Notice of Intent & Purpose

This notice is to all parties legally involved in 14FA69. i, a man, Thomas Michael Thering have
made a mistake in the very beginning of these legal proceedings. i, a man, stood for the legal person
unknowing that none of my rights as a man would be observed or acknowledged. As this legal case
progressed, the bias toward licensed Bar Attorney's opinions became very clear. In most proceedings,
according to communications from the woman Theresa Marie Hultine, Robert Kosloske misrepresented
statements and facts made known to him by the woman that now holds my property interest against my
right of will. Attorneys have been either only representing the interests reflected in the statutes (i.e.
political establishment) or the financial interests of the woman determined to keep my share of the
property she and i, a man, hold an equal interest therein. i am not herein accusing any man or woman of
corruption but herein I will detail, briefly, examples of beliefs of men and women in contrast with
statements in court by legal persons amongst other examples of concerning events.
1) In my one and only interview with Thomas Monogue before the second hearing, at the end of the
interview, he stated to me very specifically that the percentage based 'child support' standard
acts as nothing more than a wealth transfer. To prove this point, my expense sheet wasn't even
considered in setting the 'child support'. This legal child support order was a wealth transfer
or otherwise known as theft of property. During the second hearing, Thomas Monogue justifies
the support order by citing the statutes.
2) The woman, Theresa Marie Hultine, has been duplicitous with her communication to me about her
intention, or her attorney has truly misrepresented her statements of belief and fact. She told me
she was really nice about me in her interview with Thomas Monogue. Thomas Monogue
proceeds to represent her description of me as a pothead, conspiracy theorist, drunk, and a
hoarder.
3) Theresa has told me on numerous occasions that she doesn't want to keep our shared property only to
herself, yet in that same hearing as event 2), Robert Kosloske asks for supervised visitation and
full custody of the property[child] at issue. Those oral motions do not reflect a woman who
respects a man's right with an equal interest in said shared property.
4) In the following hearing regarding a change in the legal order of 'child support', Robert Kosloske
oral motions for a deviation upward. His reasoning is out of fairness. By his standard, then his
motion would be considered ludicrous according to his words. Robert Kosloske sent i, a man, a
letter detailing how he viewed my most recent claim filed into the legal case 14FA69 regarding
adherence to the legal court order regarding placement. In this letter he assumes that i, a man,

need legal justification for a change in venue for a court proceeding. He consequently labeled
the filed motion ludicrous. He also then proceeded to threaten me in writing with financial
harm if i, a man, filed any further motions into the legal case 14FA69.
5) In the hearing for the change to the legal court order for child support, Jane Jacobs put in the court
order that she most generously produced, she states i, a man, filed the motion for a change in the
legal order for child support as an attorney. I am not an attorney, nor have I ever claimed to
be licensed by the Wisconsin State Bar Association to use Acts, Statutes, Codes, or
Administrative regulations in a practice at Law.
6) Mark Fremgen stated during the second hearing that he believes that 17% as a standard is not
enough for child support. He stated this in response to my raising the issue of the legal order
for child support seeming to be excessive and a transfer of wealth with no basis on the true
cost of caring for the property in question [child].
The above examples represent a variety of issues. The most glaring of all the issues is the
conflict of interest presented herein by the work of licensed Bar Association Attorney's using acts,
statutes, codes, and administrative law in matters of property that are most easily dealt with using
common law regarding equity of ownership correlating to enjoyment of value. Attorney's versed and
licensed in legalese and terms of art, present an often confused representation of the facts of a conflict
in a case such as this one before us. This is especially true when those men and women have no first
hand accounts by unbiased third party witnesses.
These proceedings coupled with my study of law, as a man, have lead me to conclude that the
Wisconsin Bar Association has a monopoly of use in the public buildings that would be the courthouses
in the territory known as Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin, which is a legal entity, forces me, a man,
to act as a legal person to even bring forth a claim i would rather present as a man, since that is my true
form. Even then, i have to petition, which is a form of begging, to have any claim that i, a man, would
levy against another man or woman be heard within the rooms of a public building.
My point is this, I am a man, Thomas Michael Thering, and i, a man, have a claim to the
property[child] that is the subject matter this case but not the jurisdiction of licensed Bar Attorneys of
these proceedings. This ownership position i, a man, have has not ever been disputed. My goal in all
of this has been to get enjoyment equal to the value from the ownership interest i, a man, hold in the
property that is the subject matter of this conflict brought into the view of the public. This value is
measured in time. Time within the house that i, a man, lord over and care for. My ownership is
presumed to be equal to that share of the woman, Theresa Marie Hultine and such is 50%.

In closing, this matter is a simple one of interest in property and the right of use and enjoyment
equal to ownership. Attorney's have no place in a matter such as this when one of the two principal
owners do not speak the legalese of the four licensed Bar Attorneys so far involved in prolonging and
confusing the primary issue of conflict. In addition, on the surface, there is an appearance of favoring
the mother over the father with absolutely no claim, complaint, or witness to substantiate the loss
of value suffered by i, the man, at the opinions of Bar licensed Attorneys.
i, a man, Thomas Michael Thering demand that my common law right to my enjoyment of
property[child] equal to my ownership of said property be restored immediately without further delay.
Attorney's with no personal first hand witness of the dispute over said property have no place in these
proceedings. Unless any man or woman come forward with a verifiable claim as to the contrary of my
right herein stated and demanded, then all other persons involved beyond the two principal owners
have nothing of substance to offer as an argument in resolving the conflict over said property.
i, a man, herein state very clearly that i am not proceeding as a legal person in presentments at
and in the Jefferson county courthouse. i, a man, Thomas Michael Thering reserve all natural and
common law rights of property afforded to me by my creator. i herein, disavow and dissolve any
presumed, assumed, or implied consent to be diminished in my capacity as a man by any Act, Statute,
Code, or Administrative regulation. Any agreement signed by my hand, as an agent for the legal
person, is hereby rescinded. The state is not my creator and therefor cannot bestow upon me, the man,
any rights and can only trespass upon them without my permission. Any attempt to create joinder
between i, the man, and the legal person THOMAS MICHAEL THERING presumed to be in person at
previous hearings shall be corrected and will be expected to stay so.
No man has the right to tell another man what to believe. In this case, neither the state nor the
licensed Bar Attorney has a place in aiding argument for diminishing the right of one man with regards
to property to the benefit of another less a contract or claim can be verified permitting such action. In
all other cases, the act of diminishing the right to property equal to value of ownership is a trespass and
equitable compensation is the remedy for lost enjoyment of value. Finally, every man is responsible for
any order he imposes on another man. In such situations, unless slavery be the law of the land,
compensation for all orders given and fulfilled is required by natural law.