CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY

STATE OF FLORIDA CASE# 22CF004652AX

Vs
MICHAEL AARON PATTON MONTH-Five DAY- Eighteen Year-2023
______________________________________________________________________________

Writ of Quo Warranto -

Prerogative Writ of Original Jurisdiction

In the name of the People of the county and the State of Florida, ex rel Michael-Aaron: Patton, a
man and beneficiary, in esse, sui juris, Demandant states: Premises of superseding mandate and
jus naturale authority for this Writ the Declaration of Independence (A.D. 1776) in pertinent
parts; and Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States (A.D. 1789-1791); "any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."; and Article VI,
clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States (A.D. 1789-1791) in which no exceptions or
exemptions are expressed or manifestly implied; and Declaratory and restrictive Articles IV, V,
VII, IX and X of Amendment First to the "Supreme Law of The Land" (A.D. 1791), commonly
styled as "Bill of Rights;" and Article I, Sections 1,2,9,10,11,12,13,14,16 of the Constitution of
the State of Florida.

To:
1) Al NeinHuis, Acting in the Capacity of Hernando County Sheriff;
2) Mike Balken, Acting in the Capacity of Chief of Ocala Police Department;
3) Agent, Agency, Acting in the Capacity of Judge that Signed arrest warrant:
4) William Gladson, Acting in the capacity of State Attorney of Marion County
5) Judge Lisa Herndon, Acting in the Capacity Circuit Judge

Affidavit For the record:

1. As a matter of record, on November 14, 2022, after several days of being offered several
automobiles to inspect overnight and then bringing back to the dealer, the subject dealership signed a
buyer's order (an offer). I then accepted said offer on the dealer buyer's order form and based on
approval of my good faith proposal.

2. The parties further discussed with full disclosure, the use of a lawful negotiable instrument for
payment. After several days of Sullivan GMC’s due diligence considering the offer of using the
legitimate Negotiable instruments, the offer to contract was accepted. At this point there was a lawful
contract in place with full disclosure to all parties.

Page 1
3. Further, I spoke with the salesman with whom I asked if they would hold the chosen automobile,
until due diligence and payment was approved. This again demonstrated my intent to allow time for due
diligence in good faith with the dealer’s own approval of the offer.

4. On November, 18, 2022 without notice of any private contractual disputes, I was approached by
several deputies carrying guns, tasers, weapons in general. They forcibly took my hands to my back. I
notified them that I do not consent to any searches or seizures performed without a warrant. I notified
them I do not have a contract with them, and I do not wish to contract with them. This occurred at
South Square Shopping Center Brooksville, Florida 34601. These people conducting the “arrest”
regarding a private contract issue, were presumably Oath bound Hernando County Sheriff officers.

5. I was then told, someone with Sullivan GMC reported the private automobile “stolen”, even though
we had a valid contract in place. I was still under the presumption that due diligence may still be
underway, and there were no problems this far with the contract. This was a private contract and is only
a civil matter, intent of theft exists. As discussed with the dealer, if there was an issue or mistake with
the contract offer, the dealer was to merely call to work it out as is common with any closing of an
automobile purchase.

6. On November 14, 2022 I spoke to a salesman acting as Finance Manager by completing

documentation; Steve. I clearly, making it several times, disclosed this lawful Negotiable Instrument
was “not to be confused as a check” indicating it needs to be processed with the bank a certain way as a
negotiable instrument. I did all I could think of to fully disclose this negotiable instrument credit
contract, and informed the dealership that the approach is based on a negotiable instrument process. It
was simply theri choice to accept or deny this offer. They agreed to this offer in order to release the
automobile. Again, to this date this is still merely a private contract dispute, and not a criminal matter
with criminal intent as the record will show.

7. West Law describes a “ Negotiable Instrument”: “For a writing to be a negotiable instrument

under § 3-104 of the UCC, it must satisfy all of the following: 1. Be signed by the maker or drawer. 2.
Contain an unconditional promise (promissory notes) or order (checks) to pay a sum certain in money
without any other promise, order, obligation, or power given by the maker or drawer except as
authorized by UCC Article 3. 3. Be payable on demand or at a definite time. 4. Be payable to order or
to bearer.”. I believe the instrument tendered meets these requirements, and if not, please specify which
condition is defective so that I may correct the mistake.

8. I did my best to explain and disclose the nature of the contract to the dealer as per UCC 3-604; if a
Negotiable Instrument is not returned to the maker, the original Instrument is to be looked at as
executed and credited. This is my “good faith” understanding of the law in this subject. Even if I am
mistaken, this is merely an incomplete or disputed contract; a civil contract matter, obviously not a theft
with intent as to steal these charges imply. The dealer was made whole “in equity”, based upon

Page 2
acceptance of the instrument as well as return of the disputed automobile/property, while this contract
dispute is resolved. If the matter caused damage I have not been given an opportunity to cure it in
equity with the accepting party, while this contract dispute matter is resolved between two private
parties. See Matthew 18 vers 15, 16, 17. To report this as a “crime” I believe is a violation of due
process and misapplication of law, and interference in private contract law by the prosecution, per
Article 1 section 10 of the US constitution.

9. I believe the violation of law had been the dealer and banks involved, per Uniform Commercial
code 3-604, the bank in this matter further violated law by not returning the original Instrument back to
the maker as is my understanding of this law. Again this becomes another civil matter I know against
the bank involved.

10. As clearly stated on “Negotiable Instrument”: “This Draft is an Offer of Tender and Discharges the
obligation per UCC §1-103, 1-104, 3-603(a)(b), & Public Policy - House Joint Resolution 192 of June
5, 1933”. Knowing that this is a simple contract and payee tacitly consents and agrees that the maker
has satisfied/discharged the debt claim, per UCC§3-311 as I understand it to mean. It also states, made
in “Good Faith”.

11. Therefore, as a private civil matter versus a so-called criminal matter, I do not have any obligation
to you/your corporation and do not wish to contract with you, or your corporation. I, a man, find no
harm done in equity to the public. Nor do I find an obligation [contract] that requires me to sign
anything with your corporation located in Marion County.

12. Therefore, I notice William Gladson [public servant], State Attorney State of Florida, Marion
County, Hernando County, State of Florida that I find no signed contract/agreement over this private
contract matter with them. Therefore, these parties have no authority over me or this private contract
matter. I a man, Michael-Aaron: Patton also revoke, rescind, cancel, make void, all power(s) of
Attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else, claiming to act on
my behalf, with or without my consent, as such Power of Attorney pertains to me or any property
owned by me, by, but not limited to, any and all quasi/colorable, public, governmental entities or
corporations on the grounds of constructive fraud.

13. I further do not find William Gladson [public servant], State Attorney State of Florida, Marion
County, Florida have standing to file such a criminal charge in a private contract dispute matter. They
are instead moving this action in the name of a corporate fiction known as STATE OF FLORIDA for
commercial revenue generation against I, a man Michael-Aaron: Patton. Therefore, these parties
commit Trespass. Forgery. Fraud, Barratry against I. Further, William Gladson [public servant], State
Attorney State of Florida, Marion County, Florida making statements constituting Assault, Extortion,
with threats and therefore commit Battery, Kidnapping.

Page 3
14. I, a man, Michael-Aaron: Patton stands by special appearance with proper upper and lower-case
grammar form, and not all upper-case letters as are all of the fiction documents. The alleged litigant is a
corporation fiction, (not real) which may constitute FRAUD and BARRATRY by the parties presenting
this offer. Therefore, I, a man, have no obligation (contract) to appear; and there exists no probable
cause (crime) requiring an appearance in this private civil matter.

15. NOTICE to ALL PERSONS doing business as STATE of FLORIDA, William Gladson [public
servant], State Attorney State of Florida, Marion County, Florida if you believe you represent me
Michael A. Patton, man, Michael-Aaron: Patton, a man, MICHAEL AARON PATTON, YOU ARE
FIRED, YOU ARE FIRED, YOU ARE FOREVERMORE FIRED.

16. Despite having been so informed exactly what my contract intent was on November 18, 2022, I,
Michael-Aaron: Patton was kidnapped and arrested regarding what is a private civil contract matter. I
was then taken into custody by force and put behind bars where I was not free to travel or enjoy my
property without due process; a clear violation of due process per the 4th Amendment. I was then
forced to sign documents under duress. I was clearly deprived of due process which interferes in a
private contract. I was then deprived of his Liberty vi et armis and carried away to Hernando County
Detention Facility where I was held in captivity by and under the presumed authority of Al NeinHeis,
over a private contract matter until November 19, 2022. Further, a $20,000.00 (USD) ransom was
demanded (styled as "bail"), which was paid by a family member to obtain our release from captivity.
All over what is a private civil matter.

17. Further, Al Nein Heis, Mike Balkin and there employees as Deputy Sheriff and Officer. Used
unknown employees rummage through and pilfered from our personal belongings of, the aggregate
value of which exceeds $10,000.00 (USD). Unlawfully searching and seizing through my private cell
phone records without a warrant, over a civil contract matter.

18. Whereas, the natural right to protect and defend one's person and property from any and all
perceived attacks thereupon is antecedent to the institution of any form of government, including
government in the current form; and

19. Whereas, the right to protect and defend one's person and property is secured by the declaratory
and restrictive provisions of Article IV of the Bill of Rights -supra, which property includes
incorporeal property, such as Rights, the inclusion of which is found in the use of the word "effects" in
said Article; and

20. Whereas, it is a long and well settled matter of res judicata, that there can be no penalty or sanction
imposed on one for the exercise of a right secured by the supreme Law of the Land, "any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding;" and

Page 4
21. Whereas, if find there is no enabling authority which empowers the State of Florida or any of its
instrumentalities, including the Legislature, the Judiciary or the Executive, to compel us to surrender or
otherwise subordinate the responsible exercise of his secured rights to mere "public policy" statutes,
ordinances or rules - especially over an unresolved private contract matter; and

22. Whereas I, a man Michael-Aaron: Patton, claim my body, information and genetic material, are
my property. I reserved all my God-given rights, granted by my creator and secured and protected by
the Constitution for The United States of America, I waive No Rights, ever.

23. Whereas, I, a man Michael-Aarton: Patton, am not property or person doing business as THE
STATE OF FLORIDA, 67 Counties there-in and or William Gladson State Attorney of The State of
Florida.

24. Whereas, I, a man have no obligation [contract] with PERSONS, doing business as STATE OF
FLORIDA, All 67 COUNTIES and municipalities there in, and or William Gladson Acting as STATE
ATTORNEY for The STATE OF FLORIDA, [public servant].

25. Whereas, the Declaration of Independence (A.D. 1776) makes clear that the Legislative Powers are
incapable of Annihilation and whenever they are, in effect, abolished or abandoned or suspended in
their operation, such Powers (by Operation of Law) return to the People at large for their direct
exercise; and

26. Whereas, the foregoing Declared precept manifestly applies equally in form and intent to the
Judicial and Executive Powers; and

27. Whereas, it is presumed to be known that Judges and Prosecutors/State Attorneys should not
receive a financial gain for themselves or a member of their family. I must ask: Would such factors as
a BID, Performance, Payment, Appearance Bond meet those criteria? Do any of the Public Servants
take part in any financial gain of any of the Bonds Issued here? Would such financial gain by these
parties be reported to the Internal Revenue Service for Federal Taxes on their ill gotten and unreported
gains using my negotiable instrument - wouldn’t this require me to report them to the Inspector
General of The Treasury? If any of these violations exist, all parties should be recused at once and
where then to find a Judiciary that does not take part in this? Can the court of prosecution convert what
is a private contract matter into a crime?

28. Whereas, it is presumed that anyone representing themselves as and exercising the powers of
public authority have subscribed and bound themselves by the solemn Oath or Affirmation mandated
by Article VI of the supreme Law of the Land -supra to the people, as a requisite condition to
exercising such authority, and that all others are impostors not vested with public authority in fact;

Page 5
I therefore require presentation of the properly executed Affidavit of Oath of office and
insurance bonds for inspection of all parties listed and receiving this Writ. and

29. Whereas, it is a long and well settled precept of Law that the aforesaid Article VI properly
executed Oath imposes personal accountability on he/she who gives it and serves as prima facie
evidence of voluntary acceptance of such obligation and accountability. If such a subsequent claim to
the contrary exists, such as a claim of immunity, flies in the face of the purpose of the Oath; and

30. Whereas, it is a long and well settled precept of Law that anyone exercising the public authority of
an elective Office is accountable, in whole or in part, for the conduct of his or her deputies, employees
and contractors; and

31. Whereas, the object of Quo Warranto is to: 1) require of a respondent thereto production of
conclusive evidence of proof of his or her entitlement to claim, hold and perform the functions of an
Office vested with public authority, and 2) require of a respondent thereto production of conclusive
evidence of proof of the enabling authority empowering him or her to mis-use or abuse the public
authority vested in the Office he or she claims, and 3) require of a respondent thereto production of
conclusive evidence of proof of the enabling authority empowering him or her to neglect or refuse a
public authority duty vested in the Office he or she claims to exercise, and 4) Provide evidence that the
state can pass laws and interfere with private contract processes or interfere with private Uniform
Commercial code negotiable instrument processes; and 5) Require presentation of a Properly Executed
Oath of Office said from above; and

32. Whereas, the Writ of Quo Warranto, by its very nature, places the burden of proof upon the
respondent thereto; and

33. Whereas, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, misconduct in public office is an offense at
common law triable only on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, which
makes their offense a capital crime and is why a Writ of Quo Warranto is deemed to be "quasi-
criminal" in nature; and

34. Whereas, by virtue of the declaratory and restrictive Article VII of Amendment First to the
supreme Law of the Land (A.D. 1789-1791), there is no enabling authority which empowers the
Legislative Power, the Executive Power or the Judicial Power to directly or indirectly abolish,
supplant, circumvent or otherwise supersede the common law (or its remedies) brought to this country
from England by those who were the founders thereof and who established its form of government,
"any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding;" and "What the
state may not do directly it may not do indirectly." Bailey v. Alabama. 219 U.S. 219 (1911); and

Page 6
35. Whereas, in the case of Ogden v. Saunders. 25 U.S. 213, (Wheat) (1827), the supreme Court of the
United States delved deeply into the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and determined
that the "obvious" policy of the framers was:

36. "In framing an instrument, which was intended to be perpetual, the presumption is strong that
every important principle introduced into it is intended to be perpetual also; that a principle expressed
in terms to operate in all future time, is intended so to operate." and

37. "In our system, the legislature of a State is the supreme power, in all cases where its action is not
restrained by the constitution of the United States. Where it is so restrained, the legislature ceases to be
the supreme power, and its acts are not law." and

38. It is to be noted that these controlling judicial determinations set forth in Ogden are entirely
consistent with the exceptions set forth in the judicial determinations upon the "necessary and proper"
clause of the Constitution at pages 421 through 427 of McCulloch v. Maryland. 17 U.S. 316, 4 Wheat
316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819); and

39. Whereas, this Writ is brought in Original Jurisdiction under the authority of the declaratory and
restrictive Articles IX and X of Amendment First to the supreme Law of the Land (A.D. 1789-1791) by
the People of the County of and the State of Florida on the relation of Michael Aaron Patton, in esse,
sui juris, Demandant herein;

REQUIREMENT TO PROCEED AND QUIT, OR ACCEPT LIABILITY

40. Wherefore you: Gregory C Harrell, Mike Balken, William Gladson, and Al Nein Heis, are each
and all of you hereby commanded by this Writ of Quo Warranto to come before me, and present the
following to this Court within Ten (10) days of service of this Writ upon you conclusive evidence of
proof of the enabling authority, proof of bonds and insurance, proof of right to make laws or enforce
laws over private contracts, and properly executed oath of office, OR you therefore accept multiple
liabilities. Lacking these proof the accusing parties have a duty to immediately dismiss their claims,
and resign these respective offices of public trust, in relation to the official misconduct factually set
forth by me in this Writ.

41. You are directed to take heed that failure to fully comply with the requirements of this Writ, in
every regard, will result in a Mandamus Order of this Court to immediately Quit and Vacate your
respective offices of public trust, which Order may include any or all of the following provisions:

A- Loss of eligibility to hold any future Office of public trust or profit.

Page 7
 Surrender of all property belonging to the Office being vacated.

B-Forfeiture of all emoluments, privileges and benefits, whether accrued or

otherwise, derived from the Office being vacated.

Restitution to Michael: Patton for losses suffered as a result of official misconduct.

- Criminal sanctions are warranted.

Verification:

I, Michael-Aaron: Patton, Demandant herein, do hereby Certify under penalty of Perjury that the
factual assertions set forth herein above are a matter of record and are the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the whole truth to the extent I am able to perceive and articulate it, and that this Original
Jurisdiction Writ of Quo Warranto is neither intended as or to be construed as a mere statutory remedy.

Done this 18th Day of May in the Year of our Lord two thousand and Twenty Three, and of the
Independence of the United States of America.

IN WITNESS whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name. I will attest to under penalty of
perjury, and can testify to the same.

______________________________________, May 18th 2023, Without Recourse

Michael-Aaron:Patton, in esse, sui juris, beneficiary of MICHAEL AARON PATTON

ENCLOSURE A

ENFORCEMENT WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE DISHONOR OF MY

INSTRUMENT:

● IRS form 3949A, W-7, W-8, W-9, FinCen 8300, FR 2046, AFF of Corporate Denial,
433 A and B, 4506 A, Public Servant Questionnaire, Invoice, Bill of Lading, reporting
tax evasion and interference in commerce and other crimes.
● The US Treasury Inspector General complaint will also follow if not honored.
● US Securities and Exchange Commision complaint or suit. Theft or lost securities.

Codes that apply to valid instrument tendered:

Page 8
15 U.S. Code § 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade
or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every
person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared
to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by
fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Art 1 - Section 19 - DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE COURSE OF LAW

Art 1 - Section 29 - PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF

GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE

Credit agreements, bills of exchange and checks are defined as legal tender, or money, by the
statutes such as 12 USC 1813(1)(1), UCC §1-201(24), §3-104, §8-102(9), §§9-102(9), (11), (12)
b, (49), (64).

§ 3-503. NOTICE OF DISHONOR

(a) The obligation of an indorser stated in Section 3-415(a) and the obligation of a drawer stated
in Section 3-414(d) may not be enforced unless (i) the indorser or drawer is given notice of
dishonor of the instrument complying with this section or (ii) notice of dishonor is excused under
Section 3-504(b).

(b) Notice of dishonor may be given by any person; may be given by any commercially
reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; and is sufficient if it
reasonably identifies the instrument and indicates that the instrument has been dishonored or has
not been paid or accepted. Return of an instrument given to a bank for collection is sufficient
notice of dishonor.

(c) Subject to Section 3-504(c), with respect to an instrument taken for collection by a collecting
bank, notice of dishonor must be given (i) by the bank before midnight of the next banking day
following the banking day on which the bank receives notice of dishonor of the instrument, or
(ii) by any other person within 30 days following the day on which the person receives notice of
dishonor. With respect to any other instrument, notice of dishonor must be given within 30 days
following the day on which dishonor occurs.

§ 3-204. INDORSEMENT

(b)"Indorser" means a person who makes an indorsement.

§ 3-504. EXCUSED PRESENTMENT AND NOTICE OF DISHONOR

Page 9
(b) Notice of dishonor is excused if (i) by the terms of the instrument notice of dishonor is not
necessary to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, or (ii) the party whose
obligation is being enforced waived notice of dishonor. A waiver of presentment is also a waiver
of notice of dishonor.

18 U.S. Code § 8 - Obligation or other security of the United States defined

The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of
indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes,
coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional
notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized
officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever
denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps. (June 25,
1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 685.)

31 U.S. Code § 3124 - Exemption from taxation

(a)Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State
or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would
require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax,
except—

(1) A nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another non property tax

instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and

(2) An estate or inheritance tax.

(b) The tax status of interest on obligations and dividends, earnings, or other income from
evidences of ownership issued by the Government or an agency and the tax treatment of gain and
loss from the disposition of those obligations and evidences of ownership is decided under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). An obligation that the Federal Housing
Administration had agreed, under a contract made before March 1, 1941, to issue at a future date,
has the tax exemption privileges provided by the authorizing law at the time of the contract. This
subsection does not apply to obligations and evidences of ownership issued by the District of
Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a department, agency,
instrumentality, or political subdivision of the District, territory, or possession.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 945; Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat.
2095.)

18 U.S. Code Chapter 63 - MAIL FRAUD AND OTHER FRAUD OFFENSES

Page 10
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for
obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or
procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or
anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for
the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office
or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by
the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent
or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any
such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the
direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it
is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized,
transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially
declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial
institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30
years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 763; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 34, 63 Stat. 94; Pub. L. 91–375,
§ (6)(j)(11), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 778; Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, § 961(i), Aug. 9, 1989, 103
Stat. 500; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, § 2504(h), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4861; Pub. L. 103–
322, title XXV, § 250006, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2087, 2147;
Pub. L. 107–204, title IX, § 903(a), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 805; Pub. L. 110–179, § 4, Jan. 7,
2008, 121 Stat. 2557.)

Federal Reserve Act - Section 16. Note Issues

1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the
Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized.
The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national
and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United
States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

12 USC 411. As amended by act of Jan. 30, 1934 (48 Stat. 337). For redemption of Federal
reserve notes whose bank of issue cannot be identified, see act of June 13, 1933.]

NOTE: Treasury Inspector General will be consulted if not processed

Page 11
DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ETC. BY DUE COURSE OF LAW.

No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in
any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.

CC List:

1) Hernando County Sheriff, Sheriff AL NEINHUIS, 18900 Cortez Blvd, Brooksville, Florida 34601
2) Ocala Police Department, Chief MIKE BALKIN, 402 South Pine Ave, Ocala Florida, 34471
3) Fifth Judicial State Attorney, WILLIAM B GLADSON, 110 NW 1st Ave Suite 5000, Ocala Florida 34475
4) Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Judge LISA HERNDON, 110 NW 1st Ave, Ocala Florida , 34475
5) Fifth judicial Clerk OF Court, GREGORY C. HARRELL, 110 NW 1st Ave, Ocala Florida 34475
6) Attorney General STATE OF FLORIDA, ASHLEY MOODY, Office of the Attorney General STATE of
Florida, PL-01 The Capital, Tallahassee Florida, 32399-1050

Page 12