Richard William Pitchers
In Propria Persona Sui Juris
1520 Lacey Court, #1
Concord, California [Zip Exempt]
925-363-5470
The Superior Court, State of California, in and for the County of Contra Costa[1]
______TERM
Richard William Pitchers,PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER
Vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT,
“JUDGE” Judith Craddick, surrogate lawyer for the People of the State of California / CASE No.
VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
JUDGE JUDITH CRADDICK
DATE: ______
TIME: ______
CRTRM:______
Comes now the petitioner and aggrieved and greatly damaged party in the above entitled matter hereby giving notice of all parties of the law AND DEMANDS ISSUANCE OF A VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW:
1.) My status is exactly as Richard William Pitchers in my own proper person, and no other. (I only use this name, spelling and capitalization; and any person, state agent or otherwise is prohibited from using any other)[2].
2.) I am in Propria Persona, Sui Juris, and am acting as my own counsel[3]. NOTE: I am not PRO SE nor PRO PER and any labeling as such is a direct damage to me, as this court and all its judicial officers has knowledge of the law and come under strict construction of the law, while I as a non-American Bar Association trained lawyer am acting as my own counsel, thereby I come under the “spirit of the law” and am not held to strict construction of the law.
3.) I give up no rights, and reserve all of them. I am a free white Christian man living on the Land within Contra Costa County, in California, one of the United States of America; with express and explicit reservation of all Vested Natural, Inherent, Common Law, and Inalienable Rights, whether enumerated or not in the Constitution of the State of California of 1849; without admitting to any jurisdiction of the Constitution of the State of California of 1879[2]; the Political Code, the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Penal Code of the State of California, each one though enacted in 1872 were never made a part of the Public Statutes of California, nor any amendments or additions of any type to any of the foregoing[3]; without representation of any attorney-at- law, but with assistance of "counsel" by Right within the meaning of the Constitution of the State of California of 1849, Article I, Section 21.[4]
4.) My status is that of a white Christian male adult of the age of majority, who is not an incompetent, nor any fiction or corporation. I am in fact, a human being, a free man about the land, beholden to nobody; a California state Citizen, not a member of nor embarrassed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States. See Plessy v. Ferguson.
5.) I claim all rights inherent to me, and give proper judicial notice and place on the record, that my child Christopher Pitchers, born January, 25, 1992 is my property[5] of which I have sole control under law, and that any and all such contracts, special contracts, special obligations, special debt, court orders, special court orders, are hereby lawfully revoked and rescinded, and have no force of law, or any obligation upon me whatsoever.
Father has rights to the Custody of child in preference to Mother. Child need not join a Habeas Corpus brought by its parent to obtain its custody. Father cannot alienate his right to the Custody and control of his child. People ex rel Barry v. Mercien 3 Hill 399
That it is a fact that my child, is an unemancipated minor, under the age of majority, and thereby, lawfully comes under the care, custody and control of my person as a matter of the due course of law, as I am fact, pointed to in law as my child’s natural guardian and defender thereto, I as the lawful father[6] to my son, have preeminent title to my own child, and in fact, holder in due course over all their property rights in accordance with law and reason.
6.) In the above-mentioned matter, I have personal knowledge of the events and have personally witnessed all said acts and/or omissions alleged here in this Verified Criminal Complaint.
7.) I do in fact, have clean hands in this matter, while respondent’s in this matter against me, have unclean hands[7] by their acts of fraud and their plan to damage me for the purposes of profit and reward. As I have clean hands in this matter, my claims to my own child of which I am holder in due course, and have lawful title of, that I am the preferred party not only by my status, but as a matter of both law and equity: "By the civil law, the child of parents divorced is to be brought up by the innocent party, at the expense of the guilty party." Ridley's View, part 1, ch. 3, sect. 9, cites 8th Collation. Vide, generally, 1 Blackstone's Comm. 440.
8.) Note: all laws contained herein are only brought as they are declaratory of the common law and the public law of this California Union State in consonance with the Constitution of California (1849).
9.) Respondent’s in this matter are in fact:
a.) My ex-wife LAURI M. PITCHERS, who was present within the County of Contra Costa county for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, was a resident therein; and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondents in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement by enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction;
b.) The County of Contra Costa District Attorney Gary T. Yancy, et als., acting in both his personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;
c.) The “COORDINATING TRIAL COURTS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY” a corporation, acting in both their personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;
d.) The County of Contra Costa “JUDGE” JUDITH CRADDICK, is a “judge” sitting as a surrogate to the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in the judicial department of government, of proper oath and/or affirmation, bonded in accordance with law, sitting in good behavior, sitting at term with a lawful court having proper seal, acting in both her personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the undefined tribunal of County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; and had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; clothed under public authority, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;
e.) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a corporation, acting in both their personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and who had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;
f.) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, is a lawful court, under lawful and proper seal; a corporation, acting in both their personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, and who had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;
g.) JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 through 100: are fictitious entities not yet a published party to this action and a corporation, acting in both their personal and professional capacities, who were present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, and had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;
h.) By these presents, notice to the principle is notice to the agent, notice to the agent, is notice to the principle.
10.) It is a fact under law that: "All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possession and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." Article I, Section 1; Constitution of California (1849) [Adopted by the Convention, October 10, 1849; Ratified by the people, November 13, 1849; Proclaimed, December 20, 1849.] See “State cannot impair obligations of contract on marriage.” Tolen v. Tolen, 2 Blackford 407. [See also Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States, 1787-1791].
"Constitutional Guaranty "that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" entitles every person to follow and adopt such lawful industrial pursuit, not injurious to the community, as he may see fit. The term "liberty" as used in the constitution, is not dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint, but includes the right of a man to be free in the enjoyment of his faculties, subject only to such restraints as are necessary to the common welfare. LIBERTY means the right not only of freedom from servitude, imprisonment, or restrain, but the right to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Statute prohibiting any person who sells, exchanges, or disposes of any article of food from offering to give or giving some other article as a gift, prize, premium or reward to the purchaser infringes upon the liberty of the seller, and is unconstitutional and void. It cannot be sustained as a lawful exercise of the police power of the state. LEGISLATURE CANNOT DETERMINE WHAT IS A PROPER EXCERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE that the determination will not be subject to scrutiny and revision by the courts. While it is generally for the legislature to decide what laws and regulations are needed to protect the public health, and serve the public comfort and safety, the courts MUST be able to see, upon the perusal of an enactment, that there is some fair, just, and reasonable connection between it and the ends above mentioned. Unless such relation exists, the enactment CANNOT BE UPHELD AS AN EXCERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER People v. Gillson, 109 New York, 389
11.) It is a fact, that Article I, Section 8 of that same constitution states:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land and naval forced in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of Congress in naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of Congress in time of peace, and in cases of petite larceny under the regulation of the legislature,) unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury; and in any trial in any court whatever, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel, as in civil actions. No persons shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; (2) nor shall he be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.