Umpteenth Request for Investigation of Conspiracy of Organized Crime

Umpteenth Request for Investigation of Conspiracy of Organized Crime


January 8, 2009

James B. Abbott, Principal Case No EV31C0042278

Denny R. Hardin, “Agent”

2450 Elmwood

Kansas City, Missouri 64127


To: Federal Trade Commission

Consumer Response Center

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington DC 20580

All “United States Representatives”

By and through my Representative

Emanuel Cleaver, “Agent”

United States Representative for the 5th District of Missouri

101 West 31 Street

Kansas City, Missouri 64108

Judge Mike Parrott

Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, Place 1

14350 Wallisville Road

Houston, TX 77049-4135


The principal has requested that I intervene in this cause of action and act as his “Agent” to inform the Court why it should remove the “Order of Eviction”, that requires the mother and child to vacate their home by February 2, 2009, that it has entered in this cause of action. All people are entitled to relief from judgment for “Fraud upon the court” this can be nothing more “Organized Crime” to extort property from its rightful owner without due process of law. All “Foreclosures” are a conspiracy of the banks, mortgage companies and attorneys. The following are the lawful challenges to the “Order” of the Justice of the Peace, presented “Amicus Curiae” as a friend of the Court, in the hope the “Justice of the Peace” will find cause to remove the “Order” and force the plaintiff to prove their claims. Otherwise a young mother and her daughter will be homeless.


  1. James Abbott has informed me he has given the “Justice of the Peace” notice that this debt is paid in full and the debt is disputed.

The Law: “Fair Debt Collection Act” 15 USC 1692g

  1. (3) Upon challenge of the validity of a debt, the debt must be verified by the “NOTE HOLDER”. Until the debt is verified, all action to collect it must cease until its validity is established.15 USC 1692(b) Disputed Debts. This debt is disputed for the following reasons:
  1. Lack of Contract: James B. Abbott disputes all claims of contract with the Plaintiffs to comply with them in any manner. There is no contracts with any of the following Parties:





SELIM TAHERZADEH, “Foreign Agent” 22 USC 611

STEPHEN L. HARRIS, “Foreign Agent” 22 USC 611

TRAVIS H. GRAY, “Foreign Agent” 22 USC 611

CARA FEATHERSTONE, “Foreign State” 22 USC 611

GREGORY A. BALCOM, “Foreign Agent” 22 USC 611

These Plaintiffs are all “Fictitious Person” who do not exist or are foreign agents acting without a principal, none can be the “Original NOTE HOLDER” and none have a contract with James B. Abbott. James B. Abbott disputes all claims of contract, no contract is present.


Because these companies claim the right to possession of the property, the “Justice of the Peace” should require the attorneys of record to produce the “Original”, “Wet Ink Signed” “Promissory Note” that establishes them as the “NOTE HOLDER”. Failure to produce the “Original Note” establishes the plaintiff is not the lawful “NOTE HOLDER” and all their claims must be dismissed as “Fraud on the Court” by claiming they are the “NOTE HOLDER” when in fact they are not.

The Law: “Best Evidence Rule”

This common rule of court, (Kansas , Iowa for sure) requires the “Original Note” be present in court to prove the validity of the document. Copies are not admissible. The reason for this rule is the lawful requirement of the court to return the “Original Note” to the “Defendant” of a “Foreclosure”, if the property is “foreclosed on”. The bank can not keep the note and the property, they must relinquish one or the other.

Lawful Challenge:

The Plaintiff is lawfully challenged by the foregoing statement of facts to prove they are the “NOTE HOLDER” by producing the “Original Note” in this “Court of Record” and the “Justice of the Peace” authenticate it as the “Original Note”. The “Justice of the Peace” is required to return this “Original Note” to James B. Abbott to proceed with eviction, therefore it must be present in the court, prior to eviction.

  1. Lack of Agency: James B. Abbott challenges the “Agency” of the Plaintiff and their Attorneys of Record, to prove their capacity to sue.

The Challenge of “Agency” requires the court to lawfully determine the rights of the plaintiff to commence, prosecute and act on behalf of a “Principal” of a cause of action. The court can not rely upon the claims of an “Agent” to prove “Agency”, the “Principal” must establish the “Agency”. No attorney can claim an “Agency” with a “Corporation”, it can not withstand cross-examination.

COMMON SENSE: Because all the “Plaintiffs” are “Corporations” and lawfully established as “Fictitious persons” they can not communicate in any manner. They can not sign a “Power of Attorney”, they can not give verbal instructions to any attorney and they can not give authority to sue on their behalf.

The “Original”, “NOTE HOLDER” must be present in court, present the note, take the stand, state a debt is owed to him and he is entitled to the property. Then due process of law requires he be subjected to cross examination, to dispute his claim. Only then can a court, declare a debt is owed and the “Principal” may collect the collateral. Any attempt of a court to take property without this due process of law, is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the “Constitution for the united States of America” for talking property without due process of law.

Lawful Challenge:

The attorneys of record are lawfully challenged to prove their capacity to sue on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Unless they can magically make the “Fictitious persons” appear in court, they can not establish a lawful “Agency” that allows them to act as “Agents” in this court.

  1. Capacity to Sue:

All attorneys who enter a court, to sue or prosecute on behalf of a “Fictitious person” are engaged in “Fraud upon the court”. The only time an attorney can enter a court to represent a “Principal”, without the “Principal”, is in the case of criminal prosecution for murder. All other cases requires the Principal be present in court. In criminal prosecutions, the “Principal” is the “Injured Party”. They must be present in court for Cross Examination required as due process of law under the 5th Amendment. Every criminal prosecution without an “injured party” is “Fraud upon the court”. Likewise in every “Civil Action” the “Principal” must be subjected to cross examination to prove the validity of the debt.

To establish the right to this property, the capacity to sue must be proved by testimony of the original note holder, without him there can be no capacity to sue. No agent’s testimony written, oral or by supporting affidavits of agents, can establish the capacity to sue, they are all “hearsay” of what is owed the “Principal”, only the “Principal” can say he is owed and establish the debt.

These Principles of law, defeat every claim of “Foreclosure” as “Fraud on the court”, by the attorneys of record, acting on behalf of imaginary people, to evade criminal prosecution for their criminal conduct. In fact this conduct is considered “Racketeering Activity” as “Extortionate Credit Transaction” 18 USC 891-894 clearly defined as “Organized Crime” in 18 USC 1961 commonly referred to as the “RICO Act”. This “Organized Crime” is being operated in all courts across this land for the profit of the “Racketeers”. This is not the fault of the courts, it is the responsibility of the people to know their rights, state their rights and challenged this “Organized Crime” every time it is presented in court. Everyone believes this conduct to be wrong, but can’t prove it. I have stated the disputes present in this action and why they must be upheld by the court. Our representatives in “Public Office” can only act on information they receive, they can not act alone to stop crime, it must be pointed out to them. But once they are informed, they are lawfully required to support our rights, protect our interest from this conspiracy and are liable for any damages they may cause.

As requested by the “Principal”, John B. Abbott, I have presenting this lawful challenge to the attorneys of record and the corporations they represent. The Justice of the Peace, Judge Mike Parrott is asked to forgive the Principal James B. Abbott for not knowing his rights, privileges and immunities under the law and his inability to present his case himself. As his friend, I have presented this challenge in the defense of James B. Abbott’s rights to his property. We can only hope the “Justice of the Peace” is an honorable man who can clearly see the frauds of this cause of action and will do the right thing by forcing the attorneys to prove their claim. Until the Plaintiffs can prove the validity of their claim, the “Order to Vacate” must be removed. Otherwise, criminal “Conspiracy against rights” 18 USC 241 will be lawfully established. Then, it becomes a matter of criminal prosecution by Federal Authorities. This defense can not be defeated under any lawful method. It can only` be defeated by a “Principal” holding the “Original Note” claiming a debt is owed on the stand under the penalty of perjury. Otherwise, all claims of the “Agents” are “Fraud on the Court” and must be dismissed with prejudice. Truth is always the law of commerce. Judgments must follow the truth.

God’s will be done.


Denny R. Hardin


Cc; Gregory A. Balcom, “Agent”

Balcom Law Firm, PC

West Memorial Park,

8584 Katy Freeway, Suite 305

Houston, TX 77024

Selim Taherzadeh, “Agent”


9441 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250

Dallas, TX 75243



This is an attempt to pay a “Debt” any interference with this process is a crime. 18 USC 1951