BOG NSLS Seek! who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the man whose name is subscribed to the within instruments and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his autograph(s) on the instrument the man executed the instrument. I certify under Penalty of Perjury under the lawful laws of Arizona and that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal. ~ \ sions °! a | yeaa RE oe My Commission 8x0.re8 Gerober 28, 2023, ry / Jurat Seal AUG 1 8 2023 JEFF FINE, CLERK 4. arte 20 © Common Law, All Rights Reserved 2023