DALEY CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
_______________________________________________________________________
_
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Case Number:
Plaintiff in error,
Amended
v. NOTICE TO COURT
John Que: Doe
Defendant in error,
TO: COURT CLERK, JUDGE PRESIDING AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
Comes now, the conscious one that was called Terry Van, of the Williams family (herein,
one, me, my, affiant, he, his, conscious one), a man, respondent, in propia persona, sui
juris, a peaceful American Citizen of the republic of Illinois, non-licensed attorney
litigant, pro hac vice, the undersigned, and now in restrictive appearance gives lawful, in
good faith, Notice to the court;
NOTICE the court is now a Judicial, not an administrative, in Admiralty proceeding,
pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 9(h) and in harmony with Fischer v. Carey, 1 Benedict on
Admiralty (6th edition) 38, section 23;
“The right to proceed in rem is the distinctive remedy of the admiralty and hence
administered exclusively by the United States Courts in admiralty: no state can
confer jurisdiction upon its courts to proceed in rem, nor could congress give
such power to a State, since it would be contrary to the constitutional grant of
such power to the Federal Government. The saving clause of the Judiciary Act
and the Judicial Code does not contemplate admiralty in a common law court.”
And,
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149, 64L.Ed. 834, 40 S. Ct. 438, 11A.L.R.
1145.
The fundamental purpose of Article III, section 2, of the Federal Constitution was
to “…preserve adequate harmony and appropriate uniform rules relating to
maritime matters and bring them within the control of the Federal Government.”
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, pp. 160-161, quoting from The Lottawanna, 88 U.S.
558, 22 L. Ed. 654
“That we have a maritime law of our own, operative throughout the United States
cannot be doubted… One thing, however, is unquestionable; the Constitution
must have referred to a system of law coextensive with, and operating uniformly
in, the whole country. It certainly could not have been the intention to place the
rules and limits of maritime law under the disposal and regulation of the several
States, as that would have defeated the uniformity and the consistency at which
the Constitution aimed on all subjects of a commercial character affecting the
intercourse of the States with each other or with foreign states.”
Scudero v. Todd Shipyard Corp., 63 Wn.2nd 46 at 48 [No 36319. En Banc. October 10,
1963]
“The District Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction, exclusive of the
Courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction,
saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are entitled.”
Knapp, Stout and Company v. McCaffery, 178 Ill. 107, 69 Am. StRep. 290 at page 299
“The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to administer relief by
proceeding in rem in Admiralty is unquestionably exclusive. Such proceeding,
however, is against the property only. The distinguishing and characteristic
feature of such suit is, that the vessel or thing proceeded against itself seized and
impleaded as the defendant, and is judged and sentenced accordingly. It is this
dominion of a suit in Admiralty over the vessel or thing itself which gives the title
made under its decree validity against all the world.”
NOTICE that John Que: Doe appears as a man, a peaceful American Citizen of the
republic of Illinois, one of the people who claims and retains full constitutionally secured
rights, power, privileges and prerogatives and enjoys the benefits thereof, and all rights
reserved at all times; and be
FURTHER NOTICED that TERRY VAN WILLIAMS account has been closed; and be
FURTHER NOTICED that John Que: Doe (in harmony with Maritime Claims Rules
E(8)) reserves common law right not to be bound by or compelled to perform under any
contract, indenture, commercial agreement or bankruptcy the He did not enter into
knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally; Conscious one does not accept the liability of
the “compelled benefit” of any unrevealed contract, commercial agreement or
bankruptcy. Conscious one does waive the benefit privilege
NOTICE, FAIR WARNING, NOT AS A THREAT, NOTICE, pursuant to United
States v. Lanier, on certiorari No. 98-1717, is hereby given each member of the plaintiff
party.
Respectfully submitted,
All rights reserved
______________________________________________________
John Que: Doe
Chicago, Cook County, Illinois uSA
