Affirmative Defenses

Something(s) to know when you're dealing with a court case are what Affirmative Defenses are available to you. For those of you who don't know what an 'affirmative defense' is:

a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. - Wikipedia

Here's a few that I came across doing a bit of research for a case that I'm currently assisting someone else with. Hope this is of some benefit to you in your journey.

List of Affirmative Defenses (Partial):

• - failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (almost always use)
• - statutory defenses prerequisites (these will vary depending on the claims)
• - preemption by federal or other law
• - accord and satisfaction
• - arbitration and award
• - assumption of risk
• - economic loss rule
• - contributory or comparative negligence
• - intervening cause
• - supervening cause
• - claimants own conduct, or by the conduct of its agents, representatives, and consultants
• - discharge in bankruptcy
• - duress
• - estoppel
• - recoupment
• - cardinal change
• - set off
• - failure of consideration
• - fraud (generally, as an equitable defense, as opposed to fraud in the inducement, below)
• - fraud in the inducement
• - illegality
• - injury by fellow servant
• - borrowed servant
• - laches
• - license
• - payment
• - release
• - res judicata
• - statute of frauds
• - statute of limitations
• - waiver
• - unclean hands
• - no adequate remedy at law
• - failure to mitigate damages (or, in some circumstances, successful mitigation of damages)
• - rejection of goods
• - revocation of acceptance of goods
• - conditions precedent
• - discharge
• - failing to plead fraud with particularity
• - no reliance
• - attorneys’ fees award not permissible
• - punitive damages not permissible
• - lack of standing
• - sole negligence of co-defendant
• - offset
• - collateral source rule (common law) or as codified in statute (see, e.g., C.R.S. Section 13-21-111.6)
• - improper service
• - failure to serve
• - indemnity
• - lack of consent
• - mistake
• - undue influence
• - unconscionability
• - adhesion
• - contrary to public policy
• - restraint of trade
• - novation
• - ratification
• - alteration of product
• - misuse of product
• - charitable immunity
• - misnomer of parties
• - failure to exhaust administrative remedies
• - frustration of purpose
• - impossibility
• - preemption
• - prior pending action
• - improper venue
• - failure to join an indispensable party
• - no private right of action
• - justification
• - necessity
• - execution of public duty
• - breach by plaintiff
• - failure of condition precedent
• - anticipatory repudiation
• - improper notice of breach
• - breach of express warranty
• - breach of implied warranty
• - parol evidence rule
• - unjust enrichment
• - prevention of performance
• - lack of privity
• - merger doctrine
• - learned intermediary or sophisticated user doctrine
• - adequate warning
• - no evidence that modified warning would have been followed or would have prevented injury
• - manufacturing/labeling/marketing in conformity with the state of the art at the time
• - release
• - res judicata
• - assumption of the risk
• - product was unavoidably unsafe
• - product provides net benefits for a class of patients
• - spoliation
• - damages were the result of unrelated, pre-existing, or subsequent conditions unrelated to defendant's conduct
• - lack of causal relationship
• - act of god (or peril of the sea in admiralty cases)
• - force majeure
• - usury
• - failure to act in a commercially reasonable manner
• - acquiescence
• - doctrine of primary or exclusive jurisdiction
• - exemption
• - failure to preserve confidentiality (in a privacy action)
• - filed rate doctrine
• - good faith
• - prior pending action
• - sovereign immunity
• - truth (in defamation actions)
• - suicide (in accident or some benefits actions)
• - adverse possession (in trespass action)
• - mutual acquiescence in boundary (in trespass action)
• - statutory immunity (under applicable state or federal law)
• - unconstitutional (relating to statute allegedly violated)
• - insanity (normally in criminal context, but may have some application in civil suits linked to criminal acts)
• - self-defense (in assault, battery, trespass actions)
• - permission/invitation (in assault, battery, trespass actions)
• - agency
• - Section 2-607 UCC acceptance of goods, notification of defect in time or quality within reasonable time
• - at-will employment
• - breach of contract
• - hindrance of contract
• - cancellation of contract/resignation
• - circuitry of action
• - discharge (other than bankruptcy)
• - election of parties
• - election of remedies
• - joint venture
• - lack of authority
• - mutual mistake
• - no government action
• - privilege
• - reasonable accommodation
• - retraction
• - safety of employee (ADA)
• - statutory compliance
• - no damages (where required element of pleading)
• - termination of employement
• - undue burden (ADA)
• - wrong party
• - implied repeal of statute (see In re: Stock Exchanges Options Trading Antitrust Litigation, 317 F.3d 134 (2d. Cir. 2003) (hat tip Bill Shea)
• - failure to take advantage of effective system to report/stop harassment (in Title VII actions, called the Faragher-Ellerth defense) (see Jones v. D.C. Dept. of Corrections, 429 F.3d 276 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (hat tip Bill Shea)
• - fair use (copyright).  See, e.g., Campbel, aka Skywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590 (1994).  (hat tip Bill Shea)
• - Noerr-Pennington defense (antitrust) (a Sherman Act defendant can raise the affirmative defense of right to petition for redress, even if they use that right to try to gain an anti-competitive advantage).  See Noerr-Pennington Doctrine (2009), ABA Section of Antitrust Law, at p.107.  (hat tip Bill Shea)
• - Same decision defense (employer would still have fired employee for lawful reasons even if the actual firing was for a mix of lawful and unlawful reasons) (Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977)) (hat tip Bill Shea)
• - ignorance of the law.  Ignorance of the law is rarely a defense to liability, but if proven, ignorance that racial discrimination violates federal law may be a defense to punitive damages in Title VII cases.  See, e.g. Alexander v. Riga, 208 F.3d 419, 432 (3d Cir. 2000) (hat tip Bill Shea)
• - business judgment rule (hat tip Iain Johnston)
• - claim of right (defense to element of intent required to prove theft)

Source: Affirmative Defenses (Litigation Checklist) by Jeff Vail (Attorney)

This Is How It's Done!

WARNING: This is not recommended for the faint of heart. 

Oops... I did it again! #DoneDeal #HadTo

And just in case you didn't get it that last time, I said...

"What did you do, already?" 

I guess I can tell you what I did again...

Better yet I'll just show you.

Well, here it is...

All that means is...CASE DISMISSED!

You can have all of your tickets and criminal charges dismissed or disposed, too. Just click THIS LINK HERE for more information on ordering my exclusive specialized private case consulting services and you'll be well on your way to WORRY-FREE LIVING! 

My services are backed by a 100% Money-Back Guarantee.

Don't wait any longer to get that monkey off your back. 

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT...To Use What They Say Against Them

DOWNLOAD THIS--> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorder <--DOWNLOAD THIS

I just downloaded Call Recorder from the Google Play Store today. So far, this application has recorder 6 of my phone calls automatically, I. E. without any manual operation. You just set it and forget it. The next time you receive a phone call or make an outgoing call your call will instantly be recorded by this application and stored on your internal memory on your phone. You can share the recordings with others via MMS or email or any other available options that they offer within this application. There are many possibilities for application and use of this technology. I'm sure you can think of some. So the next time you receive a phone call from a bill collector, a stalker, or someone you know is more likely than not going to tell you a lie during the course of your conversation with them , you can rest assured that everything that was said was indeed recorded in and on the record. And feel free to use anything that they say against them. I hope you enjoy this application as much as I do. Please leave your comments in the comment section below.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - SPECIAL DELIVERY

Please forgive me for having taken so long to get this to you, but I've been a bit busy enjoying life and celebrating a recent victory (one of many to come). I wanted to have this post done on Thursday but like I said I was busy.

Now, some of you may know that I've been dealing with a few legal matters that I'd rather have not had to deal with but, then again, no one else would have done it for me, so I had to get it done.

On Tuesday, the 7th of January, I received from Patricia Marshall, Court Coordinator of Ellis County's COURT AT LAW NO 2, two documents which I shall describe as notices implying a request for the appearance of the ens legis HARVEY LEE LANE SEARCY at an arraignment and initial court hearing that had been set for January 22nd of 2014 at 9 a.m. in the COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 2 of Ellis County, 109 South Jackson, Waxahachie, Texas. So, on January 22nd of 2014, as per their implied request, I gave them what they asked for, which was the ens legis HARVEY LEE LANE SEARCY.

Some of you may be wondering, "What is this ens legis he keeps mentioning?" Well...the answer is quite simple. Ens legis is Latin for legal fiction (I.e. entity of law), or more clearly translated as creature of law.  That is just about anything (or any creature) you can create with an ink pen or pencil.

I digress...

Now, I know that I'm real because God made me that way, that is in His likeness and His image. When God made me, he blessed me with a birthright which is equated with one of His own rights, made apparent in His guide book as the right to not be ruled by (or suffer at the hands of) His creations. This is one of those unalienable rights to which is referred in the United States Constitution. This means that my creations cannot rule me (or cause me to suffer), nor can those of my siblings/peers.

I wouldn't allow any kid to tell me what to do, because that kid should know to stay in his/her place. If the kids told the parents what to do, the whole world would be turned inside-out and upside-down. God wouldn't allow that, and neither shall I.

Real recognize real and I don't recognize YOU (the fiction).

I looked up the word "recognize" in the Black's Law Dictionary a few days ago, and it tells me that the word recognize means to"contract with the Crown." I figure that if I'm going to contract with the Crown of any person, it will be the "Crown" of a flesh-n-blood (or natural) person. That is one whom is alive, one whom breathes, walks, talks, produces, and etc.

To be ruled by someone is to be required to request their permission to act as you would like to. Because I know that I cannot be ruled by my creations or the creations of my siblings/peers, I know that I shall not allow a fiction to run, or rule, my life, nor cause me to suffer for any reason whatsoever. So, why in the hell would I asked a fictional being for permission to do anything at all?

Back to the subject at hand...

In writing, Patricia Marshall, the Court Coordinator of Ellis County Court at Law No 2, implied to request the ens legis HARVEY LEE LANE SEARCY's appearance in a COURT AT LAW (not the same as a Court of Law). Now, one should comprehend that there is indeed a big difference between what is legal and what is lawful. When a court (or its agent(s)/officer(s)) operates "at law" it is indeed operating "outside of the law."

You may, or may not, have heard the term "it's a thin line between love and hate." Well, I'd like to say that if you could easily grasp that concept then you should not have any trouble grasping the concept of there being a difference between what is legal and what is lawful.

Now, just as in the case of love and hate, there is a thin line between legal and lawful. One should also come to comprehend that this thin line to which I refer is nothing to play with. If you've ever heard the term "if you step on a crack you break your mama's back" then you should know that this is exactly that "crack". That crack can kill...and it does not discriminate. So, don't think that life is a game because it is not. And you should know that these fictions, when I say fictions I mean those acting in official or any corporate capacity, can only interact with you (the flesh-n-blood man/woman) by proxy (i.e. through a real conduit, or a flesh-and-blood man and/or woman). It is only from the actions of flesh-and-blood man and woman that a fiction can realize anything, and any/all corporations are indeed fictions. This includes any and all government agencies who only get their rights/privileges to act from the consent of the governed. This means that a government agency or its agents cannot do to you what you do not consent to, nor can they do for you what you do not consent to, meaning if you do not agree then they cannot proceed.

In respects to making an agreement, the agreement is supposed to be beneficial for all real parties involved, or it is not an agreement at all. All real parties are secured. I mean to say that all real parties are secured parties. So, I, the real-party-in-interest, that is secured party, acting as agent for the fiction (though not necessarily in the capacity of a fiction), drafted a NOTICE OF APPEARANCE on behalf of the fiction (which therein and therewith the COURT's purported request/order was indeed fulfilled) and delivered it to the fictions that purportedly requested the appearance of the ens legis HARVEY LEE LANE SEARCY.

The following are digital scanned copies of the Delivery Receipts verifying delivery of the separate NOTICES OF APPEARANCE was indeed made unto Patricia Marshall, Court Coordinator.

Delivery Receipt for Delivery Item No# HLLS012201 signed for and received by Patricia Marshall, Court Coordinator

Delivery Receipt for Delivery Item No# HLLS012202 signed for and received by Patricia Marshall, Court Coordinator

Below are copies of the drafts that I delivered to JUDGE A. GENE CALVERT JR and COURT COORDINATOR PATRICIA MARSHALL.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE to PATRICIA MARSHALL, COURT COORDINATOR

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE to A. GENE CALVERT JR., JUDGE

I used a template from another NOTICE OF APPEARANCE that I had created for another related matter in the RED OAK MUNICIPAL COURT and modified it a bit to apply the same technology to the CAUSES in the ELLIS COUNTY COURT.

To this date, I have yet to hear anything (or receive any words stated in re) from either of the COURTS or their agents in regards to my administrative procedures. No news has been received from the bonding companies about any warrants being issued for Failure to Appear. So, in these cases, I believe it is safe to say that "no news is indeed good news."

That's about all that I have to say on this matter right now. I shall leave you with video evidence of my special delivery made to the COURT'S AGENTS and received by COURT COORDINATOR PATRICIA MARSHALL. Enjoy...

The Oddest Thing: Manifestation of Thoughts

Just last night, I was wondering if the pending ELLIS COUNTY CASES were going to be dismissed. Today, when I think I'm going to DALLAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE to sign another Court Date reset statement, my lawyer, after showing up finally at about noon, tells me that the D.A. is in there waiting for him and he needs to go and talk with her. He's gone about six minutes, then he returns.
He comes back to tell me that the DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE is dismissing the cases.

Why? I don't know for certain. I'm just glad it's finally over.

REWIND:

JANUARY 9TH, 2014

My attorney shows up, late as hell. I've been waiting for him to show for almost three hours. He finally approaches from the lobby area, dressed casual (which was unusual). He's got this smug/I'm-so-cool-because-I'm-a-lawyer look on his face. He tells me that he'll be back shortly with the court date reset papers to sign. 

He's gone a few minutes, then he comes back.
I sign the document. He leaves. He returns again with my copy.

I ask him, "How exactly could I benefit from appointing a fiduciary in these matters?"
Instantly he scoffs and sighs loudly with apparent disgust. Simultaneously his phone rings. 

He takes the call with hopes of relief yet without hesitation and sits on the first bench he sees for a moment to recuperate from this horrendous blow.

I tell him as I walk away, "It's okay, I'll just call you later."

My daughter and I leave. I never got around to calling him about it. I figured I'd just let him linger with the thought of him possibly having to do something that he really doesn't want to do (I.e. jail time for his client).

BACK TO THE PRESENT:

You can Google" APPOINTMENT OF FIDUCIARY pdf" and find a few different documents that may illustrate what a good appointment can possibly do for you in your situation. 

I've only just recently come to the realization that an APPOINTMENT OF FIDUCIARY comes in very handy when you want to get something done that you may not want to do yourself, and as a result of what's been called a benefit-of-office, all BAR CARD HOLDERS are eligible for this appointment and in almost all cases they shall be required to fulfill the duties associated with the appointment without any leniency lest they be held in contempt of court (I.e. unless they would rather be thrown in jail).

I digress briefly.

Manifesting thoughts is something some may think is a form of magic. Is it? Or is it one simply exhausting one's right of free will? I would say it's the latter.

I, as one of the DeiHuarwe, know that it is my duty to know the law and only allow it to be used to my benefit and not to my detriment. I shall do as I must to ensure the longevity of myself and my family.

If it means that I have to manifest all of my thoughts to fulfill my destiny and see that all of my inherent birthrights stay mine until it is time for me to pass them on to my heirs, I shall stand and remain unwavering.

Case Dismissed? Or Case Closed?

Today I went to ELLIS COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 2 to deliver to both the COURT COORDINATOR, and the JUDGE, each a NOTICE OF APPEARANCE which I had drafted as answer to the charges filed against the ens legis HARVEY LEELANE SEARCY.
I had done this before with a case I was dealing with in the RED OAK MUNICIPAL COURT a short while back. As of the date of my drafting this post, I have yet to receive a response from the MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE requesting any further action on behalf of the ens legis. Nor have any warrants been issued in re. I'm not sure if the cases have been dismissed or closed, but so far so good. I guess in this case no news is indeed good news. I'm sure that if my process wasn't sufficient/adequate I would have heard something from the bonding company by now. I'll post more on this tomorrow. I know it's been a while since my last post, so I thought I'd update you on what's been happening. I'll shall also post video documentation of part of my delivery process. It's pretty simple. Small role to play to get my notices delivered and the proof of delivery also.
I think it's pretty funny. You may not. At the very least though, it's effective and almost foolproof.
It's late. I've got to go to DALLAS COUNTY COURT tomorrow morning to wait on my lawyer to get the court date reset again. I'll have more for you by tomorrow evening though.

MAIL FRAUD: Is it okay when the DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY does it?

It's a valid question, plain & simple. So, please, check your emotions/feelings at the door...

Screenshot Image of my question as posted on Yahoo! Answers on Thursday, October 31st of 2013.

I posted this question on Yahoo! Answers two days ago. So far, only one (1) response (not an answer, which I decided not to flag as inappropriate simply because I wanted the world to see the nonsense some people spout-off to incite adverse reactions) has been posted by an obvious troll who, by my assessment, mainly posts answers to questions listed in the "Law & Ethics" category on the site. 

I bring my question here in hopes of getting your answers, not slander. 

It matters to me not that any does/doesn't care that this crime has been perpetrated against me by the DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY. It does, however, matter that someone/something out there doesn't want you to know about it. So I'm putting it all on the line to present this to you. I feel that you should not have to perish from a lack of knowledge as the Holy Bible says that my people do. 

How many is too many? I mean how many of my brothers and sisters dying from said lack of knowledge is too many?

I believe the answer is one (1). That's all that it takes to get my attention. If whether or not you believe the same is your business though, not mine. My conscious is clean as I am doing my part in re the fight against tyranny and perversion of due process of law.

I have also posted this same question on Craigslist in hopes of reaching more interested men and/or women. The following is a screenshot of the question as is currently posted/presented at  http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/vnn/4165839125.html. If you'd like to submit your answer to me directly, please use the reply email address listed in the top right corner of the post's page on Craigslist.

Screenshot Image of post in re as displayed on Craigslist @ http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/vnn/4165839125.html

Just in case you're wondering, "What is mail fraud?" I present you with the following definition:

mail fraud. An act of fraud using the U.S. Postal Service, as in making false representations through the mail to obtain an economic advantage. 18 USCA §§ 1341-1347. [Cases: Postal Service -->35. C.J.S. Postal Service and Offenses Against Postal Laws § 23.] [See Black's Law Dictionary - 8th Edition.] 

To grasp a solid (unwavering) comprehension of the previous definition, one should also know the meaning of the term "fraud" which sets the precedent for the definition of "mail fraud." Well, I shall oblige with the following definition as also presented in Black's Law Dictionary (which, according to Wikipedia, "...is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States").

fraud, n. 1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. ● Fraud is usually a tort, but in some cases (especially when the conduct is willful) it may be a crime. ― Also termed intentional fraud. 2. A misrepresentation made recklessly without belief in its truth to induce another person to act. 3. A tort arising from a knowing misrepresentation, concealment of material fact, or reckless misrepresentation made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. 4. Unconscionable dealing; especially in contract law, the unfair use of the power arising out of the parties' relative positions and resulting in an unconscionable bargain.  [See Black's Law Dictionary - 8th Edition.] 

With the definitions provided herein, in conjunction with all other prima facie evidence presented on this blog (http://harveysearcy.blogspot.com/), one should be able to competently say that the DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY has indeed committed mail fraud.

If you read the letter that was sent to me by CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION , you should have noticed that the author and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION, did indeed commit forgery in the drafting of said letter. The crime committed constitutes a felony on behalf of the current DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CRAIG WATKINS, which subsequently makes him ineligible to hold his current position in Public Office and liable for all damages to me including the violation of my rights and liberties along with all infringements upon my copyright.

By law, especially contract law, I have the right to hold the current DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CRAIG WATKINS, accountable for all violations/infringements committed against me in his name and shall do so.

As I have been composing this post for well over the past three hours, I shall now close with PEACE, LOVE AND RESPECT...ALWAYS & FOREVER.

UPDATE: Recording of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US

Today, after picking up my daughter from school, I took a trip to the post office to check the post office box for any presentments that may come. There was one item addressed to Harvey Lee Lane Searcy, My common-law copyrighted property (used without my prior authorization via My express written consent), sent by an unauthorized intervening third-party called "CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION". The item is a manila envelope that contained the documents that I had mailed to John F. Warren, COUNTY CLERK, in re Recording of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US (including Postal Money Orders) and a letter addressed to Harvey Lee Lane Searcy from "CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION".

The following is a copy of the letter aforementioned.

Letter addressed to Harvey Lee Lane Searcy from CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION - page 1 of 1

The above displayed letter is prima facie evidence of the FRAUD being perpetrated against me in accord with the CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD me, Harvey Lee Lane: Searcy, with malicious intent. Not only does the author and/or "CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION" therewith interfere in my commercial affairs the purport to commit fraud against me, but they do so in the name of the STATE OF TEXAS.

The author forges/counterfeits my common law copyrighted property (i.e. "HARVEY LEE LANE SEARCY" and any/all derivatives thereof) with two (2) separate occurences evidenced therein, and one (1) occurrence on the white envelope, with the COUNTY OF DALLAS - STATE OF TEXAS seal thereto affixed, taped to the manila envelope in which the letter displayed above was sent therewith using My common law copyrighted property without My prior express written consent constituting Unauthorized Use thereof and subjecting the author and CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION to liability, and responsibility to honor the debt as a result of said Unauthorized Use, in the form of Unauthorized Use Fees in the sum certain amount of One Million (1,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars per each occurrence. That's a SUBTOTAL of Three Million (3,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars that is due to me by the author and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION. 

The author also, when sequestering my documents, either knowingly or unknowingly, but still willfully, subjected themselves to further liability, and responsibility to honor the debt as a result thereof, in the form of Unauthorized Use Fees in the sum certain amount of One Million (1,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars per each occurrence. With (by my account) 35 occurrences of Unauthorized Use of my common law copyrighted property, the author makes themselves liable for a staggering amount of debt due to me and subject to foreclosure. For sequestering my documents there is another valid debt due to me in the SUBTOTAL amount of Thirty-five Million (35,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars.

The author, via their own action(s) (i.e. Unauthorized Use(s) of my common law copyrighted property), then commits thirty-five (35) counts of MAIL FRAUD (i.e. an act of fraud using the U.S. Postal Service, as in making false representations through the mail to obtain economic advantage [See Black's Law Dictionary - 8th Edition]) therewith accumulating further liability for damages against me at a rate of One Million (1,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars per each occurrence. This subjects the author and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION to another valid debt due to me in the SUBTOTAL amount of Thirty-five Million (35,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars.

I hereby consolidate the above stated separate debts-due for My private accounting purposes into a new accounts receivable account which shall hereinafter be referred to as/by account number AR102913HLLS to reflect/collect the total amount of liability, and debt-due due to me by the author and/or CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION,  for all damages incurred. The GRAND TOTAL of the amount due for the above referenced account, AR102913HLLS, is Seventy-Three Million (73,000,000.00) United States Silver Dollars. 

The invoice to provide a valid assessment of the debt shall be posted here after it is delivered to CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION.

The author of the aforementioned letter therein attempts to deceive one with the contention that my "Affidavit of Truth" is not an Affidavit (also an instrument in writing) "...that is permitted or required to be recorded by a county clerk." The author therein references §192.001 of Texas Local Government Code as their precedent for not only sequestering and delaying the recording of my document, but for FORGERY (pursuant to Article 924. [530] "Forgery" defined.  as detailed under TITLE 14. OF OFFENSES AGAINST TRADE, COMMERCE AND THE CURRENT COIN. of the Penal Code of the State of Texas, ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE THIRTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE in 1911) as well.

To further establish my standing in re the charge of CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD, I direct your attention to the author's statement in the letter which reads:

See  Texas Attorney General Opinions JC-0156 (1999); LO-98-016 (1998) (clerk may file and record a document only if authorized, or permitted to do so by a statute).

According to the Penal Code of the State of Texas, the author has committed forgery in the name of Craig Watkins, District Attorney with the signing of the fictitious name "DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CIVIL DIVISION". As it is my firm belief that no living-breathing man and/or woman whose proper name is "DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CIVIL DIVISION" exists, the author has indeed committed forgery with the intent to injure or defraud me, Harvey Lee Lane: Searcy.

The precedent for the previous paragraph is the following case law (common law), which reads:

The signing of a fictitious name to an instrument, with fraudulent intent, is forgery. Hocker v. State, 34 T. Cr. R., 359, 30 S. W. R., 783.

The author of the above displayed letter purports to deceive the person addressed in, and/or recipient of, the letter, containing the above mentioned quotation, believably to induce My withdrawal/retreat from the proverbial battle field and submission to their will (intent).

I wonder exactly why it is the author so chooses to not only violate my rights and liberties, but in doing so defy both logic and the law of the land (lex terrae).

Is it because my affidavit that has not been rebutted is prima facie evidence that is obviously dispositive of the matter at bar?

Or is it because they (i.e. those involved in the CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD me)  just don't want to have to pay me the money they owe?

I offer for proof and support of any/all torts and claims that may come as a result of these crimes against me, the other items that were enclosed in the manila envelope aforementioned:

REFUSED FOR RECORDING/RETURNED: Affidavit of Truth - Page 1 of 3

REFUSED FOR RECORDING/RETURNED: Affidavit of Truth - Page 2 of 3

REFUSED FOR RECORDING/RETURNED: Affidavit of Truth - Page 3 of 3

manila envelope that contained the above displayed letter

RETURNED: FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK - Page 1 of 3

RETURNED: FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK - Page 2 of 3

RETURNED: FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK with USPS PMOs- Page 3 of 3

REGISTERED MAIL # RE850255155US - Back of Envelope with Return Receipt still sttached

REGISTERED MAIL # RE850255155US - Front of Envelope with marking showing that it was scheduled for recording prior to sequestration by CRAIG WATKINS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION.

Recording of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US

This is my prima facie evidence of proof of recording of my Affidavit of Truth referenced by and marked with USPS Registered Mail # RE850255155US. The FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK that was mailed to John F. Warren, COUNTY CLERK of DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, is made available for review in support of my recording of my Affidavit of Truth.

Page 1 of 3 of FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK

Page 2 of 3 of FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK

Page 3 of 3 of FORMAL NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK

Page 1 of 3 of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US

Page 2 of 3 of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US

Page 3 of 3 of Affidavit of Truth RE850255155US

The above displayed documents, along with USPS Postal Money Orders made available to cover all associated fees/costs, were delivered to John F. Warren, COUNTY CLERK, on October 22 of 2013 at 2:39 pm as reflected in and proven by both the screenshot image of the USPS Tracking results from USPS.com and scanned copy image of the "Track and Confirm Intranet" printout provided to me by a USPS Mail Clerk at the United States Postal Service Post Office in Red Oak, Texas, are made available for review below.

screenshot image of the USPS Tracking results from USPS.com

Page 1 of 2 of scanned copy image of the "Track and Confirm Intranet" printout provided to me by a USPS Mail Clerk at the United States Postal Service Post Office in Red Oak, Texas

Page 2 of 2 of scanned copy image of the "Track and Confirm Intranet" printout provided to me by a USPS Mail Clerk at the United States Postal Service Post Office in Red Oak, Texas