Comes Now, John Doe (hereafter “Complaining Party”) being a citizen of the United States of America, American citizen, Natural Born Native and citizen of the foreign state of Kansas domiciled in the territorial boundaries of Alaska.

I am lawfully and peacefully exercising my rights secured in the Constitution of the United States as lawfully amended by the qualified Electors of the several States.

The Complaining Party is filing this Notice and Objection against Richard Payne (hereafter “Attorney”) that no documents have been found certifying said Attorney is qualified and licensed to practice law as a Counsellor-at-law in the territorial boundaries of Alaska in any court in either the State or Federal jurisdictions or qualified to provide Assistance of Counsel secured in the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, being one of the absolute elements of a Trial by Jury.

First in the section 11 of chapter 196 of 1955 of the Alaska Integrated Bar Act, to wit:

the Board of Governors shall pass upon all applications for permission to practice law before the courts of Alaska, and when satisfied that an applicant has the requisite qualifications to practice as an attorney and counselor, the Board shall so certify to the U. S. District Court for the Judicial Division in which the applicant resides. [Emphasis added]

I am attaching as an Offer of Proof, being Exhibit 1, of said Chapter 196 of 1955 of the facts contained therein and in particular of words “attorney and counselor.”

Then in section 5 of chapter 178 of 1960, we see an amendment to section 11 of chapter 196 of 1955.

I am attaching as an Offer of Proof, being Exhibit 2, of said Chapter 178 of 1960 and the use of the words “attorney and counselor.”

Then we find by the Roman Civil Law process of “codification” from the Book titled The Institutes, to wit:

The formal effect of a codification is to set aside the existing law in its entirety, as far as the territory affected is concerned, and to substitute for all the laws transmitted from the past in a single new code. [Emphasis added]

I am attaching this section of The Institutes as an Offer of Proof of the true meaning of the process of codification, being Exhibit 3.

Then by the setting aside of the existing law in its entirety, we find by the processes of codification implemented in 1962 that ©AS 08.08.200 has been changed to “the court shall make an order admitting the applicant as an attorney at law”, and the attorney and counsellor has vanished.

I am attaching as an Offer of Proof of the changing of the words to “attorney at law” and of the Codification of 1962, being a Exhibit 4.

Then to continue this ruse and deception, justices of the Supreme Court of Alaska [in reality praetors] by Supreme Court Order (hereafter “SCO”)[in reality praetor edicts, ie. law praetoria] did amend the bar rules in SCO 161 in 1973. You will find “attorney at law” in Rule 6 changed later to Rule 5 that only an attorney at law is admitted and the counsellor-at-law is nowhere to be found. This can be found in the current rules of Court in Rule 5.

Then in the Code Act of chapter 181 of 1976 the codification sections ©AS 08.08-110 – 08.08.200, 08.08.240, and ©AS 44.62.330(a)(22) were repealed, with ©AS 08.08.200 being the certification of the Board of Governors to the courts for admission. Therefore the Board of Governors in the Code have no perceived authority or being empowered to certify anyone to courts of the state as attorneys and counsellors-at-law or even attorneys at law after 1976.

I am attaching as an Offer of Proof of the repealing of the Code sections of the Board of Governors authority to certify attorneys and counsellors as found in chapter 181 of 1976, being Exhibit 5.

Then the Complaining Party has included a copy provided by Deborah O’Regan, being the Executive Director of the Alaska Bar Association, of the current Petition for Admission. You will so note that no where is it stated that anyone is certified as an Attorney at law or Counsellor-at-law. But it is stated that you can practice law in Alaska and that the Bar Rules of 2 and 5 are so used and this is included as an Offer of Proof of same, being Exhibit 6.

Then the Complaining Party has included a copy of a petition of Attorneys at law prior to the enactment of chapter 181 SLA 1976 of a Randall Luffberry (hereafter “Luffberry”). You will note that Luffberry was supposedly certified as an Attorney and Counsellor at law, but he was admitted [licensed] only as an Attorney at law. This is further proof of the despots and tyranny in the territorial boundaries of Alaska by the legislature, Alaska Bar Association, and the justices of the Supreme Court of Alaska to deprive unlawfully the people of Alaska their constitutionally secured rights of the Law of the Land, being due process of law to have Counsellors-at-law.

The Complaining Party is including a copy of the two Supreme Court documents that are issued by the Supreme Court of [the State of] Alaska to the purported new Attorney at law applicants. I would call your attention to the words that “upon certification by the Board of governors of the Alaska Bar Association and no objection having been raised thereto.” As the Board of Governors have not even had the perceived authority and are not empowered to certify the new applicants to the Supreme Court of Alaska for twenty seven years, this is a “fiat” Certificate. This is an impossibility in law and clearly is proof of the corruption in the highest court of the state. This Certificate is absolutely worthless and not redeemable. These two documents are entered as an Offer of Proof of the preceeding premises, being Exhibit 7. This is the work of the despots and tyrants in the continuing unlawful overthrow of the lawful government since the civil war.

Then the Complaining Party has included the definitions of Barrister, which is a Counsellor-at-law technically in America today, and a definition of Attorney from Giles Jacobs as modified for use in America of 1811. These definitions can be found in Tuckers using Blackstones Commentaries, and in Blackstones Commentaries. The definitions of Barrister, now Counsellors-at-law and Attorneys are entered as an Offer of Proof of the duties of each, being Exhibit 8.

The following is a brief itemization from court cases in America and the definitions from Giles Jacobs.

And attorney at law can do the following:

1. Represents the business interests of clients and can not assist his clients; and,

2. Can not appear in a criminal case; and,

3. Can be bail for a client; and,

4. Works for Attorneys fees; and,

5. Can not do direct challenges to the judges impersonating public officers, etc without immediate exposure to sanctions or possible loss of their bar card; and,

6. Is an officer of the court; and,

7. Takes over the case and you are at the attorney’s mercy on how the case is run; and,

8. No one can “represent” your constitutionally secured rights, you can waive them though if you are unlearned in the law and have an Attorney to enter the statutory non constitutional courts.

A Counsellor-at-law can do the following:

1. Assists only and is to protect and defend his client and does not represent in the capacity of a Counsellor-at-law; and,

2. Counsellors-at-law appears in criminal trials and this an absolute element of a Trial by Jury from the very first instance of an arraignment or custodial interrogation to have Assistance of Counsel if desired; and,

a. Can ask questions on your behalf; and

b. Can instruct you what questions to ask; and,

c. If the client instructs the Counsellor-at-law to challenge the judge or court, he can do it without being sanctioned (of course within reason).

3. He is an officer of the court; and,

4. Does not charge, works on gratuity. Can not sue for Attorney fees; and,

5. Is Learned in the Law; and,

6. It is a position of Honor to be a Counsellor-at-law; and,

7. Sits above an Attorney at law.

8. Will never bring up the waiving your constitutionally secured rights, as he will use all of the resources to assure that you are in a proper court, before a public officer, that all charges are constitutional, that you are charged with offenses of the laws of Alaska or the laws of the United States versus the Roman civil law codes and he will use all lawful and legal means to protect and defend you with your constitutionally secured rights and the laws made thereof.

9. The Counsellor-at-law is the champion of the people against an unlawful government; and,

10. Assistance of Counsel is also a law of the United States found in the judiciary act of 1789 in section 35.

In reality, this is a concerted effort by the legislature, the Alaska Bar Association, and the justices of the Supreme Court to intentionally, willfully, and intelligently deprive the people of Alaska from a Trial by Jury, and to deprive the people of Alaska of due process of law, being the Law of the Land.

The man Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd also has several court cases addressing this, but they are not included. If they are wanted, please contact me. They will be included in future Notices and Objections as time permits to assimilate them.

Therefore, this a formal Notice and Objection that there is no evidence that Complaining Party can find that the said Attorney is a Counsellor-at-law or qualified to provide Assistance of Counsel as secured in the Sixth Amendment to any of the people of Alaska in any capacity; and,

And further, said Notice and Objection is being filed in the Attorney’s office to give said Attorney Notice, said Notice and Objection is being filed with the Alaska Bar Association to give them Notice, and said Notice and Objection is being filed with the Supreme Court of Alaska to give them Notice.

And further, this Notice and Objection is to give Notice to said Attorney that possible criminal and civil liabilities may be incurred upon the continued representing any of the people of Alaska in any criminal trial or perceived Trial by Jury as an Counsellor-at-law. “Represent a Defendant” is not the same as a “Assistance of Counsel.”

And further, this Notice and Objection is to give Notice and Grace to all judges, magistrates, justices, prosecutors, prosecuting attorneys, and others who shall be served of the possible criminal and civil liabilities that may be incurred upon the continued unlawful deprivation of the people of Alaska of their constitutionally secured rights. None dare call it Treason, but is it Treason to have knowledge and continue unlawfully and unconstitutionally?

Attached:
Offer of Proof – Exhibit 1, Chapter 196 of 1955 of Alaska
Offer of Proof – Exhibit 2, Chapter 178 of 1960 of Alaska
Offer of Proof – Exhibit 3, The Institutes on Codificiation
Offer of Proof – Exhibit 4, Codification of 1962
Offer of Proof – Exhibit 5, Chapter 181 of 1976 of Alaska
Offer of Proof – Exhibit 6, Current Admission to Court by Deborah O’Regan
Offer of Proof – Exhibit 7, Two Supreme Court of Alaska Certificates
Offer of Proof – Exhibit 8, Giles Jacobs adapted to America of 1811

STATE OF ALASKA           )
                                              ) ss.
The United States Of America)

Verified Affidavit of John Doe

I, John Doe, do hereby swear (or affirm) under the penalties of perjury that the forgoing and following facts are true and correct.

9. My true name is John Doe.

10. I am a citizen of the United States of America, American citizen, and Natural Born Native of the foreign state of Kansas domiciled in the territorial boundaries of Alaska.

11. I will proceed in a peaceful manner by all means legally and lawfully to secure Counsellors-at-law in Alaska that are qualified arising under the Constitution of the United States and the laws that shall be made pursuant thereof.

12. I have found no evidence that the Attorney so named above has met all of the qualifications to practice law lawfully and legally of an Counsellor-at-law in Alaska or any of the several States.

13. I have attached as an Offers of Proof Exhibits 1-8 of the above facts.

Sworn and Subscribed before me, a Notary Public of the State of Alaska.

Signature of Notary Public

My Commission expires on

Date