Ronald Charles Vrooman General Delivery Beaverton, Oregon 97005 503 641 8374

Ronald Charles Vrooman General delivery Beaverton, Oregon [97005] 503 641 8374

From On Oregon INTO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT aka District Court of the United States FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA seeking jurisdiction and justice. As there is no Article III court available for remedy at 1000 SW 3rd Ave. Portland Oregon

Ronald Charles Vrooman

Party for Plaintiff Pro se and

Vrs.

The corporate governance aka the United States

John Mercer et al

Federal District Court of Oregon et al

Beaverton City et al.

Federal District Court of Oregon et al.

Beaverton City et al.

Katherine Brown et al. and others to be named.

Notice to the agent is notice to the principal; notice to the principal is notice to the agent.

There is no fee for an American, that is me, in any court including an Article III court. Therefore, do not dun me for bogus fees. That’s governing law for non US citizens, American, Nationals, continuous travelers and those on the land in one of the several states. I am known as an Oregonian.

The court and judge are required by governing law to provide proof of jurisdiction in writing, their bona fides into the records of these two cases. The current exact oaths of your staff of judiciary is required.

If my paper work is found to be deficient you are required to inform me so that I can correct it. That is also governing law.

I do lawful not legal and this is my best effort. Filed into the record in the Article III court in Washington District of Columbia. All the documents, I have filed into all courts, are active. I need not state all that information again. They are called forth now from Courthouse #740 and every other court mentioned in these cases, as discovery.

The courthouse 740 court dismisses Plaintiff’s action. That is me. There is no Article III court to do anything. There is color of law court for the fiction of the alleged court. There are an alleged judges, as no proof of jurisdiction has been filed into the record. Thus, alleged judges filed paper into my cases, in an alleged court and none has proven bona fides. My status is clear and un-rebutted in the alleged courts of record in Beaverton and Courthouse 740, also in the public record City of Beaverton. I am an American, non US citizen, with all of my inalienable rights guaranteed by our founding documents.

I mailed a letter to Angela D. Caesar clerk of this court. A copy is attached. This court will comply with my demands for an Article III, 11th Amendment and VII Amendment trial.

Or in 21 days from the date of this document it will be admitted by default there is no Article III, 11th and VII amendment court available and I will proceed unfettered to the one Supreme Court of the Constitution of the United States of America circa 1819 through 1860-61. This will also be a default on my due process 18 USC 3571. Payable in silver dollars of my youth in Reno or the equivalent in value paid in Federal Reserve Notes.

Points of contention that are never addressed.

There is no proof that there is an Article III court at the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION. The building is on Oregon not federal land. A deputy clerk of court stated: there are Article III judges not an Article III court.

I deny there is a court of law or equity at 1000 SW 3rd Ave. Therefore, the findings and rulings are void a nullity.

There is no proof that John C. Coughenour UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE allegedly, herein after known as John, has standing. As he has not provided proof of jurisdiction or other bona fides such as Constitutionally required oath, as required by my demand and governing law.

I deny there is a lawful or legal or legitimate order from John or Sidney Thomas of the 9th Circuit concerning me or my cases.

The letter allegedly signed by John, appears to be machine or stamp generated, no seal or watermarks, states several inaccurate issues. To wit: Doncha just love that legal speak?

That the plaintiff, that is me, owes money to the court and that I refused to pay fees. This has been addressed and proof provided that there are no fees for me to file. Yet, he continues to dun me. The case filed into miscellaneous was paid and John wants to collect again.

I deny there are fees due. So, John prove your assertion or accusation.

I deny! That, I did not address the previous claims made by John. The assertions by John, with no standing according to governing law, filed into the Courthouse 740 in Portland. A court which, is not an Article III court and has yet to prove the validity of an Article III court.

I deny that John can claim or order anything into cases filed by me, under the current lawful claims I have filed into the Portland court. That according to their publicity is a Federal District Court of the United States and have defaulted on their proof…

John further claims I am a sovereign citizen. That is an oxymoron. I am an American state national, an Oregonian, with all my founding document’s un/inalienable rights. I do not hesitate to lecture John. On the point #1 on the 19 of September letter. I did not receive notice. As john has no proof of authority filed into these cases as demanded by me and governing law…#2. The court did not compile an adequate record for review… As john disregards information, filed into these cases, that covers fees, jurisdiction and lack of standing. Such as john is a defendant in these cases…#3 the court, that has yet to prove its bona fides, cannot find anything. This is simulating legal process and for sure not abiding by governing law… #4. The naming of case law to make a point, when ignoring case law when it is inconvenient, is ludicrous.

The effrontery of court, as determined by John, to make me any rulings is almost overwhelming. However, I still stand, in all my cases, as a Pro Se litigant that has yet to be provided my guaranteed Article III court in law and equity, as each case requires, by governing law. Not the color of law, legal fiction served up by the alleged district court of the United States located in Portland, Oregon at the Mark O. Hatfield Building at 1000 SW 3rd Ave. On Oregon not on federal land. Not an Article III court, as stated by a deputy clerk of that court.

The conundrum is: being an American, a national, non US citizen, functioning/operating in the corporate US governance environment. It has been concluded, by SCOTUS, that there are Americans with Constitutional rights and US citizens with 14 amendment privileges. Both here and now.

However, the corporate governance in color of law has presented to everyone the rules and statutes and unlawful amendments and Articles. Un ratified amendments enforced against Americans. When they do not apply. They do this by fraud.

I deny all unlawful amendments. I deny all unlawful statutes.

What are the solutions???

The Accardi Doctrine, Clearfield Doctrine, Ex parte Young, ex parte Milligan and Oregon’s ORCP 20A are four corners rule, on the table. As is governing law for this inferior court.

Some choose to keep quiet, don’t cause any waves, don’t argue or challenge, just go along to get along. Some wish to be taken care of and trade their inalienable rights for privileges and pay the fees. I consider them to be employees of some subdivision of the state of state. Homeland security comes to mind. Drivers licenses for the general public abrogating our right to travel. Passing gun control laws, using a corporation, the FBI, to arrest free people that have no mala in se crimes. Ever heard of the Pinkerton Act? I see trials in courts that have no jurisdiction, either by territory or subject matter. There are foreign agents, with titles of nobility, being elected and appointed to public office, FARA comes to mind as does 13 TONA... Corporate governance is made up of criminals doing crimes, we have the evidence. Usurpation of power by executive, legislative and judicial is rampant and the example: They let each other do it. Importing muslims that can never be Americans within our Constitutional Republic as they are followers of islam with sharia. The prior administration took 2.6 billion dollars from the Veterans Administration funds for this unlawful activity. There is no mixing. It’s fraud upon the people, especially Vets.

I am a non US citizen member of the 4th branch of government. Thank you Antonin Scalia.

I choose to take my guaranteed actions in an Article III court. I wonder where one is to be found?

Some of us challenge the corporate governance on the street, in traffic court and other courts. Our win loss ratio is not that good. Some of us do civil disobedience. You see a lot of Non-Constitutional Republic, US citizens, liberals doing that now. A woman of some political stature stated, as they are doing hate speech. I hate others for what they say. She did not recognize the irony.

One solution is long range; start to teach government of the people. After the years of dumbing down, that is long range. Look at the teachers we currently have. Berkeley wants free speech for their liberals and a muzzle on dissent. How does that work? I find the judiciary, legislature and executive on Oregon do not provide me with due process.

It is common knowledge that 9/11 did not happen as purported. Sandy Hook was a hoax. Las Vegas in a vicious, murdering hoax… The list goes on and on. Antonin Scalia was murdered as was Robert Lavoy Finnicum and the color of law corporate legal fiction continues. It stops with me.

I deny the corporate governance of state of Oregon a subdivision of and its subdivisions provide me, my guaranteed, due process as determined by governing law.

. A judge, that is not a defendant, may take heed. A clerk may actually give it to that judge.

Without the state of Oregon, without the county of Washington,

Signed and sworn before me

On Oregon within the United States of America c1819

Evidence:

Thats right, they are ALL in violation of their lawful Oath of Office by not having one. This, is exactly why we need more attention on the Oath.

OATH OF OFFICE MAKES PUBLIC OFFICIALS “FOREIGN”

Those holding Federal or State public office, county or municipal office, under the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch, including Court Officials, Judges, Prosecutors, Law Enforcement Department employees, Officers of the Court, and etc., before entering into these public offices, are required by the U.S. Constitution and statutory law to comply with Title 5 USC, Sec. §3331, “Oath of office.” State Officials are also required to meet this same obligation, according to State Constitutions and State statutory law.

All oaths of office come under 22 CFR, Foreign Relations, Sections §§92.12 - 92.30, and all who hold public office come under Title 8 USC, Section §1481 “Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions.”
Under Title 22 USC, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, Section §611, a Public Official is considered a foreign agent. In order to hold public office, the candidate must file a true and complete registration statement with the State Attorney General as a foreign principle.

The Oath of Office requires the public official in his / her foreign state capacity to uphold the constitutional form of government or face consequences.
Title 10 USC, Sec. §333, “Interference with State and Federal law”

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
Such willful action, while serving in official capacity, violates Title 18 USC, Section §1918:

Title 18 USC, Section §1918 “Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the government”
Whoever violates the provision of 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) Is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both. And also deprives claimants of “honest services: