With Malice Aforethought?

With Malice Aforethought?


Notice to Clerk of Court: Return a copy of this document showing it has been Time stamped, dated, with filing number recorded into the Court Records. (18 USC § 3)



EDMOND R. JESSE and KATHLEEN M. JESSE, Husband and Wife; RITA COLLINS; and RANDY DUE (Defendants)

Acting in the proper person













CI 12-235



Points of Law

The United States Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land)


42 USC § 1986

18 USC §§ 2, 3, 4, 241 & 242

Randall David Due, aka Randy Due, acting in my proper person, having been granted Power of Attorney by Edmond R. Jesse, Kathleen M. Jesse and Rita Collins, hereby make Special appearance by Fax under Protest to the Court for all Defendants to this hearing scheduled for May 28, 2013.

This matter before the court is a Commercial issue not a state civil action, which has its origins in Case CI 11-58, which is not yet Commercially resolved.

Karen Curtiss fails to state that her attorney is her Husband. Her husband is the one speaking, not her, so, in fact, Terry Curtiss is the moving party in this court case. Terry Curtiss is moving for a Default Judgment against the Defendants.

The Plaintiff, Karen Curtiss, is not merely a wife to Terry Curtiss. She is also acting as an alter-ego of her husband and his interests. The following writing will make this clearer.

A Default Judgment has no force in this situation because there are so many not-answered Affidavits and questions in this case and its originating parent case CI 11-58, which is fundamentally a Commercial case, which has been declared in the Defendants’ former writings. A Lawful Judgment on the pleadings at this time is not possible under the laws of Commerce.

>1. Terry Curtiss claims in his March 27, 2013 brief, “No additional pleadings have been filed since the hearing of February 21, 2013.”

Response: Terry Curtiss’s statement in his March 27, 2013 brief is materially false. A 3rd Party commercial counter-claim as an Affidavit Challenge to Procedure was filed in this case on May 21, 2013. This Commercial Counter-claim cannot be summarily dismissed under Nebraska law without violating Article I section 10 clause 1 of the United States Constitution: “No state shall …pass any…law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, …”.

CI 12-235 is not the originating document in this case. The current process under CI 12-235 is an extension of the originating material of case CI 11-58 and others.

>2. Terry Custiss claims that, “ the court overruled all aspects of jurisdictional and failure to state a cause of action claims by Defendants.”

Response: The Jurisdiction is Commercial. The definition of Cause of Action began in CI 11-58.

Because CI 12-235 has its origins in CI 11-58 and all of the Jurisdictional and Cause of Action claims in CI 11-58 have not yet been dealt with Lawfully, it follows that case CI 12-235 exists in a state of suspension or pending action in CI 11-58. Terry Curtiss’ apparent purpose for creating CI 12-235 was for the Evasion of the subject matter of CI 11-58, which is apparent by reading all of the documents of the time period of CI 11-58, prior to the creation of case CI 12-235.

>3 A: Terry Curtiss claims that the Liens and Levies are without merit.

Response: A Lien Broker makes the decision as to whether or not Commercial Liens and Levies are without merit. No State or Government Officials determine this, it is determined by the Laws of Commerce.

>3 B: Terry Curtiss claims, “there is no lien as claimed by Defendants under the United States Constitution…”

Response: Article I section 10 clause 1 of the United States Constitution declares that no state shall pass any laws impairing the Obligation of Contracts. Commercial Liens are the Fundamental statement of Obligation of Contracts and the Internationally recognized method of collecting Debts. A Commercial Lien and Levy correspond to the Military Letter of Marque and Reprisal. (“To March and Seize”)

>3 C: Terry Curtiss claims, “…no unilateral filing of any lien, levy or claim is allowed as claimed by Defendants.”

Response: Under Commercial Law, Liens, Levies and Claims can be filed by any individual, without the consent of any other individuals or government officials or the court. Also, the Internal Revenue Service, a private corporation, not a department of “United States Treasury” purports to file non-judicial Liens, Levies, and Claims every day of the year.

>3 D: Terry Curtiss claims, “The filing of non-consensual liens is governed by the provisions of chapter 52 of the Nebraska revised statutes.”

Response: The Defendants have not filed “non-consensual liens”. The liens filed by the Defendants were Commercial Consensual Liens, filed in behalf of and in favor of the Public, based upon the Oath and Compensation of Public Officials and officers of the court, including Terry Curtiss (Nebraska Court officer, bar card # 16541), which means that they have consented to being punishable by Commercial Liens and Levies for violation of their Oaths and Compensation.

>4. Constitutional Criminal Complaints filed pursuant to 18 USC § 4, having a Commercial Cash Value under 18 USC §§ 241 & 242, cannot be said to be without merit. The filing of Constitutional Criminal Complaints under 18 USC §§ 4, 241 & 242 cannot be summarily dismissed by any United States District Court or any State Court without a formal hearing before a Fully Informed Jury, with all parties present, (see –Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America).

It has been clearly stated that Case CI 12-235 is merely an alter ego extension of CI 11-58 for which filing fees were paid.

This whole matter rests upon the International Commercial Law and the International Commercial Treaty known as The Constitution for the United States of America, instead of resting upon Federal and State statute and code laws, which are not pursuant to the Constitution for the United States of America. All valid Commercial Liens are Broker-able on the International Money Market, when the supporting Commercial documents are sufficient to establish the validity of the Liens.

>5. A court cannot prohibit the service of Commercial Liens, (see–Article 1, section 10, clause 1, of the United States Constitution – “No state shall …pass any…law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, …”).

Terry Curtiss: It is clear from your behavior that you will probably continue to do whatever you think you can get away with, and the Judges seem to be willing to go along with your actions regardless of what I say in my responses to you. It appears that the only proof you will accept, that Commercial Law is superior to Federal and State statute and code laws, which are not pursuant to the Constitution for the United States of America, is the Brokering of Lien Processes against you and the courts.

Wherefore, Defendants demand a Trial by Jury of our peers for the original Case CI 11-58 and subordinate case CI 12-235 as is our 7th Amendment right pursuant to the Constitution for the United States of America. Anything less shall be construed as a violation of our rights of “Due Process of Law”.

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Randall David Due aka Randy Due, Public Minister; Ex. Military (Civil Rights Advocate) acting as a Non-union Lawyer (not a member of the bar association) pursuant to 42 USC § 1986 (acting with Reasonable Diligence) & 18 USC § 4 (Mandate to act), 18 USC §§ 241 & 242 (Protection of the Nation, its Constitution and Civil Rights)

Public Minister pursuant to and protected by Public Law 94-583, Oct. 21, 1976 Stat. 2891 [Codified in Title 28 U.S.C § 1602 et esq.]; and Public Law 1790, 1 Stat. At L. 117, Ch 9 [Codified in 22 U.S.C. § 252]; Public Law 1948, Ch 645, 62 Stat. 688 [Codified in Title 18 U.S.C § 112] and Public Law 1871, Ch 22, § 6, 17 Stat. 15; [Codified in 42 U.S.C. § 1986]

179 Green St. E.

Pelham, Georgia 31779

Phone: (229) 294-6112;

FAX: (229) 294-4594                            duze24@bellsouth.net


The undersigned hereby certifies that a true, correct, and complete copy of the foregoing was delivered to: Terry Curtiss, by Fax to 308-762-1712, on May 28, 2013.

And to the Box Butte County District Court Clerk by Fax to (308)762-5700


Randy Due

About arnierosner

As an American I advocate a republic form of government, self-reliance, and adherence to the basic philosophy of the founding fathers and the founding documents, I ONLY respect those who respect and "HONOR" their honor. No exceptions!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to With Malice Aforethought?

  1. Pingback: Randy Due Case | Scanned Retina Blog

  2. Pingback: Randy Due Case – Updated 8-31-2013 | Scanned Retina Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s