Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Yusufu Danmola, Petitioner v. United States

Q

/

Case No.________________

IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

YUSUFU DANMOLA,

Petitioner,

F07

r 032018

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent,

"On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit

Yusufu Danmola

B.O.P. Beaumont FCI- Medium

P.O. BOX 26040

Beaumont, Texas 77720

COVER PAGE

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

Is the Court Allowed to Enforce a Law not in Pursuance

with the Constitution?

Are The People Prohibited Liberty Of Usage of the

Uniform Commercial Code in the Criminal Court?

Table of Contents

Questionsfor Review ..................................Intro

Table of contents .....................................I-i,

Table of Authorities .................................. ....1-2-4

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions ...............i-i

Corporate Disclosure Statement ........................i-2

Unpublished Opinion of U.S.D.0 ........................i-3

Unpublished Opinion of 5th Circuit ....................i-3,4

Parties Judgment to be Reviewed .......................1

Statement of Jurisdiction .............................1

Statement of Facts ....................................1

Question1 ............................................

3

Constitutional Provision Relied Upon ..................3,4

Argument..............................................410

Question 2............................................11

Statutory Provision Relied Upon .......................11

Argument..............................................11-18

Reason Why Certiorari Should be Granted ...............19

Conclusion............................................19

Prayer................................................20

Affidavit .............................................20

AFFIDAVIT OF RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ....................21,22

Publishers Affidavit ..................................23

Affidavit of Prohibition ..............................24

Page I-i

Table of Authorities

Accord Jordan v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701 (6th CA,1974)

.10

Art. 1 Sec. 10 U.S. Const ....................................17

Art. 3 Sec. 2 U.S. Const ....................................1,12

Art. 4 Sec. 2 U.S. Const ....................................11

Art. 4 Sec. 4 U.S. Const ....................................4

Art. 5 U.S. Const ...........................................6

Art. 6 U.S. Const ...........................................3-4

Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) ..................8

Burell v. Henderson, et. al. 434 F.3d 826, 831 (6th CA 2006).10

Caha v. U.S. 152 U.S. 211 (1894) ............................7

Cardozo, J., in Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84

,94 .........................................................12

C.F.R. 27.72.11 .............................................12,15

Court-Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition P.318 ...............5

Cruden v. Neale,2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70 .................17

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) .......................6

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) .......................5

Fed. Rules of Crim. Pro. 47(d) ..............................13

HJR-192 (House Joint Resolution 192) ........................16

Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement .......................15-16

In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S. Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219 .....4

In re Marraige of Hampshire, 261 Kan. 854, 862, 939 P.2d

58 (1997) ....................................................10

Judge David L. Bazelon ......................................9

Juristic Person .............................................11

JuristOath .................................................5

Marbury v. Madison 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).. .14

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400 ...................17

Page 1-2

Minor v. Happerstt, 88 U.S. (21 Walt) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.4

Olmstead v U.S. 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) ....................17-18

Oath of Office ..............................................5

Preamble....................................................

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) ....................7

Rodrigues v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769

F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985) ......................................14

Schware v Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 353 U.S. 232

(1957) ......................................................18

Self v. Rhay, 61 (2d) 261 ...................................14

Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 .................................18

State v. Swiger, 125 Ohio. App. 3d 456, (1995) ..............10

Stromberb v. California, 238 U.S. 359; NAACP v.

Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 .......................................18

Tex. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 23 ..................................6

Tex. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 29 ...................................6

U.C.C. Sec. 1.103 ...........................................11,12

U.C.C. Sec. 1.201 ...........................................12

U.C.C. Sec. 1.202 ...........................................13

U.C.C. Sec. 1.305 ...........................................15

U.C.C. Sec. 1.308 ............................................2,13

U.C.C. Sec. 3.603 ...........................................16

United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 2 630 (2002) ...........10

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) .............7

United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949) .........7

U.S.C. 18 241 ...............................................14

U.S.C. 18 242 ...............................................14

U.S.C. 18 2071 ..............................................14

U.S.C. 18 2382 ..............................................14

Page 1-3

victim-Blacks Law Dictionary Tenth Edition .................8

William v. Berry,. HOW 945, 940 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1189

(1850) ......................................................10

2nd Amendment U.S. Const ....................................6

4th Amendment U.S. Const ....................................7,17,18

9th Amendment U.S. Const .....................................14

10th Amendment U.S. Const ...................................6

11th Amendment U.S. Const ...................................9

14th Amendment U.S. Const ...................................14

15 United States Statute at large july 27th 1868 ............14

16 Am Jur 2d., Sec 155., Emphasis added .....................8

Page 1-4

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

1) Art. 6 U.S. Constitution

(2) U.C.C. Sec. 1.103

i-i

Corporate Disclosure Statement

The Creditor in this instance is Vusufu Danmola which is

also known in the U.C.C. 1 financing statement as Abdullah

Danmola U.C.C. number 341846739 and Debtor YUSUFU DANMOLA also

known as ABDULLAFI DANNIOLA. Collateral statement holding Hold

Harmless and Indemnity Agreement, Security Agreement, Common

Law Copywright and Limited Power of Attorney. No other party

holds 107 stock or more in the corporate fiction. Yusufu Danmola

also beneficiary of birth certificate attached to social security

number 341-84-6739.

1-2

Un published Opinion of

U. S.D.C.

The above-captioned action was initiated on May, 2017,

u

by the receipt of the clerk of court from plaintiff, Yusuf

which

to

,"

Danmola, of a four-page document titled "Complaint

on

plaintiff attached two pages that appear to be a continuati

aint.

compl

the

of the somewhat irrational statements made in

red by

Doc. 1. After having conducted the initial review requi

s

tiff'

plain

that

28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court has concluded

by

there

seek

to

rts

purpo

he

complaint and whatever relief

hould be dismissed.

al

Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking redress from a government

is

1915A

entity , United States of America. consequently, §

as soon as

w

revie

shall

court

the

that

ts

direc

applicable. It

in whpractible after docketing a complaint in a civil action

and

ich a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity,

if it

that, upon review, the court shall dismiss the complaint

may be

f

relie

is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which

to

fails

it

granted. Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous, and

fore,

There

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The court ORDERS that plaintiff's complaint, and whatever

dismissed

relief he seeks by such complaint, be, and are hereby,

(b).

1915A

pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. §

Unpublished Opinion of 5th

Ciruit Court

Yusufu Danmola federal prisoner # 54779-177, filed civil

Agents

rights complaint pursuant to Biveris v Six Unknown Named

ict

distr

the

ls

appea

now

He

).

(1971

8

of FBI, 403 U.S. 388, 390-9

re

failu

for

and

lous

frivo

as

aint

compl

court's dismissal of his

w

revie

We

b).

1915(

U.S.C.

§

28

to state a claim, pursuant to

s, 404

the district court's ruling de novo. See Geiger.v. Jower

it

if

lous

frivo

is

aint

compl

A

F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).

,

ester

McAll

v.

s

Morri

law."

or

fact

has no arguable basis in

aint

compl

"a

ion,

addit

In

.

2012)

Cir.

(5th

702 F.3d 187, 189

to

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

Ashc"

face.

its

on

ible

plaus

is

that

f

state a claim to relie

(2009)

roft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 127

570,

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 1

S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (200])).

As with the complaint in the district court, the majority

federal

of Danmola's claims on appeal involve assertions that his

tes

viola

rm

firea

a

conviction for being a felon in possession of

were

s

eding

proce

nal

the second amendment and that his crimi

recover

rife with constitutional violations. However, he may not

imprior

ction

convi

l

tiona

damages for his "allegedly unconstitu

nce

sente

or

ction

convi

the

sonment" until he has proven "that

order

tive

execu

by

ged

expun

has been reversed on direct appeal,

such

make

to

rized

autho

declared invalid by a state tribunal

's

court

al

feder

a

by

ion

determination, or called into quest

i-3

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994) (footnote omitted)

see also Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 26-27 & n.1 (5th

Cir. 1994) (applying Heck in a Bivens action). Danmola has not

made the requisite showing.

In addition, Danmola asserts that the prison law library

was inadequate because he was unable to obtain copies of the

Texas Constitution and the Uniform Commercial Code to aid him

in filing pro se motions challenging the - criminal proceedings.

Because he and refused the offer of court-appointed representation, he had no constitutional right of access to a law library

in order to prepare for his pro se defense at trial. See Degrate

v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768, 769 (5th Cir. 1996). Although Danmola

also complains that prison offials opened his legal mail outside

of his presence, in violation of prison policy, such an action

does not constitute a violation of his constitutional rights.

See Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir 1993). The

district court properly concluded that Danmola's claims were

frivolous and that he had failed to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S Ct.

at 1949; Morris, 702 F.3d at 189. Accordingly, the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

1-4

Parties Jud2ment to be Reviewed

Judge JOHN MCBRYDE U.S.D.C., Judge TERRY R. MEANS

U.S.D.C., Judge JEFFREY L. CURETON, U.S.D.C. Appelate Court

Judges HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, and MELISSA MATTINGLY

Deputy clerk and LYLE W. CAYCE clerk of Appellate Court Fifth

Circuit.

Statement of Jurisdiction

On September 7,2018 the judgment of the district Court

was affirmed by Fifth Circuit judges HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and

SMITH for case No. 17-10647. Such petition being brought before

the Court before 90 days have been exceeded holds proper juris-diction in the Supreme Court to be heard. Such complaint was

believed to be "frivolous" in the District Court and dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b) in case No. 4:17-cv-416 by Judge

JOHN MCBRYDE. The constitutional provision to confer this Court

jurisdiction to review is Art. 3 sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Facts of the Case

Upon the first detention hearing 9/16/2016 Danmola was

presented a indictment for case No. 4:16-cr--222-Y. Danmola was

asked like the rest of the defendants to state his name. Danmola

stated, "I am the living, breathing, flesh and blood man with

a soul Yusufu Danmola, not to be confused with the fiction."

The judge after asking questions about Danmolas pro se

representations on previous accounts in State Courts orderd

Danmola's detention. Danmola did not enter a plea for reasons

of such being inappropriate at the time.

Page 1

Upon Second Detention hearing 9/21/2016 it was presented

why Danmola should be further detained by U.S. attorney Gatto.

Danmola upon his turn had very few questions to ask witness

pressented by Gatto. His main concern was offering acceptance

of the charges for value which Danmola did by presenting the

charging instrument to the judge who Danmola instructed to be

given to the clerk. The judge reading that which was written

diagonal on the indictment, "Accepted for value" with the social

security number and Secured Party name and account number for the

U.C.C. which had a money order on the bottom. Acted as if such

had no relevance.

Danmola giving further notice to the Court that he has

reserved his rights under U.C.C. sec. 1.308 and the same was

posted in the TARRANT COUNTY COMMERCIAL RECORDER news paper

with no excuse to all parties in TARRANT COUNTY and that he

would not accept any attempts at expatriation of any kind.

Further giving applicability of the U.C.C. in the Court in the

following terminology,"the code must be construed in harmony with

the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to

abrogate the common law." As well as no knowledge of a law in

the constitution that prohibits a felon from possessing a

firearm. Danmola also informed the Court of his filing of a

U.C.C. 1 financing statement to confirm his secured party status.

Still Danmola was placed in detention.

Upon trial 1/10/2017 Danmola was forced into the trial even

upon stating,"I do not understand," when asked do you plead

guilty, not guilty, or no contest. While upon much unconstitutional practices Danmola was round guilty.

Page 2

Upon Sentencing hearing 6/13/2017 more unconstitutional

practices occured upon Danmola and he was sentenced to 115 months in the B.0.P., which Danmola appeald to the Fifth Circuit.

Danmola filed the civil case as well for 4:17-cv-416 which was

dismissed by judge JOHN MCBRYDE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 A(b)

5/23/2017. An appeal was filed to the Fifth circuit and placed

on the docket as well.

After a brief was submitted for criminal case 4:16-cr-222-Y

which was appeal No. 17-10583. Such was dismissed by Danmola with

the remedy sought to release Danmola from the B.O.P. which the

Court said it granted in pursuance to Danmola's motion 4/16/2018

by LYLE W. CAYCE and MELISSA V. MATTINGLY clerk and deputy clerk

of the Fifth Circuit. Yet Danmola was not released from the B.O.P.. Danmola requesting the brief to be heard due to not acknowledging the "prayer" to release Danmola was denied 5/8/2018 and told the case is closed. The civil case 17-10647 concluding to findings in the criminal appeal due to no direct appeal and overturning of such case affirmed the findings of the U.S.D.C. 9/7/2018.

Question I.

Is the Court Allowed to Enforce a Case

Not in Pursuance with the Constitution

Constitutional Provision Relied

Upon:

Article 6. U.S. Constitution

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be mwde in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,

under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme

Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound

thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to

the contrary notwithstanding."

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and

the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the sever

Page 3

Affirmation, to suppoeral States, shall be bound by Oath orTest

shall ever be requirt this Constitution; but no religous

ic Trust under the

red as a Qualification to any Office or publ

United States."

Argument

the people going as far back as 1783

of

"

The "sovereignty

s and Thomas Jeffer-

to the "Treaty of Peace" signed by John Adam

son. Stands as the most significant time in

American history and

where the power of the "people" came from.

The people being made

r into

and ente

kings without subjects with the power to form

titution which is

compacts led to the erection of the U.S. Cons

ican people. This

the most important "contract" between the Amer

t to show the peop-

is what makes the "Preamble" so very importan

government. The

le created it and hold the power and not the

t to the Constitution

Republican form of government being paramoun

ds for is the rea-

being kept as well as that which our flag stan

titution.

son for Article 4. Sec. 4. of the U.S. Cons

Art. 4 Sec. 4 U.S. Constitution

State in this

"The United States shall guarantee to every

l

shal protect each

Union a Republican form of Government, and

of the Legislature,

of them against Invasion; and on Application

cannot be convened)

or of the Exexcutive (when the Legislature

against domestic Violence.

rs of sovereignty are

Republican Government- One in which the powe

people, either

the

vested in the people and are exercised by

the people,

by

en

directly , or through representitives chos

In re Dunca--ted.

-ega

to whom those powers are specially d-el . 219, Minor v. HappL.Ed

35

an, 139 U.S. 449 7 11 S. Ct. 573 7

Blacks Law Dictersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627

ionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626

t persons

I is by this very reason the "sovereign".elec

duties which the

delegated into office to carry out specific

eby a oath is repeople created for such specific office. Ther

ce in order to keep

quired to be taken by those who take a offi

from transgression of the Constitution.

Page 4

Oath of Office

An individual, except the president, elected or appointed

to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath "I,

do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend

the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance

to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any

mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well

and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I

am about to enter. So help me GOD. This section does not affect

other oaths required by law.

Such brings us to the domain the "sovereign" is to conduct

business concerning law and facts in regards to issues in the

States of the union called "Court". Where those from judges to

all forms of officers of the Court ranging from Attornies, Clerks

Baliffs who have all taken the respective oath of office carry

out their respective delegated duties.

Court- The person and suit of the sovereign, the place where

the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may

be. Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 318

Yet there is one last position which is the greatest position of all due to the king prior to the Revolution being judge

jury, and executioner who was able to do anything to the people. Such is the "jury" which is a panel of 12 of the sovereign

people who judge suits of law and equity to insure the Constitution is followed and corruption does not find its way into the

Court. They are held to a oath as well.

Jurist Oath

r of the Universe, in my capacity as

Governo

I vow to the

public servants uphold the U.S. Conall

that

jurist, to insure

tions (Rights); and to carry out

Prohibi

of

Bill

and

stitution

Natural Law; principled under Jusunder

ating

deliber

all of my

strictly adhere to the following

to

And

Mercy;

and

tice, Honor,

when with-held must have a

right

Every

(1)

maxims:

two legal

remedy, and every injury it's proper redress, and (2) In the

absence of a victim there can be no crime "corpus delecti", the

State cannot be the victim. It is the duty of all the people

to share in the governing of them-selves and to secure their

government by participating as jurist.

Page 5

It is important to know these positions and oaths

with

g place. Danmola

specificity to know the corruption that is takin

by a Felon wh-

was charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm

ich is in fact a "unconstitutional" charge. The

fact of the

matter is the UNITED STATES is not delegated the

power to make

such a charge. Neither can they enforce a charge

of such.

10th Amendment U.S. Const.

the Consti

"The powers not delegated to the United States by

to the

ved

reser

are

tution, nor prohibited by it to the States,

States respectively, or to the people."

women

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, every

of

arms

bear

and

and boys, and not militia only, to keep

the militia,

description, and not such merely as are used by

in the

upon,

in

n

shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broke

be attato

end

tant

impor

smallest degree; and all this for the

ia,

milit

ated

regul

wella

ined: the rearing up and qualifying

opinOur

.

State

free

a

of

ity

so vitally necessary to the secur

nant to the

ion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repug

, originally

right

this

s

avene

Constitution, and void, which contr

Charles I.

by

foot

under

led

belonging to our forefathers, tramp

by the

shed

tabli

re-es

,

ssors

succe

and his two wicked son and

the

by

ty

liber

of

land

this

to

yed

revolution of 1688, conve

own

our

in

sly

icuou

consp

ed

porat

colonists, and finally incor

).

(2008

r

Helle

v.

bia

Colum

Magna Carta!" District of

Such is void with the right given to the "people".

The

s do not po-

people are not divisible giving some rights other

ssess. More importantly a prohibition Amendment

would first

5 of the U.S.

have to be passed by Congress construed with Art.

Constitution by 2 3rds of both houses or 2 3rds

of the States

oses no such

legislatures in a convention. The Constitution discl

the right

law thereby the 10th Amendment "respectively" gives

Art. 1 Sec. 23

to the States and the people. Texas Constitution

concurring with the 2nd Amendment that," Every"

citizen shall

l defense of

have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawfu

himself or the State." Section 29 holding all laws

contrary to

te by Congress

the "Bill of Rights" of Texas are "void". A statu

Page 6

doesn't even have jurisdiction in the States of the Union but

in District of Columbia and territories outside the States of

the Union.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)- The court

ruled the application of the First and Second Amendments "was

not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in

respect to their own citizens" and "has no other effect than to

restrict the powers of the national government," respectively.

"The second amendment declares taht it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall

not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments

that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the

national government, leaving the people to look for their

protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of

the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New

York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 1021 139, the 'powers

which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was

perhaps more roperly called internal police," not surrenderd

or restrained by the constitution of the United States."

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters (outside

of Constitutionally delegated powers) do not extend into the

territorial limits of the States (of the Union), but have force

only in the District of Columbia and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha

v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894).

"There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches

Congress, that, unless a contrary intent appears, (legislation)

is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of

the United States." U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949).

"The term "territories" generally refers to the political

subdivisions created by Congress and not within the jurisdictional boundaries of any of the several States of the Union."

86 C.J.S. (Corpus Juris Secundum)

Yet in this particular instance the criminal case had no

"victim" which violates the second maxim of the jurist oath

"corpus delecti". Someones 4th Amendment rights would have to be

violated by Danmola which is not the case. So in this instance

the government claims "society" is the victim. Danmola is a

"electrician" by trade who has not trespassed on anyones person,

house, papers or effects.

Page 7

victim- A person harmed by a crime, tort, or other wrong. Blacks

Law Tenth Edition

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the "UNI—

TED STATES" claims to be the victim which it cannot because it

is "all" the "states" combined. The same second maxim is still

violated. Which the judge and prosecutor who took a oath not

to "deviate" from the Constitution did by telling the jury they

cannot come to their own conclussion of what the law is which

takes away the most important right of the jury. This is the

most pivotal "fraud" used to win the 987 conviction rate the

Fed. has at this time. A statute rules and the Constitution is

second class.

"Since the constitution is intended for the observance of

the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the

judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not

at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract

evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to

give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all

constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to

the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequence, thus, it is said that the courts should

be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States

Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative

fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the

rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law

unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in

accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before

which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into

rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the constitution and not the Statute governs in cases before them for

judgment." 16 Am Jur 2d., Sec 155., emphasis added

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest

form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their

first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and

slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only

be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be literally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them

of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of

the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance.

It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta Principiss."

Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)

Page 8

one of the conerstones

"Trust in the jury is, after all,

trust is without fount

tha

of our entire jurisprudence, and if

deal more than the nullifidation we must re-examine a great

elon

cation doctrine." Judge David L. Baz

s this is a "frivolous"

With all this judge JOHN MCBRYDE sai

ing to dismiss the cival acsuit sought for redress in his rul

stitutionally he has no jurition. Yet by another "statute". Con

judgment on its face is void

sdiction to determine such and his

United States.

• This is a civil action against the

11th Amendment U.S. Const.

tes shall not be conThe judicial power of the United Sta ity, commenced or

or equ

strued to extend to any suit in law

States by Citizens of anted

Uni

,

the

of

prosecuted against one

jects of any Foreign State."

other State, or by citizens or Sub

gment which they say caThe Fifth Circuit Affirmed his jud

mola did not overturn

t be rewarded to Danmola because Dan

nno

LYLE W. CAYCE backed by the

the conviction. However the clerk

6/2018 dismissed Danmolas

deputy clerk MELISSA MATTINGLY 4/1

case by a motion filed by Danmola

to "Dismiss Appeal" due to the

t the Fed would follow suit

State dropping the case and though

medy" to be released from

for. Yet Danmola asked for the "re

in "pursuance" with Danmolas

the B.O.P. which order was granted

eased he filed a "motion for

motion. Upon Danmola not being rel

reconsideration" to have his brief

heard but was denied by the

clerk and told the case was closed

5/8/2018 violating Danmolas

RANT COUNTY JAIL fighting

due process. Danmola was in the TAR

appeald yet originally a State

the criminal case which was being

nt is void for such constitucase. The fact remains the judgme

judges taking advantage of

tional violation. The 5th Circuit

viate" from the constitution

this along with other modes to "de

by way of local practice.

"Courts are constituted by authority

Page 9

and they cannot go

d that

beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyon

judgments

their

it,

of

ion

avent

contr

authority, and certainly in

ble, but

voida

not

are

they

ties;

nulli

as

and orders are regarded

Berry,

v.

am

Willi

sal."

rever

to

prior

simply void, and this even

)

(1850

1189

HOW. 945, 940 12 L.Ed. 1170,

"A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner incon

may

and

ty

nulli

a

is

ent

judgm

void

A

ss.

sistent with due proce

Kan.

be vacated at anytime." In re Marriage of Hampshire, 261

).

(1997

854, 862, 939 P.2d 58

s

"Subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a Court

qConse

power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waved.

correction

uently, defects in subjectmatter jurisdiction require

Court."

ict

regardless of whether the error was raised in distr

d JorUnited States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002); Accor

vacate

must

don v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701 (6th CA,1974) ("A Court

ll v.

Burre

:

any judgment enterd in excess of its jurisdiction.")

a

ing

(Deny

2006)

Henderson, et al., 434 F.3d 826, 831 (6th CA

etion

discr

of

abuse

se

motion to vacate a void judgment is a per

the

("If

)

(1995

Ohio. App. 3d 456.

."); State v. Swiger,ut125subje

ctmatter jurisdiction of the

witho

was

trial court

void ab

defendants case, his conviction and sentence would be

initio.")

judJudge JOHN MCBRYDE denied a "motion to void order and

claim

gment." He even held it was "incomprehensible." Due his

as

of a "frivolous" case the law had to be provided as well

was

extraordinary law to prove such was false. Yet deviation

again done by the Court. Although the Case was in the

5th Cirn why

cuit he made claims the case was closed and saw no reaso

a

relief should be granted. The Fifth Circuit has been sent

from

"motion to void order and judgment" I have yet to hear

them. The U.S.D.C. for the criminal case was sent a "moti

on

R.

to void order and judgment" but was told by judge TERRY

his

MEANS that he could not rule on it and filed a 2255 on

own volition and instructed Danmola to dismiss if he did

not

la

want to file the 2255 Danmola never filed himself. Danmo

chose

filed the 2255 in fear of loosing his 2255 chance if he

to dismiss which seems the judge might be trying to do.

Page 10

Question 2.

Uniform

hibited Liberty Of Usage of The

Pro

ple

Peo

Are The

Court

Commercial Code in The Criminal

n

Statutory Provision Relied Upo

of Title to Promote Its PurpoU.C.C. Sec. 1.103. Construction

y of Supplemental Principles of

ses and Policies; Applicabilit

Law:

construed and applied

(a) This title must be liberally

es and policies, which are:

to promote its underlying purpos and modernize the law goveto simplify, clarify

rning commercial transactions;

ion of commercial

to permit the continued expans

and agreement of the parties;

practices through custom, usage

and

the various juristo make uniform the law among

dictions.

ticular provisions of

(b) Unless displaced by the par

law and equity, including the

this title, the principles of ve to capacity to contract,

law merchant and the law relatifraud, misrepresentation,

principal and agent, estoppel,

kruptcy, or other validating

duress, coercion, mistake, ban

plement its provisions.

or invalidating cause shall sup

Argument

a U.C.C. 1 Financing statement

ed

fil

has

who

Danmola

n which is to be recognized in

account 341846739 in Washingto

h Art.4 Sec. 2 of the U.S. Con

all other States construed wit

ween the Creditor Abdullah

stitution is an "agreement" bet

ufu Danmola and the Debtor

Yusufu Danmola also known as Yus

wn as YUSUFU DANMOLA. The

ABDULLAH YUSUFU DANMOLA also kno

ce serves the purpose as

"juristic person" in this instan

atutory" process.

that of a human being in the "st

ss and Indemnity Agreement

Juristic Person (in Hold Harmle tement)- In this Hold-Harmfiled in U.C.C. 1 collateral sta term "juristic person" means

less and Indemnity Agreement the is, such as a corporation,

leg

an abstract, legal entity ens

considered as possessing

and

law

of

created by construct

of a human being; an imagicertain legal rights and duties ULLAH YUSUFU DANMOLA also

nary entity, such as Debtor ABD soning, is legally treated

which, on.thebasis of legal reae of conducting commercial

as a human being for the purpos

biological, living being, such

activity for the benefit of a

as Creditor.

Page 11

t in the use of

"Observation: A person has a property righ

gn." Gracey

assi

sfer or

his or her name which a person may tran

).

App. 1989

v. Maddin, 769 S.W. 2nd 497 (Tenn. Ct.

rced rights and

"From the earliest times the law has enfoconcept-by

e

orat

exacted liabilities by ustilizing a corp r than human beings.

recognizing that is, juristic persons othe

l operation has develThe theories by which this mode of lega

defined are the subjeoped, has been justified qualified, and

historic roots of a

The

ct matter of a very sizable library,

osophic notions,

phil

s,

sure

particular society, economic pres

to the ways of

onse

resp

s

law'

all have had their share in the

what is now the fammen in carrying on their affairs through

on of legal rights

buti

ttri

jar device of the corporation----A

man is necessarily

than

r

othe

and duties to a juristic person

e for it. No doubt,

a metaphorical process. And none the worshed.'" Cardozo, J.,

'Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watc

84, 94.

in Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y.

Such juristic person serving such purpose

who

tract put in place by the UNITED STATES

due to the con-

has in "fact"

used the juristic person for commercial

purposes by way of

contract in the Court. C.F.R. 27.72.11

holding, "All crimes

has construed the

are made commercial by way of contract"

g for U.C.C. Sec.

U.C.C. into the Criminal Court sufficin

being creditor and

1.103(a)(1)(2)(3) and (b). Yet Danmolà

has a "security inentered into a "agreement" with Debtor

eral Definitions"

terest" defined in U.C.C. Sec. 1.201. "Gen

urity interest".

section in regards to "agreement" and "sec

the B.O.P. Law Library

Danmola being deprived of U.C.C. Law by

was not heard in the Court even though

he gave many refferstic person and

ences to his distinction between the juri

himself. His first Detention hearing he

told the Court," I

d man with a soul

am the living, breathing, flesh and bloo

named Yusufu Danmola not to be confused

with the fiction."

Such is "notice" and "knowledge" of such

information. The Sec-

ond Detention hearing Danmola told the

Page 12

Court upon his chance

to speak that his rights are reserved under U.C.C. Sec. 1.308

and that he would not accept any attempts of expatriation. "Notice" and "knowledge" again given and even submitted by way of

affidavit (see enclosed Reservation of Rights Affidavit) that

was not accepted by Court when mailed without rebuttal which

is a common law plain error and violation of Fed. Rules of Crim.

Pro. 47 (d).

U.C.C. Sec. 1.202. Notice;Knowledge

(a) Subject to Subsection (f), a person has "notice" of

a fact if the person:

has actual knowledge of it;

has recieved a notice or notification of it; or

from all the facts and circumstances known to the

person at the time in question, has reason to know that it exist.

(b) "knowledge" means actual knowledge. "Knows" has a

corresponding meaning."

(c) "Discover," "learn," or words of similar import refer

to knowledge rather than to reason to know.

(d) A person "notifies" or "gives" a notice or notification to another person by taking such steps as may be reasonably

required to inform the other person in ordinary course, whether

or not the other person actually comes to know of it.

(e) Subject to Subsection (f), a person "recieves" a

notice or notification when:

it comes to that person's attention; or

it is duly deliverd in a form reasonable under the

circumstances at the place of business through which the contract

was made or at another location held out by that person as

the place for receipt of such communications.

(f) Notice, knowledge, or a notice or notification recieved by an organization is effective for a particular transaction from the time it is brought to the attention of the

individual conducting that transaction and, in any event, from the time it would have been brought to the individuals attention if the organization had exercised due diligence. An organization exercises due diligence if it maintains reasonable

routines for communicating significant information to the person conducting the transaction and there is reasonable compliance with the routines. Due diligence does not require an

individual acting for the organization to communicate information unless the communication is part of the individual's

regular duties or the individual has reason to know of the

transaction and that the transaction would be materially

affected by the information.

Such "notice" and "knowledge" was relevant due to the fact

that "expatration" in •fact occurs in the District Court by way

Page 13

of the 14th Amendment (see 15 united States statute at large,

July 27th, 1868). This is why Danmola placed emphasis on stating

he is not a 14th Amendment citizen in order to remain "sovereign". You will notice in every document and motion Danmola has

"without prejudice" on such. Such reason is because the Court

and government have conspired to extract the "sovereignty" of

Danmola and others by terminology of being a United States Citizen. Danmola is a "State Citizen of the Republic". The Treaty

of Peace of 1783 and the sovereignty attained by such being

violated by the Court and government. U.S.C. 18. 241, U.S.C.

18 242, U.S.C. 18 2071 and U.S.C. 18 2382 engaged in by the

Court and government. Even though Congress is not able to have

its laws undelegated to operate in the States of the Union the

government and Court have operated the statutes, but they are

enforcing such in violation of the 9th Amendment which denies

and disparages the rights of the people to use the U.C.C. which cannot be denied due to the enumeration of the Amendments

which they are using the 14th Amendment in order to do.

"All laws, rules, and practices are repugnant to the

Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5th US

(2 cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).

"The common law is the real law, the supreme Law of the

land, the code rules,regulations, policy and statutes are

"not the law". Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261

"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's

laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional

and lacking due process... " Rodrigues v. Ray Donavan (U.S.

Department of Labor) 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)

Page 14

The self same 2nd Detention hearing Danmola gave "notice"

and "knowledge" of the U.C.C. 1 financing statement on record

which has a Common Law Copywright of all the names of ABDULLAH

YUSUFU DANMOLA including YUSUFU DANMOLA. The likes of which are

enforceable by "action" which Danmola has done in accordance

with "notice" and "knowledge" construed to have all liberally

made to apply by U.C.C. Sec. 1.305(b).

U.C.C. Sec. 1.305. Remedies to be Liberally Administerd

(b) "Any right or obligation declared by this title is

enforceable by action unless the provision declaring it specifies a different and limited effect.

All thereby stated to the Court in 2nd Detention hearing

to be made to be "Liberally Administerd" as well as made to be

enforced in "Good Faith". Danmola gave a copy of the "instrument" known as "indictment" to the judge to give to the clerk

by specific instruction of Danmola which the judge read aloud

having "ACCEPTED FOR VALUE" with the account number and creditor and Debtor name with the Social Security number for the

Debtor. Such also had a "Money Order" on the bottom which was

to be used to discharge the instrument which is made commercial

by way of contract in accordance with C.F.R. 27.72.11. Danmola

presenting the "action" necessary to give "notice" and "knowledge" of the instrument to be "Liberally Administerd" was

Danmola's right as Creditor. The business was to be concluded

at that point due to Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement which holds in financing statement:

"This Hold-harmless and Indemnity Agreement is mutually

agrred upon and entered into between the juristic person:

ABDULLAH YUSUFU DANMOLA," and any and all derivatives and

Page 15

ter jointly and

variations in spelling of said name hereinaf

Danmola," the 1fu

Yusu

h

ulla

"Abd

pt,

severally "Debtor," exce

n by the distinctive

lying, breathing, flesh-and-blood man, know

ter- "Creditor."

appellation Abdullah Yusufu Danmola, hereinaf

essly agr"For valuable consideration Debtor hereby expr

on, and without

ees and covenants, without benefit of discussi

rtakes the indemdivision, that Debtor holds harmless and unde

all claims,

and

nification of Creditor from and against any

liabilinds,

dema

legal actions, orders, warrants, judgments,

s, fines,

cost

s,

ties, losses, depositions, summonses, law suitand expenses whas,

liens, levies, penalties, damages, interest

due and as might

are

as

nt,

inge

cont

and

lute

abso

tsoever both

r arise, and as

afte

here

become due, now existing and as might

on, Debtor

sed

impo

as

might be sufferd/iricurred by, as well

or does

Debt

er.

soev

for any reason, purpose, and cause what

Creditor

that

e

agre

and

hereby and herewith expressly covenant

soever

what

er

mann

any

in

shall not under any circumstance, nor

Debtor."

for

ty,

sure

a

nor

y,

part

be considerd an accomodation

Yet even the tender of payment construed with

HJR-192 was

ent still is "disch-

in the instance refused then tender of paym

arged" In accordance with U.C.C. Sec. 3.603

which was to be

ng "notice" and

discharged in "Good Faith" due to Danmola givi

"knowledge" by "action" which required such

be "Liberally Ad-

ministerd":

U.C.C. Sec. 1.304. Obligation of Good Faith

ses an ob"Every contract or duty within this title impo

ent."

rcem

enfo

ligation of good faith in its performance and

U.C.C. Sec. 3.603. Tender of Payment

an instIf tender of payment of an obligation to pay

rument

inst

the

rce

enfo

trument is made to a person entitled to

applicalaw

of

es

cipl

the effect of tender is governed by prin

.

ract

cont

le

ble to tender of payment under a simp

an instIf tender of payment of an obligation to pay rument

inst

the

rce

enfo

to

tled

rument is made to a person enti

harge, to the

and the tender is refused, there is still disc gation of an inobli

the

of

er,

extent of the amount of the tend

of recourse with

dorser of accomodation party having a righter relates.

tend

the

h

whic

to

respect to the obligation

instrument

If tender of payment of an amount due on a

instrument, the o-.

is made to a person entitled to enforce the

ed. If presentment

bligation of the amount tenderd is discharg

the obligor is

is required with respect to an instrument and y place of payment

able and ready to pay on the due date at evered to have made

stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemon entitled to

tender of payment on the due date to the pers

enforce the instrument.

Yet the government has breached the contract

Page 16

of the Secur-

ed Party and by "fraud" has acted as the Creditor of the "Juristic Person" YUSUFU DANMOLA which they are not in fact. There

were "distinct" lines drawn that were never to be crossed which infringed Danmola's security of person, papers and effects

which violates the 4th Amendment. The impairment of contract

violating Art. 1 Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution which also

resulted in violation of Due Process further turned into a 6th

Amendment violation upon the Court forcing Danmola into a Commercial Agreement due to silent contract in place by asking

Danmola, do you plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Danmola

replied," I do not understand" and proceeded to ask a question

when Danmola was cut off and forced into the proceeding without "consent". Such was done due to the Court not willing to

prove that it in fact had no jurisdiction which the Court was

to provide by the 6th Amendment due to Danmola being confused

of the law being thrust on him not of the Constitution.

U.C.C. Sec. 1.306. Waiver of Renunciation of Claim or Right After Breach.

"A claim or right arising out of an alleged breach may be

discharged in whole or part without consideration by agreement

of the aggrieved party in an authenticated record."

"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those

prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed

by his fellowmen without his consent." Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C.

338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

.

denotes not merely freedom from

"The term "liberty"

bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract

to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to aquire

useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up

children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own

conscience.. The established doctrine is that this liberty

may not be interfered with, under guise of protecting public

interest, by legislative action." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S.

390, 399, 400.

...

.

"The right to be let alone the most comprhensive of rights

and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that

Page 17

right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the

privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be

deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment." Olmstead v. U.S.,

277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928).

The 5th Circuit in the Affirming of judge JOHN MCBRYDE's

claim of a "frivolous" claim fails to see that a Power of Attorney is within the U.C.C. 1 Collateral statement. Such makes Danmola the acting "Attorney" in this extent. Danmola cannot be

underminded even in a pro se extent and must be given a fair opportunity to retrieve all law necessary to defend himself which

is a "sovereign" right in orgin. The claim the 5th Circuit has

made by local practice that Danmola has no constitutional right

to attain U.C.C. Law or Texas Constitution due to not having a

government assisted attorney is "void". The "court" is the domain

of the "sovereign" where he must have a fair trial in proper

"jurisdiction". If due process is denied in any way the whole

proceeding is void. To be an attorney is a common Law occupation

which cannot be deprived to any man. The treating of Danmola's

legal papers also must have the same protection as any other

attornies who had "legal mail" on them. Thereby his 4th Amendment

rights further intruded upon.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." Sherar v. Cullen

481 F.2d 946 (1973).

"A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law

or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that

contravene the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 353 U.S. 232 (1957)

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made , are not to be defeated under the name of local practice

California,

." Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v.

449.

U.S.

375

Alabama,

v.

NAACP

359;

U.S.

238

Page 18

Reason Why Certiorari Should be Granted

The reason wgy this certiorari should be granted is that

as the preamble stated "We the People" created this Constitution

for the blessings of "Liberty". Such was trampled over by those

who "invaded" our republican form of government by "deviating"

from the Constitution. Danmola shoul not have to claim to be a

"sovereign". This is the natural state of the people, again by

"fraud" removed from the people. law and fact have been presented that proves remedy and proper redress must be given in this

instance.

Conclusion

The Treaty of Peace and Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

declare that the Court lacked Subjectmatter jurisdiction in a

various amount of ways. But also it is proven that oaths were

violated and parties engaged in conspiracy against the rights

of Danmola. Such "fraud" illegally imprisoned Danmola the Common

Law was desecrated and even Affidavits Reservation of Rights

and Affidavit of Prohibition (see enclosed) confirming much

herein was also not responded too. This is basic common law.

It is hoped that this Justice Court is that of one that keeps

its oath and delegated duty in high regard.

Page 19

Prayer

Danmola prays that this Certiorari is granted and Danmola

restored his person and property in release from the B.O.P.

as well as the fine amount paid in the Reservation of Rights

Affidavit by the UNITED STATES in the amount of minutes or per

instance such rights were violated which is approximately about

$10,000,000.00. Such for proper remedy and redress of Danmola,

FIAT JUSTISTIA RUAT COELUM.

Date:

(I

'

Without Prejudice U.C.C. Sec. 1.308

Without Recourse U.C.C. Sec. 1.103

Sui Juris:

Yusufu Danmola

Affidavit

I Yusufu Danmola, being over 18 years of age do swear that

all facts and statements are true and correct under the penalty

of perjury.

Date:____________

Y-I

Page 20

Yusufu Danmola