UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UTICA

UNITED STATES of America, Corporate file number: 8:11-CR-00038(DNH)

Plaintiff.
vs.
NOTICE AND DEMAND TO STRIKE
VICTOR JACOBS LAZORE, with
alleged Defendant. Notice of Revocation of
vs. Signature and Power of Attorney
and
Victor-Jacob:, Notice of Counter-Claim
Secured Party Claimant
___________________________________/

1) Victor-Jacob:, Suæ potestis esse, de jure Secured Party Claimant, herein after Claimant,
National Kanienkehaka, Onkwehonwe, original being from the Ancient One, man of creation,
brought forth from earth, being real flesh and blood, living soul, mind and spirit, from my
mother, whose presence before this and any other Administrative Tribunal, is at all times special
as direct result of forced bill of pain and penalty against Claimant's Life, Liberty and pursuit of
Happiness, brought by a foreign power, incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, either a
Delaware or British Crown corporation.
2) Claimant is Kanienkehaka, being subject to Kaianerekowa, the Great Law of Peace, living in
Akwesasne, a state of Kanienke, Nation foreign to the United States. The Jurisdiction of this
Court is invoked under Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules, Rule 12 (f), (e), (c) and (b);
28 USC §§ 2284, 1346, 1332, 1331; 25 USC §§ 233 & 232; 18 USC §§ 1341, 1091, 242, 241 &
4; 4 USC §§ 2 & 1; 110 Stat 3850, 98 Stat 3359, 90 Stat 2891; Article VI of the Constitution for
the United States of America. Under diversity of citizenship there exists conflict of jurisdiction;
therefor, it is duty of Court to dismiss Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. MEM 3-13
3) Claimant, being of age of major and one capable, declares, with clean hands and explicit
reservation of Rights in good faith that Claimant was served with fraudulent nugatory paper, so-
called PROCESS, after being dragged bound in chains from Plattsburgh United States District
Court, entitled UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. VICTOR JACOBS LAZORE and other
similar entitled nugatory paper in fraudulent attempt to make Claimant surety for non existent

Page 1 of twenty pages

 fictional slave VICTOR JACOBS LAZORE.
4) Claimant Accepted for Value, Returned for Cause, Under Lawful Protest, Without Recourse
your nugatory paperwork as attached herewith. EXHIBIT A-M. Is that not correct?
5) Claimant does enter, under duress, Notice and Demand to Strike with Revocation of Signature
and Power of Attorney, and Notice of Counter-Claim, in form, but not limited to, MOTION TO
STRIKE Complaint for being frivolous and without merit, failing to state claim upon relief can
be granting, lacking venue, lacking jurisdiction of Party(ies) and subject matter, lacking
sufficient process and service thereof, while seeking more definite statement through the
following statements of law and fact:
6) Claimant does make Objection and take Exception to actions of United States, State of New
York and their Public Officers' gross negligence and abuse of power and authority resulting in
kidnapping of Claimant on February 4, 2011, and transporting Claimant, Kanienkehaka, from
Kanienke, sovereign Nation, one of many Nations, crossing International boundary without
extradition or authority.
7) Claimant revokes, ab initio, all signatures and power attorneys, whether real or assumed, which
have been obtained under coercion and duress or through fraud or misrepresentation of
employees or agents of the corporate UNITED STATES. Claimant is in grave danger, fearing
for life and safety, however, Claimant is without Counsel and does not wish Counsel, especially,
those of Public Pretender's Office, who are more then willing to sell a man's soul for filthy
lurker.
8) Claimant further enters objections to US Persecutor's (Attorney's) use of so-called Federal Grand
Jury to carryout personal vendetta of Belson Herne against Claimant, and use of unreliable
witnesses to deceive Prosecutor's pocket jury who went in disguise, in premise, under color of
law, custom, practice or policy to cause deprivation while acting in personæ as a grand jury.
9) Claimant withdraws any plea that may have been entered or has been assumed entered, whether
in fact or pretense, by some secretly appointed Attorner or by Magistrate Larry A Kudrle of
Plattsburgh, herein after US Magistrate, practicing law from the bench, pretending to be counsel
for VICTOR JACOBS LAZORE or Claimant. Is that not correct?
10)After reading the following Notice and Demands for more Definite Statements it is presumed
that US Attorney should realize that the only reasonable pleas, if Claimant were to enter Plea,
would be Plea in Bar or Non Assumpsit. Is that not correct?
11) It is presumed that US Attorneys RICHARD S HARTUNIAN and ELIZABETH A
Page 2 of twenty pages
 HORSMAN, corporate fictions, here in after, US Attorney, according to nugatory papers
received, appear to be skipping the nicety of Arraignment and moving to Pretrial Hearing on
February 8, 2011. Is that not correct?
12) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that only Nations can enter into Nation to Nation
agreements, which effect Nations or its boarders? Is that not correct?
13) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that corporate Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Council
and Mario Como, as Governor of corporate State of New York in 1990, entered into secret
contract in violation of Nation to Nation Law. Is that not correct?
14) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Council have
entered several subsequent contracts with State of New York Governors in further attempts to
waive Kanienke's Right of “sovereign immunity”. Is that not correct?
15) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that both of these corporations named in number
fourteen acted under color of law, custom, practice or policy committing fraud and deprivation
through intentional misrepresentation. Is that not correct?
16) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Mario Cuomo, George Pataki, Eliot Spitzer and
Andrew Cuomo have invested interest to profit through Empire Resorts at demise of
Akwesasne, Kanienke, with intent on genocide of Kanienkehaka, thereof. Is that not correct?
17) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that said de facto corporate government entities
entered into contract in attempt to abolish the Kanienkehaka's (People's) Right and Liberty to
exercise the Kanienke's sovereignty over Akwesasne, turning said nation state into foreign
police state under control of governments foreign to Kanienke. Is that not correct?
18) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that said paramilitary occupation of Kanienke's
Akwesasne violations laws of nature and natures Deity, and law of Nations. Is that not correct?
19) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that said above fraudulent Contract was enter to
degrade or convert, through unlawful conversion, Akwesasne Ohontsia of Kanienke from nation
state to a mere sub-corporate municipality of County of Franklin of the corporate State of New
York, a Delaware corporation. Is that not correct?
20) It is presumed that including Akwesasne in or within a United States congressional district
constitutes fraud. Is that not correct?
21) It is presumed that said inclusion of populace of Akwesasne within such congressional district
was to enslave, tax or entrap the Kanienkehaka within your feudal system. Is that not correct?
22) It is presumed that such enumeration is without representation. Is that not correct?
Page 3 of twenty pages
23) It is presumed that Akwesasne, Kanienke was not American as pertaining to or of the District of
Columbia. Is that not correct?
24) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that where fraud exists the enacting of foreign rule
was nullity. Is that not correct?
25) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that all, ALL, acts between Saint Regis Mohawk
Tribal Council and State of New York with intent to violate Kanienke's nation status and infringe
upon its People's Liberty in Akwesasne were null and void, ab initio. Is that not correct?
26) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that State of New York is without authority to force
its laws and will upon or against the sovereignty of Kanienkehaka, the People, of Akwesasne. Is
that not correct?
27) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that the corporate UNITED STATES was without
authority to force its laws and will upon or against sovereignty of Kanienkehaka of Akwesasne.
Is that not correct?
28) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that it was basic Right and Liberty of the People of
Akwesasne to hunt without infringement. Is that not correct?
29) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware of 25 USC §§ 233 and 232. MEM 11. Is that not
correct?
30) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware nothing “shall be construed to deprive any Indian
tribe, band, or community, or members, thereof, hunting and fishing rights as guaranteed them
by agreement, treaty, or custom, nor require them to obtain State fish and game licenses for the
exercise of such rights.” Is that not correct?
31) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that the present action before the Court is based
upon your law, which infringes upon that Right and Liberty. Is that not correct?
32) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that attempt to enforce 18 USC § 922 (g)(1) against
Claimant was in conflict of Law, 25 USC § 232. Is that not correct?
33) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that the Code, 18 USC § 922(g)(1), you are now
attempting to force upon Claimant, one foreign to state of the forum, while he was acting upon
his Right in his own Country, was null and void on its face, being unconstitutional or
unconstitutionally applied. MEM 33 & 39. Is that not correct?
34) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Claimant was not a Federal Firearms Licensed
dealer. Is that not Correct?
35) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Claimant was not engaged in business of
Page 4 of twenty pages
 interstate, shipping or transportation of firearms or ammunition. Is that not correct?
36) It is presumed that it takes two or more states to engage in interstate commerce. Is that not
correct?
37) It is presumed that interstate commerce did not exist, since only State of New York was named.
Is that not correct?
38) It is presumed that the so-called Grand Jury Indictment was faulty, and failed to be valid on this
point alone. Is that not correct?
39) It is presumed that US Attorney, with willful and wanton intent, deceived Federal Grand Jury as
to matters contained in paragraph numbers 27 and 31. Is that not correct?
40) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) was without applicable
implementing regulation, Code of Federal Regulations, herein after CFR. MEM 39 & 42 Is that
not correct?
41) It is presumed that no section of 27 CFR 178 gives force or effect of law, for which claim can
be made against Claimant. MEM 39. Is that not correct?
42) It is presumed no section of 32 CFR 635 gives force or effect of law, for which claim can be
made against Claimant. Is that not correct?
43) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that said US Code was not positive law, since said
US Code violates Article II in Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America,
your supreme law, Article VI of the Constitution for the United States of America. Is that not
correct?
44) It is presumed that US Attorney was well aware that your supreme Law declares that “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” Is that not correct?
45) It is presumed that US Attorney was acting in conspiracy to violate Claimant's free exercise of
religion. Is that not correct?
46) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that "all acts of legislature apparently contrary to
natural right and justice, are, in {your} laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as
void.” Is that not correct?
47) It is presumed that “the laws of nature are the laws of {Creator}; whose authority can be
superseded by no power on earth.” Is that not correct?
48) It is presumed that “a legislature must not obstruct our obedience to {Creator} from whose
punishments they cannot protect us.” Is that not correct?
Page 5 of twenty pages
49) It is presumed that “all human constitutions which contradict {Creators} laws, we are in
conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of {your} courts of justice."
Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114. Is that not correct?
50) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that 18 USC §§ 921-926 are applicable only within
or inside the insular possession and the District of Columbia. Is that not correct?
51) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that 18 USC §§ 921-926 cannot apply to the several
states of the Union. Is that not correct?
52) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that 18 USC §§ 921-926 cannot apply to or lie
inside the International boundaries of Akwesasne, Kanienke, a Nation among Nations. Is that
not correct?
53) It is presumed that 25 USC 233 & 232 can only apply to Onkwehonwe (misnomer “Indians”),
who reside within a State and regulate therein. Is that not correct?
54) It is presumed that 25 USC 233 & 232 cannot possibly be applied to Kanienkehaka conduct
their affairs inside their sovereign borders of Akwesasne. Is that not correct?
55) It is presumed that US Attorney was well aware that your supreme Law declares that “A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Is that not correct?
56) It is presumed that US Attorney was well aware that your Bill of Rights cannot be changed,
altered or infringed upon. Is that not correct?
57) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that 18 USC 922(g)(1) was in violation of your Bill
of Rights, therefore, null and void, ab initio. Is that not correct?
58) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that said Article of the Bill of Rights or Bill of
Restraint upon your government, states that Congress shall not make law that would infringe
upon said Right. Is that not correct?
59) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that even under your laws that members of the
militia are exempt from penalties of the firearms and explosive laws of the United States. Is that
not correct?
60) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Kanienke has its own militia or national
security force. Is that not correct?
61) It is presumed that US Attorney was not aware that Claimant was active member of Kanienke's
militia or national security force at Akwesasne. Is that not correct?
62) It is presumed that US Attorney is now aware that Claimant was active member of Kanienke's
Page 6 of twenty pages
 militia at Akwesasne. Is that not correct?
63) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that capturing and holding soldier of another Nation
in time of peace was in violations of International Law. Is that not correct?
64)It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that such holding constitutes act of war. Is that not
correct?
65)It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Kanienke and the United States are not at war.
Is not that not correct?
66) It is presumed that US Attorney now being aware of above laws and violations, thereof, will
with utmost expediency Nolle Prosequi this Case. Is that not correct?
67) It is presumed that US Attorney now being aware that said imprisonment violates Treaty of
1775 and Geneva Treaty, but not limited thereto, shall release Claimant with utmost expediency.
Is that not correct?
68) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Police are without
police power outside of St. Regis Reservation according to State Law. Is that not correct?
69) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Police, while acting
as New York State Troopers, only possess police powers inside St. Regis Reservation and within
County of Franklin. Is that not correct?
70) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Mohawk Tribal Police, acting as New York
State Police, did twice unlawfully kidnap and remove Claimant from Akwesasne. Is that not
correct?
71) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Mohawk Tribal Police, acting as New York
State Troopers, did twice without lawful authority transport or participate in transport of
Claimant beyond boundaries of Franklin County. Is that not correct?
72) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Mohawk Tribal Police, stopped van with
Arizona license belonging to Joan Lazore, did brake window and with use of excessive force
remove, beat and pepper spray Claimant without probable cause or warrant. Is that not correct?
73) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Mohawk Tribal Police falsified report claiming
Claimant was stopped in Town of Bombay, Franklin County, when stop was made on Cook
Road in Akwesasne near hamlet of Hogansburg. Is that not correct?
74) It is presumed that US Attorney's assumption that hamlet of Hogansburg was in State of New
York was mere corporate Wonderland or Oz fair tale. Is that not correct?
75) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that village of Hogansburg was inside International
Page 7 of twenty pages
 boundaries of Akwesasne, outside and without State of New York. Is that not correct?
76) It is presumed that US Attorney was wordsmithing in writing or preparing Grand Jury
Indictment. Is that not correct?
77) It is presumed that US Attorney was referencing some pseudo-corporate fiction called
Hogansburg. Is that not correct?
78) It is presumed that US Attorney used the term or phraseology “in or near” as attempt to make it
appear that your victim was part of such pseudo-corporate fiction. Is that not correct?
79) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that he obtained GRAND JURY indictment based
upon fraudulent claim and pretense. Is not that correct?
80) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that according to court decisions there have never,
NEVER, been reservations within State of New York. Is that not correct?
81) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that “St. Regis Mohawk Indian Reservation” was
just another pseudo-corporate fiction or conjured up fair tale. Is that not correct?
82) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that neither the hamlet of Hogansburg nor
Akwesasne were in Northern District of New York. Is that not correct?
83) It is presumed that US Attorney had ulterior motives hidden within this Action. Is that not
correct?
84) It is presumed that US Attorney was attempting through arbitrary and capricious action to
erase, remove or supersede Kanienke's right of sovereignty. Is that not correct?
85) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that there were two men in van when Police stop
occurred. Is that not correct?
86) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that two rifles and one shotgun were take by
Mohawk Tribal Police from van belonging to Joan Lazore. Is that not correct?
87) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Mohawk Tribal Police only reported taking one
rifle and one shotgun in their original official Reports. Is that not correct?
88) It is presumed that US Attorney was not aware that Claimant and members of the Press
possesses copies of the original Police Reports.
89) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Mohawk Tribal Police never established who
was in possession of said rifles or shotgun. Is that not correct?
90) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Mohawk Tribal Police never established who
said rifles or shotgun were property, thereof. Is that not correct?
91) It is presumed that US Attorney was or should have been aware that some of the arresting
Page 8 of twenty pages
 officers went to high school with Claimant and that there may be personal vendetta as motive for
their actions. Is that not correct?
92) It is presumed that US Attorney was or should have been aware that Sargent BELSON
HERNE, arresting officers, has personal vendetta against Claimant, because Claimant punched
out Belson Herne a few years back, when Claimant was still a minor. Is that not correct?
93) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Saint Regis Mohawk Police beat Claimant with
use of excessive force, causing bodily injury and numerous lacerations. Is that not correct?
94) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that said “Rodney King” style beating by Saint
Regis Mohawk Police was caught on film and portion of said film was posted to YouTube. Is
that not correct?
95) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware the ER at Massena Hospital, in St. Lawrence
County, took two and half hours to clean and patch laceration sustained by Claimant.
96) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Saint Regis Tribal Police did without law or
authority transport Claimant across county line. Is that not correct?
97) It is presumed that US Attorney is aware that New York State District Attorney, Judge and
Court Clerk all failed to appear for Arraignment in State Case from which this Case arose. Is
that not correct?
98) It is presumed that by law, Case in corporate Town Court of Bombay proceedings were
adjourned without setting date to reconvene, sine die. Is that not correct?
99) It is presumed that US Attorney is aware that bring of this action in Federal Court, after State
Court found itself in trouble, was to protect Saint Regis Mohawk Police from pending liable
action for police brutality. Is that not correct?
100) It is presumed, however, that US Attorney is aware that Case in State Court is Still pending;
EXHIBIT N, Notice from Clerk of Court to Bond Holder dated February 22, 2011. Is that not
correct?
101) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that US District Court lacks jurisdiction while
Case is still pending in State Court, therefore, action is moot. EXHIBIT N. Is that not correct?
102) It presumed that US Attorney was aware that public officials involved in the initial Action
were without undertaking. Is that not correct?
103) It presumed that US Attorney was aware that public officials, who were without
undertaking, were without authority to act. Is that not correct?
104) It is presumed that State actors went upon highway and in premise acting under State law,
Page 9 of twenty pages
 custom, practice or policy in conspiracy to cause deprivation in violations of the Ku Klux Klan
Act. Is that not correct?
105) It is presumed that US Attorney in Plattsburgh acted in covin with State actors in violations
of Ku Klux Klan Act to further the deprivation in US District Court, the very Court assigned
jurisdiction to prevent such. See Senate Report 94-204. Is that not correct?
106) It is presumed that US Attorney is well aware that when initial cause of action fails, all
actions that arise from said action also fail. Is that not correct?
107) It is presumed that US Attorney is well aware that evidence obtained from unlawful search
and seizure are inadmissible. Is that not correct?
108) It is presumed that US Attorney claimed stop in Hogansburg, verses State Case's claim of
stop being in Bombay, due to adverse decision from present Court in United States v Wilson, 8:
10-CR-68. Is that not correct?
109) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that this stop was, like the Wilson Case, based
upon so-called obstructed or missing license plate, depending upon which Police Report one is
asked to believe. Is that not correct?
110) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that no prosecution has entered for obstructed or
missing license plate. Is that not correct?
111) It is presumed that statute of limitation has run on prosecution for traffic stop. Is that not
correct?
112) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that this stop was made by Sargent HERNE, in
unmarked car, while off duty. Is that not correct?
113) It is presumed that Court will suppress evidence seized resulting from unlawful search and
seizure if it proceeds to trial. Is that not correct?
114) It is presumed Esquire Elizabeth A Horsman was aware that this geographical area was
where Saint Regis Mohawk Police, on regular basis, make unlawful stops under color of law,
custom, practice or policy for creative revenuing. It is that not correct?
115) It is presumed that Esquire Elizabeth A Horsman should be sanctioned for bringing two
frivolous actions resulting in unlawful stops within the same geographical area by the same
corporate Agency. Is that not correct?
116) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware while the questionable area may be without
jurisdiction of fictional Hogansburg, it was inside venue and jurisdiction of Akwesasne,
Kanienke, which is outside jurisdiction of the United States. Is that not correct?
Page 10 of twenty pages
117) It is presumed that US Attorney is well aware that Claimant cannot be barred from having
council of choice, nor assistance of council of choice at bar. Is that not correct?
118) It is presumed that US Attorney was well aware that Claimant does not wish assistance of
BAR counsel at this time. Is that not correct?
119) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that fiction Victor Jacob Lazore is Member of
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. Is that not correct?
120) It is presumed that US Attorney is aware that Kanienkehaka People are free and sovereign
Nation, not slaves or property of some foreign power. Is that not correct?
121) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that the United States of America has entered
into Treaty with Kanienkehaka. Is that not correct?
122) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that flags establish jurisdiction. Is that not
correct?
123) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that blue flag with two row Wampum was flag of
Claimant's Nation. Is that not correct?
124) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that 4 USC §§ 2 and 1 describe lawful flag of
United States. Is that not correct?
125) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware and familiar with flag(s) which are in United
States District courtroom. Is that not correct?
126) It is presumed that the flag(s) are not the United States flag of peace as described in 4 USC
§ 1. Is that not correct?
127) It is presumed that Claimant does not understand the jurisdiction created by the flag(s)
displayed in United States District Court courtroom. Is that not correct?
128) It is presumed that US Attorney shall declare jurisdiction established by flag(s) in the
United States District Court courtroom. Is that not correct?
129) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that United States District Courts were
administrative courts created by Congress under Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution for the
United States of America. Is that not correct?
130) It is presumed that US Attorney was well aware that United Stats District Courts were not
Article 3 judiciary courts. Is that not correct?
131) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that United States District Courts were territorial
courts. Is that not correct?
132) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that such United States District Courts were
Page 11 of twenty pages
 originally set up under 16 Statutes at Large 419, February 21, 1871. Is that not correct?
133) It is presumed that said Courts and Districts (though, these have changed since that time,)
were established as result of Abraham Stringstein's 1861 Communist War of Aggression against
the states. Is that not correct?
134) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that “district courts of the United States” were
true Article 3 courts under the Constitution for the United States of America. Is that not correct?
135) It is presumed that US Attorney now understands that we have conflict of law, venue and
jurisdiction. Is that not correct?
136) It is presumed that US Attorney understands that Claimant does not understand the nature
and cause of the charge. Is that not correct?
137) It is presumed that US Attorney is aware that restraining of Claimant is in violation of
Treaty and International Law. Is that not correct?
138) It is presumed that US Attorney is aware that transporting Citizen of one Nation across
national boundaries without due process or extradition is in violation of International Law and
the Law of Peace. Is that not correct?
139) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Claimant, as Secured Party, recorded UCC1,
Financing Statement with State of New York, Secretary of State, against Debtor, VICTOR J
LAZORE. Is that not correct?
140) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that the General Accounting Office, herein after
GAO, is general agent of the Treasury of the United States, through Director of the Office of
Management and Budget is responsible for settling all claims of or against the United States. Is
this not correct?
141) It is presumed that GAO does not have claim against VICTOR JACOBS LAZORE. Is that
not correct?
142) It is presumed that GAO does not have claim against VICTOR JACOB LAZORE. Is that
not correct?
143) It is presumed that GAO does not have claim against VICTOR J LAZORE. Is that not
correct?
144) It is presumed that GAO does not have claim against Claimant. Is that not correct?
145) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Thomas-Raymond-Angus: was Surety for
VICTOR JACOB LAZORE, and as such demanded US Magistrate in Plattsburgh to produce
higher claim against that fiction. Is that not correct?
Page 12 of twenty pages
146) It is presumed that US Magistrate failed to produce higher claim against VICTOR JACOB
LAZORE or Claimant. Is that not correct?
147) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Notice of Surety Act and Bond was filed
with Franklin County Clerk of Records and United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York at Plattsburgh. with specific intent of this Bond, under United States Post
Office Seal, was to establish, by Witness of Surety, the good credit in Lawful specie Money of
Claimant. Is that not correct?
148) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Capitis Diminutio Maxima strips captor of
his Right of family and citizenship. Is that not correct?
149) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that he was converting Victor Jacobs Lazore to
state of slavery by placing of said Party in all caps, VICTOR JACOBS LAZORE. Is that not
correct?
150) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Article XIII in Amendment to the
Constitution for the United States of America abolished slavery in the United States. Is that not
correct?
151) It is presumed that US Attorney was well aware that “Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Is that not
correct?
152) It is presumed that US Attorney was well aware that by listing alleged Defendant Capitis
Diminutio Maxima, the US Just-us system was reversing burden of proof by assuming said
Party as guilty. Is that not correct?
153) It is presumed that US Attorney was well aware that under rule of law Party was to
presumed innocent until proven guilty. Is that not correct?
154) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware addressing his victim as Capitis Diminutio
Maxima that he was indeed creating unlawful conversion in direct violation of Oath of Office
with intent to cause deprivation. Is that not correct?
155) It is presumed that US Attorney failed to adjoin proper Party. Is that not correct?
156) It is presumed that US Attorney assumed that Claimant was fiduciary for VICTOR JACOBS
LAZORE, and the Court has attempted to make Claimant surety for same; however, that ain't
me. Is that not correct?
157) It is presumed that US Attorney assumes that VICTOR JACOBS LAZORE and VICTOR J.
Page 13 of twenty pages
 LAZORE are one and the same corporate fiction. Is that not correct?
158) It is presumed that US Attorney's assumptions that VICTOR JACOBS LAZORE and
VICTOR J. LAZORE were one and the same corporate fiction, was false on its face. Is that not
correct?
159) It is presumed that US Attorney again deceived the Federal Grand Jury. Is that not correct?
160) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that obtaining Federal Grand Jury Indictment
through fraud or misrepresentation make null and void such Indictment. Is that not correct?
161) It is presumed that as to above counts of facts and law that US Attorney imprisoned
Claimant under fraudulent pretenses without law, authority or jurisdiction. Is that not correct?
162) It is presumed that US Attorney assumes liability for enslaving Claimant. Is that not
correct?
163) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that each of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal
Police were served with Waiver of Immunity form, as being witness in State of New York Case.
Is that not correct?
164) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that all United States Law Enforcers were
granted immunity by the United States Supreme Court from both civil and criminal prosecution
for committing perjury when testifying for benefit of government in Brisco v LaHue, 460 US
325 (1983). Is that not correct?
165) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that when Law Enforcers were served with
Waiver of Immunity form, that they waived their privilege to immunity upon signing said
Waiver or become unreliable witnesses incapable of testifying upon their failure to sign Waiver
within ten (10) days. See EXHIBITS S-W second service of Notice. Is that not correct3
166) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that said Wavier of Immunity FORM waives
Officer's immunity in original Case or any subsequent case that may incur. Is that not correct?
167) It is presumed that US Attorney, US Magistrate and US Judge DAVID N HURD, another
corporate fiction, herein after US Judge, enjoy this same privilege of immunity. See Wavier of
Judicial Officer's Immunity FORM, EXHIBITS O-R. Is that not correct?
168) It is presumed that US Attorney and US Judge shall sign Waiver of Immunity FORMS, prior
to preceding to any Hearing in this Case. Is that not correct?
169) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that said Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Police are
unreliable witnesses, incapable of testifying. Is that not correct?
170) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Police Officer,
Page 14 of twenty pages
 Tina Sunday, testified without immunity in US District of Plattsburgh. Is that not correct?
171) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Tina Sunday testified that she believed
Claimant to be a threat to the community because of Claimant's religious beliefs and association.
Is that not correct?
172) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Tina Sunday testified that Claimant did not
believe in your system. Is that not correct?
173) It is presumed that US Attorney intends to move forward against Claimant, because
Claimant does not believe in your Babylon Talmudic Laws and your Fascist form of
government. Is that not correct?
174) It is presumed that US Attorney was not aware that former Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal
Police Officer, Virginia Johnson, did sign and file verified Complaint that Saint Regis Mohawk
Tribal Police Sargent Belson Herne failed to report, and then pocketed two hundred thousand
($200,000.00) dollars in Federal Reserve Notes, which money Herne skimmed off a drug arrest.
Is that not correct?
175) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that former US District Court Chief Judge John
McCarthy Roll in Arizona, on Friday, January 7, 2011 issued a “preliminary ruling” in a case
titled “United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al” [Case Number:
4:2010cv00703 Filed: November 30, 2010], two days before he was assassinated, that such
taking, transferring or concealing of funds was illegal. Is that not correct?
176) It is presumed that US Attorney was well aware of the requirements of 18 USC § 4. Is that
not correct?
177) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that when Claimant was subjected to “diesel
therapy” that Prison Bond was issued on New York Stock Exchange against Claimant's body in
rem. Is that not correct?
178) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware of the number of said Prison Bond and that he
shall provide Claimant with copy of said Prison Bond, or number and name of brokerage firm
floating that Prison Bond. Is that not correct?
179) It is presumed that since “diesel therapy” was implemented, change of jurisdiction would be
equitable. Is that not correct?
180) It is presumed that if the above issuance of Bond be correct then proper venue of this action
would be Court of International Trade. Is that not correct?
181) It is presumed that US Attorney or US Judge contracted with Rensselaer County Sheriff to
Page 15 of twenty pages
 warehouse Claimant's body in accordance to Chapter 7 of your Talmudic Uniform Commercial
Code. Is that not correct?
182) It is presumed that US Attorney assumes that Claimant was cestui que vie, as tenant upon
estate or plantation. Is that not correct?
183) It is presumed that the UNITED STATES assumes itself as cestui que trust as to Claimant,
receiving benefit from Claimant's sweat equity. Is that not correct?
184) It is presumed that the British Crown or Holy See claims title to the estate or plantation. Is
that not correct?
185) It is presumed that there are three United States. Is that not correct?
186) It is presumed that those three are: Her Majesty the Queen of the United States, a
corporation sole; United States of America Incorporated, a Delaware corporation for profit; and
United States of America Corporation, a Delaware not for profit religious organization, 26 USC
§ 501(c)(3). Is that not correct?
187) It is presumed that US Attorney was required to disclose which of these three United States
was acting as Plaintiff, claiming to be injured Party. Is that not correct?
188) It is presumed that the term attorney comes from the Latin word attorn meaning to turn or
twist. Is that not correct?
189) It is presumed that the term attorney means twister, devil or false accuser. Is that not
correct?
190) It is presumed that US Attorney assumes that license to practice is required? Is that not
correct?
191) It is presumed that US Attorney claims to possess license to practice law? Is that not
correct?
192) It is presumed that US Attorney shall give Claimant copy of your License to practice law,
and place same on record? Is that not correct?
193) It is presumed that US Attorney at this point would also be prejudice against Claimant's
religious views or beliefs. Is that not correct?
194) It is presumed that all B.A.R. Members, British Aristocratic Regents, Esquires, would be of
similar prejudice against Claimant's religious views or beliefs. Is that not correct?
195) It is presumed that it is impossibility for Claimant to receive fair or impartial trial in
presents of attorneys, B.A.R. members. Is that not correct?
196) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that US Administrative Magistrate Larry A.
Page 16 of twenty pages
 Kudrle ruled Claimant as belligerent in Plattsburgh US District. See United States v Johnson,
76 F. Supp. 538, 540. Is that not correct?
197) It is presumed that "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the
passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is
a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by
attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The
one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather
than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived
his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He
must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas
corpus." Is that not correct?
198) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that when violations of Articles XIII, VIII, VI,
V, IV, II and I in Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America exists,
prosecution fails as to preponderance of evidence and cannot lie. Is that not correct?
199) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that under 18 USC § 4100 it was illegal for Saint
Regis Mohawk Police, acting as New York State Police, to transport Claimant from Akwesasne
without signature of Claimant. Is that not correct?
200) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Claimant would not sign consent to
transport of own free will. Is that not correct?
201) It is presumed that US Attorney wishes to become Party or Accessory to kidnapping if he
fails to Nolle Prosequi this Case with utmost expediency. Is that not correct?
202) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that US Administrative Magistrate or US
Attorney of Plattsburgh Federal District Court had unclean hands. Is that not correct?
203) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that US Magistrate KUDRLE tried VICTOR J
LOZORE in 2005. Is that not correct?
204) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware of “back room” deals made in that 2005 Case,
which resulted in Attorney GREGORY D LADUKE for Defense to force or “hammer”
Defendant into a guilty plea. Is that not correct?
205) It is presumed that this Case was transferred to this Court due to unclean hands of
Administrative Magistrate or US Attorney of Plattsburgh Federal District Court. Is that not
correct?
206) It is presumed that present US Attorney in this Court received this Case with clean hands.
Page 17 of twenty pages
 Is that not correct?
207) It is presumed that US Attorney now being aware of these matters and compelled to uphold
Oath of Office cannot allow these proceeding to continue without subjecting self to unclean
hands. Is that not correct?
208) It is presumed that United States District Court Judge of Utica upon reading this demand for
more definite statement, now being aware of these matters, compelled to uphold Oath of Office,
cannot allow these proceeding to continue, either, without subjecting self to unclean hand,
resulting in liable. Is that not correct?
209) It is presumed that US Attorney in this US District Court, upon choosing to continue, does
proceed from this moment forward with unclean hands. Is that not correct?
210) It is presumed that sitting US Judge refers to self as honorable, then it is expected that he
will do that which is honorable by dismissing with prejudice this frivolous Indictment, with
utmost expediency. Is that not correct?
211) It is presumed that if US Judge upon reading the above, chooses to continue, he too
proceeds from that moment forward with unclean hands. Is that not correct?
212) It is presumed that United States Attorney and United States Judge are aware that Claimant
has no intent to voluntarily appear or grant Jurisdiction to this Court, except to dismiss Action or
strike Complaint; and that this Court has authority to act on its own volition, ex parte to
DISMISS Action or STRIKE Complaint. Is that not correct?
213) It is presumed that US Attorney and US Judge are duty bound to protect the United States of
America from suit. Is that not correct?
214) It is presumed that Court cannot assume jurisdiction to prosecute once jurisdiction was
challenged. Is that not correct?
215) It is presumed that US Attorney lacks sufficient evidence upon which to convict Claimant of
any wrong doing or injury. Is that not correct?
216) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that Claimant was dragged bound in chains on
Sunday, February 6, 2011, for a star chamber Hearing in Plattsburgh. Is that not correct?
217) It is presumed that the United States waived its right of sovereign immunity by bring this
Action. Is that not correct?
218) It is presumed that the United States and US Attorney agrees to pay Claimant seventy (70)
one once gold American Eagles for each and every hour or portion thereof, in that US Attorney
maintains this Action at law. Trezevant v City of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336 Is that not correct?
Page 18 of twenty pages
219) It is presumed that if this Action continues that Plaintiff, which ever United States that it
may be agrees to pay Claimant ten thousand (10,000) one once gold American Eagles for
conspiracy to kidnap. Is that not correct?
220) It is presumed that this is good and sufficient Notice and Service upon all Parties so
situated. Is that not correct?
221) It is presumed that service on principle constitutes service on agent, and vice versa. Is that
not correct?
222) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that notification of legal responsibility is “the
first essential of due process of law”. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 US 385, 391.
Is that not correct?
223) It is presumed that US Attorney was aware that “Silence can only be equated with fraud
where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be
intentionally misleading.” Unites States v Tweel, 550 F2d 297. Is that not correct?
224) It is presumed that when public official fails or refuses to give answer, when duty requires,
it becomes your tacit admission that presumption, contained herein, are true and correct, being
unrefuted or unrebutted. Is that that not correct?
225) It is presumed that US Attorney understands that Affidavit can only be answered with
Affidavit. Is that not correct?
226) It is presumed that Esquire Richard S Hartunian and Esquire Elizabeth A Horsman
understands that if there be disagreement with anything in this Notice and Demand to Strike and
Presentment then US Attorney will refute or rebut that with which disagreement exist, in
writing, with particularity and completeness, within fourteen (14) days upon receipt of this
Notice and Demand to Strike and Presentment contained herein, and support disagreement with
fact, evidence and law. If US Attorney answers, then it is presumed that answer is in whole. Is
that not correct?
227) Upon United States' of America, US Attorney's or other like situated Tort-feasors' failure to
respond, as stipulated, it is presumed as agreement with and admission to the fact that
everything in this Notice and Demand to Strike, was true, correct, legal, lawful, and US
Attorney's irrevocable admission attesting to this, binding without exception upon US Attorney,
and those, who US Attorney claims to represent, without further protest, objection, or that of
those who represent the United States, Esquire Richard S Hartunian or Esquire Elizabeth A
Horsman; and shall be Stare Decisis, in any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding. Is
Page 19 of twenty pages
 that not correct?

Wherefore, Claimant, held in false imprisonment as hostage or prisoner of war, demands

Court to strike Plaintiff's Pleading for being frivolous and without merit, or for failing to state claim
upon which relief can be granted; in alternative dismiss action for lack of jurisdiction of Parties or
subject matter; or if Court wishes to continue with unclean hands and become Party to kidnapping,
demand is upon Court to set this Case for trial before Three-Judge Court, as per 28 USC § 2284,
PL94-381 and Senate Report 94-204; otherwise, release ORDER to Claimant, and I will be on my
way, FCJPR, Rule 12(c); as to Counter-Claim demand is upon Court to set for trial before Three-
Judge Court, if ORDER is not released to Claimant; as to matter of Presentment and compensation,
Claimant shall seek collection against responsible Parties other then this Court, without assistance or
interference of this Court, if ORDER is released to Claimant with utmost expediency.
I, Victor-Jacob:, certify under the penalty of perjury pursuant to the Laws of the United States
of America that above Notice and Demand to Strike with Revocation of signatures and power of
attorney, and Notice of Counter-Claim to be true and correct, as per 28 USC 1746(1), except that
which is stated on information and belief, and which is believed to be true, acknowledged and
executed this Twenty-fourth Day of February, A.D. Two-Thousand Eleven.

Further I saith naught.

Return with exactness to:

Victor-Jacob:
Suæ potestis esse.
c/o box 55 Saint Regis Road
Hogansburg Post Office
[near New York 13655]

cc: Judge Hurd

Esquire Hartunian
Esquire Eric Holder

Page 20 of twenty pages