A Terroristic Divorce

1. Plaintiffs’ have been presented with discrepancies in the Docket for this matter and have been denied and prevented from addressing any necessary corrections or modifications.

2. A copy of the docket which was provided on October 18, 2013 by the Clerk of Courts is attached as Exhibit A.

3. Docket entries have been made in paragraph form containing multiple documents, as such the content of the docket entries are misleading.

4. There are fifty eight named parties to this matter, in the interest of clarity for all parties ivolved, an accurate representation of documents filed and docketed by the Clerk of COurts is essential.

5. A copy of the Plaintiffs’ issues and proposed corre3ctions is attached as Exhibit B.

As such, Plaintiffs resptctfully request the Court to order the Clerk of Courts to address the misleading entries to accurately and properly reflect the matter to the satisfaction of the parties.

Respectfully,

MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS MATTER (PDF Version)

1. A Complaint Constitutional Challenge was filed on August 8, 20913 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

2. Deputy Clerk Patricia A. Jones issued a Summons which was delivered to the Plaintiffs for service to the Attorneys General.

3. All Attorneys General were served the initial pleading, summons, and notice on August 13, 2013.

4. A Certificate os Service was filed on September 6, 2013 with copis of signature cards indicating receipt of documents by each of the Attorneys General.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

5. A Response has not been received or filed with the clerk of courts from the above-named Attorney General.

6. There is no record of a praecipe filed with the Clerk of Courts regarding appearance of counsel for the above-named Attorney General.

7. There is no record of representation entered into the Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”), or request to be excused from using the ECF for the above-named Attorney General.

8. The record indicates no representation for the Attorney General to receive documents filed with and issued by the Court which utilizes ECF as a device for service to parties.

9. The records contain no indication that the above-named Attorney General has been informed or has any awareness of pleadings, responses, motions and rulings in this ongoing matter.

INDICATION OF INTENT TO DEFAULT

10. Plaintiffs respectfully request clarification if it is the intention of the Attorney General to not respond and to accept the default ruling in this matter.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to Order the above-named Attorney General; to provoide an indication of their intention, an appearance by their representative counsel, an indication of awareness of this ongoing matter by motion or a response to the initial pleading filed on August 8, 2013.

Respectfully,

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ALABAMA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ALASKA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (AMERICAN SAMOA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ARIZONA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ARKANSAS)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (CALIFORNIA)
MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (COLORADO)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (CONNECTICUT)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (DELAWARE)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (FLORIDA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (GEORGIA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (GUAM)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (HAWAII)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (IDAHO)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ILLINOIS)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (INDIANA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (IOWA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (KANSAS)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (KENTUCKY)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (LOUISIANA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MAINE)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MARYLAND)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MASSACHUSETTS)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MICHIGAN)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MINNESOTA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MISSISSIPPI)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MISSOURI)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MONTANA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEBRASKA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEVADA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW HAMPSHIRE)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW JERSEY)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW MEXICO)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW YORK)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NORTH CAROLINA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NORTH DAKOTA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (OHIO)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (OKLAHOMA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (OREGON)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (PUERTO RICO)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (RHODE ISLAND)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (SOUTH CAROLINA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (SOUTH DAKOTA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (TENNESSEE)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (TEXAS)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (UTAH)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (VERMONT)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (VIRGIN ISLANDS)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (VIRGINIA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WASHINGTON)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WEST VIRGINIA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WISCONSIN)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WYOMING)

• Not Lawfully Enacted
• Violates Separation of Powers
• Prevents prosecution of judicial misconduct and corruption
• Results in a complete denial of Constitutionally protected rights and liberties

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln

The Challenge presents circumstances where the States have demonstrated their inability to take action to prosecute judicial corruption and misconduct.

Filed on their own behalf, and also for others – as a large portion of the citizenry of the United States have been placed at risk while the Attorneys General have ‘lawfully’ failed to take action to address or restore the lost rights and civil liberties of the People.

How was the Judiciary permitted to usurp the power of the Legislatures, and the Governors, enacting a law mandating judicial corruption and misconduct be ignored and excused while obstructing justice and denying Constitutionally protected liberties.

Rule 1.6 is authored, updated, edited, promoted, maintained, managed, directed and scripted by The American Bar Association.

How did the American Bar Association come to be responsible for this unconstitutional and improperly enacted law in EVERY state? The people demand an explanation.