(

William David Duff

108NW 101 PL
Kansas City, Mo 64155

September 10, 2007

Clay County Circuit Court

Clay County Circuit Clerk
11 S Water St
Liberty, Mo 64068

Re: Duff v Frazier, et al

Case#07CY-CV06125

Dear Clerk,

Please find enclosed an original of "MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANT MOTION FOR

DISMISSAL - filed after 8/16/2007 and SUGGESTIONS THERETO" and one copy to be filed
in above referenced case (on demand if necessary)

Please return a file stamped copy to my office in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Thank you for your assistance.

Sincer

Plaintiff

Cc; Emily Dodge

SEP 1 1 2007
TIME
Clay County Circuit Court
 '
IN THE 7™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI
COUNTY OF CLAY - DIVISION 2

William Duff, ) CASE NO. 07CY-CV06125

Plaintiff, )
) ACTION
v. ) FOR TRESPASS, AND
) TRESPASS ON THE CASE
OFFICER WILLIAM FRAZIER, (SERIAL 3092) )
AND )
OFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL #4090) ) VERIFIED
Defendants. )

MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL - Filed after 8-16-07

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, William Duff, and moves this court to deny defendants motion to
dismiss, to wit;

Plaintiff invites this court to take cognizance of the suggestions supporting this motion
(hereon attached)

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this court to deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for good
cause shown and for all other consideration this court can and should provide.

William Duff
-e> 7
Plaintiff

Cc: William Duff to: wdd@williamduff.com,

William Frazier and Alan Roth to: 1001 NW Barry Rd. Place
Kansas City, Missouri C/O KCMO Police Department - North Division
EMILY A. DODGE Assistant Attorney General at; ag(o),ago.mo.gov and
emily.dodgefq),ago.mo.gov

XVNIES
Circuit
 IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI
2 COUNTY OF CLAY - DIVISION 2
3
4 William Duff, ) CASE NO. 07CY-CV06125
5 Plaintiff,
6 ) ACTION
7 v. ) FOR TRESPASS, AND
S ) TRESPASS ON THE CASE
9 OFFICER WILLIAM FRAZEER, (SERIAL 3092)
10 AND
11 OFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL # 4090) ) VERIFIED
12 Defendants.
13
14 SUGGESTIONS FOR MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANT MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL -
15 Filed after 8-16-07
16
17 BACKGROUND
18
19 Plaintiff, not waiving his right to default judgment in this case, if any is forthcoming, recognizes the
20 need for the premises of this controversy to be clear and understandable and that it is long overdue for
21 the Missouri Attorney Generals office to provide a substantive and complete and competent opinion
22 regarding the nature of the freedom of the people and specifically Plaintiff, within Missouri, takes up
23 the issues presented by the learned Assistant Attorney General and her motions to dismiss and invites
24 same to show by what authority the City and State profess to act respecting the controversy now before
25 this court respecting Plaintiffs Right of Action emanating from his own private domain vs. The
26 City/State's Right to enforce regulations emanating from it's public domain.
27
28 Plaintiff contends and has adequately represented in the documents filed in this case; identifying the
29 Law, the Principals of Freedom and Self Governance and the attending Rights of Action associated
30 with his Life, his Liberty and his Property, all being solely within his own private domain, and that
31 same are superior to statutory rights of governments respecting the attending premise and are at the
32 heart of this controversy, to wit;
33
34 Plaintiffs Affidavit of Citizenship Status (exhibit D filed in this action and entered here as if written in
35 full) fairly describes, and supports with Law and Principles of this society, the bright line boundary
36 existing around his own private domain, within which he possesses sole Dominion, and across which
37 the public domain of the State, city, and county or their agents may not intrude upon without Plaintiffs

william duff Page 1 9/10/2007

 (
38 CONSENT or evidence of his injury to another's person or property (bad act). To do so would be an
39 injury to plaintiff. As such, there exists no Lawful authority for the State/City or its agents to trespass
40 into plaintiffs own private domain against his will or without his bad act that could activate a public
41 domain interest, even if it appears to some that such trespass might well be a "GOOD IDEA".
42
43 ANALOGY; The one Law of this Society no one is excused not to know is; "We have agreed
44 not to harm (injure) one another". In comprehension of that law, Plaintiffs neighbor has no
45 lawful authority to trespass upon plaintiffs own private domain without injuring plaintiff. Nor
46 does plaintiffs neighbor enhance his lawful authority or lawful capacity to act in this regard by
47 combining his lawful authority with others in this society through the democratic process, in
48 that all those other neighbors also don't possess the lawful authority to injure Plaintiff. If an
49 individual could not compel plaintiff to comply with his will without injuring plaintiff, under
50 no circumstances could a collection of his equals (peers) do so without injuring Plaintiff. And
51 further, that collective could not lawfully hire an agent to take that action on their behalf
52 without injuring Plaintiff. Since the state/city acquire all of its power and public domain from
53 the collective people themselves (as hired agents), through the democratic elements of our
54 society, The State/City also could not possibly have lawful authority to trespass upon Plaintiffs
55 own private domain without injuring Plaintiff, in that the collective people did not have that
56 power to grant to its agent as a lawful form of action where the action injures one of the people
57 the State was instituted to secure the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property of the people
58 themselves, not even if the collective believed that grant to be a "GOOD IDEA". This
59 principle operates in the same way and for the very same reasons respecting a state/city's
60 attempted trespass upon the public Domain of the Federal Government. Federal Supreme
61 Court decisions are replete with cases denying the state such trespass, (see in-depth reasoning
62 of "private vs. public domain" at www. wiiliamduff. com ) The State cannot claim it doesn't'
63 understand this principle and at the same time expect to be taken seriously.
64
65 Obviously, Plaintiff does not consent respecting defendants charges and actions, nor have defendants
66 asserted that plaintiff has injured anyone or thing. Those facts are material to this controversy and
67 made unassailable by defendants own admissions. The offices held by defendants possessed of no
68 lawful authority to exceed its Lawful bounds, and no capacity to do so, save the choices of action made

william duff Page 2 9/10/2007

 I r
69 by the holder of that office; the defendants. It is manifest to plaintiff that defendants had to have
70 vacated their offices in order to perform the acts complained of here.
71
72 Plaintiff claims to possess Sovereign Immunity from the charges by defendants respecting the actions
73 defendants complain of, and plaintiff so stated and noticed these facts to defendants prior to defendants
74 bad acts (see Exhibit A of Plaintiffs action) and to the muni court in which defendants sought remedy
75 for the charges they made (see plaintiffs answer to the charges) and in plaintiffs Notice and Demand,
76 also filed as exhibit in this action. As such, defendants acts must clearly be willful and wanton if in
77 fact the actions complained of by defendants are actually rights of action belonging to plaintiff as
78 plaintiff contends.
79
80 Plaintiffs action sits to determine that very question. A mere claim of a statutory authority by the
81 State is not sufficient evidence that the State actually possesses the authority claimed. When a
82 reasonable challenge by one of the people is made to the States/Cities authority that challenge
83 necessarily implicates an action in the nature of a Writ of Quo Warranto; Show by what authority
84 does the State/City acts. A statutory claim, would not meet that duty. A statute is a claim by the State
85 of authority. It is not proof of the authority itself.
86
87 Should defendants wish to claim they were compelled in their bad acts by other office holders, this
88 Plaintiff will accept affidavits from each defendant naming those office holders and plaintiff will
89 gladly add them as defendants in this action seeking trespass on the case or vicarious liability.
90
91 REBUTTAL
92
93 Plaintiff invites this court to take cognizance of the facts and law applicable to this case as contained
94 herein and in all the documents heretofore filed in this action by plaintiff and that filed as Answer to
95 charges brought by defendants in the Muni Court of Kansas City, Mo. and all are entered here as if
96 written in full.
97
98 Defendant's Motion to dismiss (1) fails to comprehend the nature of this action and (2) wrongly
99 "presumes" the muni court to have jurisdiction of the person of this Plaintiff and the subject matter,

william duff Page 3 9/10/2007

 (
100 excepting, of course, by unlawful usurpation attended by force of arms. As such, the sufficiency of
101 defendants pleading is wanting, to wit;
102
103 (1) This action seeks damages for injuries done by defendants in that the injurious acts exceeded
104 the authority of the office of trust they held and were therefore a colorable assertion of
105 authority. This action also seeks, in the nature of Quo Warranto, a clear statement of; By what
106 Lawful Authority defendants claim to have acted? That element alone would stay the muni
107 proceedings until that question is explored and adjudicated.
108 (2) This action seeks to assert Plaintiffs Right of Action as is referenced above and in the
109 documents filed in this case. This action makes no attempt to diminish the Municipal Courts
110 lawful jurisdiction but only to determine the Rights of Plaintiff. The Municipal Court does not
111 have the will, means, or authority to do so in its limited and inferior nature. The Rights of
112 action being adjudicated in this court of record must first be decided before it can be assumed
113 that the city possesses lawful authority to proceed in said Municipal Action. The State of
114 Missouri's Judiciary has never adequately explored the premise presented here, though the
115 judiciary claims to have settled the issue. If plaintiff is wrong I invite proof to the contrary.
116 Defendants' motion for dismissal fails to comprehend these unassailable facts.
117 (3) In rebuttal of defendant's "factual background", defendant's assertions, and all of them are in
118 error and obviously only serves as an attempt to obscure Plaintiffs bright line boundary
119 guarding his domain so that persons holding an office of trust have a plausible but wholly
120 unlawful cover story for entering into Plaintiffs domain for the purpose of diminishing his
121 dominion thereof, to wit: plaintiff denies that he "resides" in Kansas City when that term is
122 legalese for him being a United States citizen "residing" anywhere. He is not and therefore
123 does not, He exists within his own private property at all times relevant to this action as has
124 been carefully described throughout the documents filed in this case. Defendants and their
125 superiors have never provided any competent evidence to the contrary. Cities, counties and
126 State office holders merely make the claim of authority, as defendants have done here, without
127 any competent proof whatsoever that the claim is actually within their grant of power, and
128 typically whatever court is hearing the matter accepts the claim on its face as evidence without
129 proof. This act alone injures plaintiff especially when he provides unassailable, competent
130 evidence of the facts he provides. Defendants facts are merely claims with nothing to support

william duff Page 4 9/10/2007

 (
131 them beyond the testimony of government office holders who are completely incompetent to
132 testify before this court on any related issue without there being two non government witnesses
133 in support. Defendant's Facts are in error for the following reasons; Plaintiffs 1996 Buick is
134 not a "motor vehicle" as such term is comprehended by Missouri Statute. The car is private
135 property (chattel) belonging solely to William Duff and if it is anybody's business, he uses it to
136 travel upon the "public right of way" for his own personal enjoyment and enterprise, (see City
137 of Chicago v. Collins et al., 175 111. 445, 51 N.E. 907 (Oct. 24, 1898) copy of the full decision
138 attached and accented on point.); Respecting the license plate issue, defendants characterize it
139 thusly: "2). Plaintiff also admits that the vehicle was not registered in Missouri and bore a
140 license plate that Plaintiff fashioned himself" while the simple fact is that plaintiff has
141 attached his private tag to his car as an inducement for people like defendants to ignore him
142 and said tag represents no license as comprehended by the statute. It is merely camouflage
143 being used for good cause in a world full of predators. Irrespective of that fact, the tag is
144 the property of Plaintiff, and defendants taking of it can only be characterized as theft.
145
146 ARGUMENT
147
148 The action filed by defendants in the muni court is one of "presumed authority" to compel Mr. Duff to
149 use his property only in a way that is authorized by the State/city but with willful and wanton disregard
150 of plaintiffs unwillingness to consent thereto upon subject matter that exists solely within Plaintiffs
151 own private domain and without defendants alleging competent facts supporting an injury done by
152 plaintiff to another, while this action is one that seeks to explore that presumption and agree or
153 disagree therewith. Between the two jurisdictions, this jurisdiction is the only one that can fairly
154 negotiate and accomplish that exploration and render a dispositive judgment as to its validity. As such
155 this court is not robbing the muni court of its jurisdiction, it is simply staying the muni adjudication
156 while this court decides the greater issue; That being; if Plaintiff does have a right of action that covers
157 the acts complained of by defendants and has not ceded that right of action to the State/city the
158 presumption of authority would be unfounded. It must be irrelevant that a decision on the greater issue
159 in favor of plaintiff would void the muni action. The greater issue must first be decided before the
160 lesser issue can lawfully continue.
161

william duff Page 5 9/10/2007

162 As an anecdote, Plaintiff recognizes defendant's demur and is grateful for the admissions to all facts
163 alleged herein.
164
165 COGNIZANCE REQUESTED:
166
167 Defendants, by and through their attorney and their first motion to dismiss have provided admission to
168 all the facts alleged by Plaintiff in this action. Further, it appears that the law is the only remaining
169 issue. Plaintiff also invites this court to take cognizance of the fact that defendants have provided no
170 law in this case that would or even could assail the law provided by Plaintiff in that, all cases cited by
171 defendants emanate from a democratic process supporting a statutory jurisdiction that fails to
172 comprehend, let aione, rebut the subject matter at issue.
173
174 Defendants, by and through their attorney and their motion to dismiss replevin, have again asserted
175 authorities applicable only to people operating according to State license and all the cases cited reflect
176 that fact. Plaintiff has demonstrated he does not operate his domain according to State license.
177 Defendants also fail to show an ownership interest in Plaintiffs 1996 Buick, by the State, that could
178 alter Plaintiffs right to own all; right, title and interest, in said property nor that the person who
179 claimed to own all right title and interest therein and who passed same to Plaintiff either did not so
180 own. Defendants have failed to provide any competent evidence that Plaintiff operates or is compelled
181 to operate according to State license respecting his use of his Rights to Liberty and property or that
182 plaintiff has no right to contract with others respecting his property. Defendants make claims but
183 provide no substantial proof in support.
184
185 AND THERE IS THE ISSUE AT CONTROVERSY; By What authority. Not Claim of
186 authority (statute, decisional law upon statutes). But By what authority does the state claim to
187 determine, compel or prohibit Plaintiff's choice of use of Plaintiff's private property that exists solely
188 within plaintiff's domain within which only Plaintiff owns and possesses sole dominion, and where
189 plaintiff has caused injury to no other. When the Attorney Generals office provides competent
190 evidence that comprehends and answers this simple question in favor of the State, Plaintiff will cease
191 being a legal burden on this society and seek a society that actually comprehends and respects the
192 principles of freedom and protection of Rights to Life. Liberty and Property this society was founded
193 on.
194

william duff Page 6 9/10/2007

195 IN SUMMARY;
196
197 Defendant's, twice now, have declared plaintiffs action "fails to state a claim upon which relief could
198 be granted", and twice now, have supported their arguments with court decisions who's subject matter
199 represents people acting in accordance with State License or permission to do something. Even though
200 the documents, evidence and assertions filed in this action scream; "BY WHAT AUTHORITY
201 SHOULD A FREE MAN (specifically plaintiff) BE COMPELLED TO GET STATE LICENSE FOR
202 ACTS PERFORMED WITHIN HIS OWN PRIVATE DOMAN THAT INJURE NO ONE?".
203 Defendants continue to cite rules and rulings that comprehend only what one can do in accordance
204 with State License. Defendant makes no attempt to answer the central question posed in this action.
205 Further, defendants consistently use evidences this court could not take cognizance of,even if it were
206 inclined to do so, in that all comprehend a statutory jurisdiction, foreign to the jurisdiction of this court
207 and which fail to comprehend protected common law rights of plaintiff.1 Defendant's have failed or
208 refused to address this subject matter, from its outset. Defendants imply that a State interest exists in
209 the property and rights being adjudicated here but finish short of defining exactly what that interest is.
210 Conversely, plaintiff has carefully outlined and defined each interest in detail, which by their premise
211 fully support plaintiffs claim of Dominion over his private domain. As such it is defendant who fails
212 to state a defense this court could provide remedy for, not plaintiff. If fraud is to be found in actions of
213 the parties, it is defendants who embrace it, not plaintiff.
214
215 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this court to deny Defendant's Motions to Dismiss for good cause
216 shown and for all other consideration this court can and should provide.
217
218
219

1
Article 34 of the Magna Carta (Great Charter of freedom that was made the law of this land
by the Framers of our Constitution and is therefore part of the birthright of every American)
34. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding
so as to cause a free man to lose his court.{ "Praecipe" = order to show cause against
property. "Rights" are property. A free man (i.e. nobleman) has his own land and people
(slaves). The king may not force a nobleman into the king's court in such a way that the
nobleman wouid be deprived of his own court.) As such, "failure to state a claim" is not
available in a court of record proceeding according to the common law in this case
because the entire subject matter is contained within plaintiffs domain.

william duff Page 7 9/10/2007

220
221 William Duff
222 Plaintiff
223
224 Cc: William Duff to: wdd@wiIliamdufY.coin,
225 William Frazier and Alan Roth to: 1001 NW Barry Rd. Place
226 Kansas City, Missouri C/O KCMO Police Department - North Division
227 EMILY A. DODGE Assistant Attorney General at; ag@ago.mo.gov and
228 emily.dodge(5).ago. mo.gov
229

william duff Page 8 9/10/2007