STATE OF CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC

COUNTY OF VENTURA
Commonwealth of the Republic of California
Common Law Counter Claim

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL

PLAINTIFF ) DECLARATION TO PROVE
VS. ) NO SUBJECT MATTER
ACCUSED ) JURISTICTION
STEPHANIE ANN HARVEY

)DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL)

)NO CRIME NO INJURED
/ OR UNITED STATES )NO INJURED PARTY
dba Corporation Fictitious Administrative )NO SWORN
AFFIDAVIT
)NO CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE )DAMAGES FOR this
frivolous
VS )Common Law

STEPHANIE HARVEY mistaken for a person

a fictitious corporation made by the court
courts can ONLY DO do business w/another business

__________________________________________________
Common Law Counter Claim

TM Stephanie-Ann: Harvey
Petitioner (alleged Defendant)

Governor
Office of the Governor

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
If there is a victim, that gives Personal jurisdiction.
If there is a contract to perform, that gives Subject-matter jurisdiction

No victim +injured party + No sworn affidavit = No Personal jurisdiction.

No contract to perform = No jurisdiction. Three things to remember.

Its really just that simple. From now on, all correspondence and Motions are
to be submitted in WRITING. This SHOULD FORCE you to respond in writing,
on the record, with PROOF of their trickery. .

It is quite easy to challenge jurisdiction without challenging jurisdiction by

making them prove it with declarations because a challenge is equal to
dishonor. When I use the term challenge, it is just because that is the legal
term, and what people are familiar with. Properly done, you are
asserting/declaring facts for them to rebut. Nothing more.

If you dont have a victim or a contract, you dont have a case. Leave all the
extra crap out of it with these criminals and STAY ON MESSAGE. start
prosecuting non-performance.

When you file a motion to dismiss with prejudice they are stuck. There is
literally nothing they can do except keep screwing up and digging a bigger
hole for any appeal to a higher court.

Notification of Administration Violation

A CORPORATION CAN NOT SUE A LIVING HUMAN JUDICIAL NOTICE

TO THE COURT DEMAND FOR DISMISSA JUST CAUSE 12(b)(1), (2),
and (6)Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedures, Section 1652
requires the courts to follow Acts of Congress and all Statutes; Regulations
and Statutes at Large are Acts of Congress and Title 5 of the USC, likewise
are the Ruling factors to all Court procedures.

63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are

held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the
government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.
Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within
whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be
their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor
under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative
to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. That
is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on
whose behalf he or she serves, and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. It has
been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less
than those of a private individual. Furthermore, it has been stated that
any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken
public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is
against public policy.”

NOW, COMES, The Petitioner (original alleged Defendant, Complaint #

0000000)
TM Stephanie-Ann: Harvey on public record for all to see, with this
NOTICE TO THE COURT: DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL FOR JUST CAUSE 12(b)(1),
(2) and (6). The Court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction for the
reasons below.
1. This Court, and all public offices, is defined under FRCP Rule 4(j) as a

FOREIGN STATE, and as defined under TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL

PROCEDURE

the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 is a United States

law, codified at Title 28, §§§§§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602-1611,
and is being jurisdictionally challenged, and “full disclosure” of the “true”
jurisdiction of this Court is now being Demanded.

2. Any failure to disclose the true jurisdiction is a violation of 15 Statutes at

Large, for this was passed to remove the people of the united States of

America from the federal citizenship under the 14th amendment.

Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27, 1868

Chap. CCXLIX. ---An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in

foreign States

Whereas the rights of expatriation is a nature and inherent right

of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this
government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested
them with the right of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such
American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states,
owing allegiance to the government thereof; and whereas it is necessary to
the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should
be promptly and finally disavowed; Thereof.

Be it enacted by the Senator and the House of Representatives of the

United States of American in Congress assembled, that any declaration,
instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of is government which
denies, restricts, impairs or questions the rights of expatriation, is hereby
declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

3. As an America Citizen I hold the inherent right to invoke the 11th

 Amendment: “The
judicial power shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or

equity, commenced or prosecuted by a Foreign State.“

4. The Court and the Prosecutor representing the STATE OF CALIFORNIA

are considered a FOREIGN STATE as your office holds a position under
section three(3) of the 14th Amendment of the UNITED STATES Constitution,
and under the Reconstruction Act of 1867, as federal citizen(s) per Acts of
Congress, USC Title 8, section 1483, “Restrictions on loss of nationality” and
you are misusing the name of this America Citizen, TM Stephanie-Ann:
Harvey
by placing it in all caps STEPHANIE ANN HARVEY, or misusing the last

name HARVEY, or using the term “person” as a CORPORATION. The

Court and its officers are aware that all usage of the name derives from

Corporate Law and Administrative Law (Delaware Administrative Law,

Title 8, Corporation Ch 6, section 617, and Texas Administrative Law,

Corporations, Chapter 79, section 79.31, Entity, and Delaware

legislation March 10, 1899: “An Act Providing General Corporate Law.”

This Act allowed the corporation to become a “PERSON” in

Administrative and Corporate Law, and "NOT" Common Law, and all

complaints and suits against such a CORPORATION fall under the FSIA,

and the DEPT OF STATE OFFICES in Washington, DC who are required to

be notified pursuant to 22 CFR 92.12-92.30. A copy of the FSIA

notification paperwork has to be filed with the complaint to the

Petitioner's (defendant's) chief executive officer of that CORPORATION.

5. MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, OR STATE COURTS lack jurisdiction to hear any

case under the FOREIGN STATE definitions. The jurisdiction of

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY lies with the UNITED STATES DISTRICT

 COURT under the FSIA Statutes pursuant to 28 USC 1330, and not

within a State Court.

6. Because the Petitioner (Defendant) is a non-corporate entity and is not

registered with any Secretary of State as a CORPORATION, the Prosecution

has FAILED to state a claim to which relief can be granted under Rule

12(b)( 6). Therefore, this matter must be dismissed for lack of political,

personam, and subject matter jurisdiction, Venue, and under the 11th

Amendment limitations.

7. The Fed. R. Civ. P. and the State Court Rules show only one cause of

action. See Civil Action Rule 2. One form of action.

"There shall be in this State but one form of action for the enforcement
or protection of private rights or the redress of private wrongs, which shall
be denominated a civil action."
8. The State Court can not force the Petitioner (Defendant) to a plea of not

guilty, guilty, or (with the court's consent) nolo contendere. In a civil action

the rules do not allow it.

9. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11. Pleas; required the

Defendant (Petitioner) to place a plea before the court of not guilty, guilty, or
(with the court's consent) nolo contendere. Right? Once the People place
such a plea, that plea now comes under the authority of Title 50, War And
National Defense, section 23 under the Trading With The Enemy Act. The
Prosecutor is acting on behalf of THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and now is
required to provide proof and evidence that such charges "ARE NOT" under
the State of Emergency Clause, and the Bankruptcy Act of 1933. Any failure
of the Prosecutor to provide such evidence within 3 days of this original filing
is grounds for dismissal with prejudice for non-compliance.
10. The prosecutor has failed to disclose that such a plea comes under the
jurisdiction of the State of Emergency Clause under Public Law 1, 48 stat C1,
and Public law 73-10, 40 stat 411, and under Title 50 Trading With The
Enemy Act of Oct 6, 1917, and the Bankruptcy Act under Public Law 10, Ch
48, 48 stat 112.
11. The prosecutor has also failed to disclose that the Administrative
Plaintiff(s) was appointed as Trustee over all matters dealing with any issue
involving the BIRTH name of STEPHANIE ANN HARVEY and not the living
man John-Doe; Smith in this Court. The Administrative Plaintiff(s) is a Trustee
under the State of Emergency, and the Bankruptcy Act of the UNITED STATES
per an Act of Congress, and by Public law.
12. The Petitioner (Defendant) will point out the three jurisdictions upon
which the court may operate:
1) Article III, section 2, clause 1. But, by Act of Congress, and the
States ratifying the 11th Amendment, the Courts have no Judicial power to
hear any case in Law, Equity, or a Controversy created by the State against
any Citizen of the United States. This Court is clearly operating outside
any Article III capacity of the Constitution for the united States of America, of
his Constitutionally Guaranteed protections. This Court clearly lacks judicial
jurisdiction per Act of Congress.

2) Administrative jurisdiction which involves a Department, Agency or

an Administrative office as defined in Title 5 USC Sect. 101 executive
branch, 28 USC, Sect. 451 or NCGS 150(b)(2) in which case the Defendant
can only be a Plaintiff in such action per the intent and Act of Congress
as an administrative hearing is to hear complaints about such executive
offices. Per Act of Congress under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 ,
S7, 60 stat 237 & the Attorney General Manual "Administrative Procedure Act
of 1947 & Title 5 USC.

3) The State of Emergency and the Bankruptcy Act clauses create

jurisdiction under Senate Report 93-549, “Trading With The
Enemy Act”
, under Title 50 War and National Defense, Section 23,
“Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges.” Under the State
of Emergency the UNITED STATES is the trustee along with all
public offices / officers. (See above cite 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public
 Officers and Employees, §247).

13. Any action under the State of Emergency is governed by General Order

100, the LieberCode, and UCMJ Title 10, Section 333, and per Army

Regulation 840-10 Section 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3. again under Title 50 War &

National Defense.

14. Title 18 of the UNITED STATES CODE was never passed by the Senate.

Congressional records on May 12, 1947 show that Title 18 was never voted

into positive law by the Senate. Congressional Report shows that both the

House and Senate were out of Session. The State, again, lacks prosecutorial

power to bring any criminal claim into the court.

15. The prosecution has failed to state a claim to which relief could be
granted as per Rule 12(b)(6) per the Rules of Court mandated by the "Rules
Enabling Act" created by Congress. (Ch. 651, Pub.L. 73-415, 48 Stat. 1064,
enacted June 19, 1934 28 U.S.C., § 2072)

xXXXXXXXXX a) Pursuant to your own procedure defined in your

(N.C.G.S. § 15A-511) requires a sworn affidavit of probable cause be attached
to a judicial determination of probable cause which shall be forwarded to the
office of the Clerk of Court. Only the un-sworn, inadmissible, bogus Citation
(TICKET# 00000000) appears in the case file.

b) Municipal Police Officers acting on behalf of the

municipality/county/State of CALIFORNIA the COUNTY of VENTURA as a
Revenue Agent cannot summons defendants to court as they are members
of the executive branch, therefore they are involved in the simulation of
judicial process by the issuing of Bogus Citations and are in violation of your
(N.C.G.S.§ 14-229) “assuming an office without qualifying.”
c) Citation (TICKET #) and Case # , is a fraudulent charging
instrument as it states, on behalf of the municipality/county/STATE of
CALIFORNIA in the COUNTY of VENTURA OFFICER is a Revenue Agent that
claims he had probable cause to believe that Petitioner /Defendant violated
law. It is a well settled matter at law, that officers deal only in a reasonable
suspicion, but probable cause is a judicial determination. The citation is
prima facie evidence the police officer is committing a crime by the issuance
of citations, and is acting outside the law by making an un-sworn judicial
determination of probable cause.
d) The Court is engaged in the simulation of judicial process, as it is a
well known fact, pursuant to your own statutes in (N.C.G.S. 7A) that the
presiding judge along with the District Attorney receive a percentage
remuneration of the fine in citation cases, upon the conviction of a
defendant, which is then directly deposited into a personal State Retirement
fund. The Charging agency in this case, the municipal/ county/ State of
CALIFORNIA in the COUNTY of VENTURA also receives a “kick back.”
e) SCOTUS defines bills of attainder this way: (Definition) A legislative
act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3
provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." The
Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and
therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation
of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise
of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown,
381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965)..."These clauses of the Constitution are not of
the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather
precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the
Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that
singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without
benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the
Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an
individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The
Supreme Court, page 166..."Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws
impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of
the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The
sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has
directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that
sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal
rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators,
and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the
community."
James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause
include:

Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).

Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).

U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).

Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).

Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

f) The Prosecutor has failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they

have suffered any harm or are threatened with any harm as a result of the

matter alleged in their complaint or have a Corpus delicti that has been

injured.

g) The Petitioner (Defendant) holds standing under the 1st, 4th, 5th,

6th, 7th, 8th, 9th & 10th Articles of the Bill of Rights to bring this issue before

the Court and to have it dismissed with prejudice as the prosecutor or police

officer has not come into compliance with any Acts of Congress or California

legislative Acts.

16. The State prosecution has, also, failed to pay the Filing Fee for this

action as required by its own Court procedures, and the Statutes of this

State, to bring such a claim against the Petitioner (alleged Defendant). This,

alone, is just cause to have this case dismissed for failure to pay Filing Fees
per court procedures. Furthermore, the State can not proceed "in forma

pauperis" without filing for it on the record. The State has failed to prove it

has made such a filing payment, or asked for “in forma pauperis” status, to

bring such a claim.

CONCLUSION

There is a Statute of Limitation on how long one can be held or

incarcerated without a proper complaint being filed by the real party of

interest per Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 17. I did not consent, assent, or agree to a

public defender or agree for him/her to postpone hearing to add to my

incarceration without a lawful complaint placed on the record for the record.

Therefore, the Petitioner (Defendant) demands a dismissal for just

cause under 12(b)(1), (2) and (6) with prejudice. As the Court is operating

under the Bankruptcy of 1933, et al., the State of Emergency Clause, and

has suspended the Constitution, and the Statutory Laws, the Court and its

officials are required to accept the position of Co- Trustee per an Act of

Congress under such Bankruptcy and State of Emergency on behalf of the

UNITED STATES in this courtroom. The prosecutor is required to have the

Court order the Department of Treasury to discharge this action and fill out

an IRS form 1099 C to cancel such charges and pay the taxes due on this

offer/presentment.

The Petitioner (alleged Defendant) lacks such ability to accept such an

offer or presentment under such conditions per Acts of Congress. As lawyers

are defined as Officers of the Court, which includes Public Defenders, for

them to act on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant under a power of attorney

as a Trustee, then such a Trustee becomes liable for any and all offers and

presentments by the Court, as the lawyer (Public Defender) is under contract

as a Trustee for the Petitioner/Defendant. Such a lawyer now becomes liable,

under contract, as the Petitioner/Defendant lacks such ability to accept such

an offer or presentment under such conditions. Furthermore, the Petitioner/

Defendant, acting on their own behalf, holds immunity under the 11th

Amendment, and under FSIA ,Title 28 USC, sec 1602-1611 by Act of Congress

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO AMEND WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT

_____________________
Stephanie-Ann:Harvey
PROOF OF SERVICE

NOW, COMES The Petitioner, Stephanie-Ann:Harvey with this

JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THE COURT: DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL FOR JUST

CAUSE 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) before the Clerk of Court of the Court IN THE

GENERAL COURT OF UNJUSTICE DIVISION on this day of _____________

and month of __________ in the year of our Lord 2019 AD. Service will be

delivered by U.S.P.S. certified mail with green card return and (OPTIONS)via

Notary Presentment.
 _____________________
Stephanie-Ann:Harvey

CC:

Governor
Office of the Governor
Notification of Administration Violation