1 :Maurice-Edward: Thompson.

In pro per, sui juris(not pro se)

2 c/o 761 Third St
Ayden, North Carolina near [28513]
3 252-525-2095
meece.mt@gmail.com
4
SUPERIOR COURT OF PITT COUNTY
5
NORTH CAROLINA
6
NYAISA TEN, PPO Case No.: 18CRS00762/15CRS050711
7
Plaintiff,
8
vs. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
9 NOTICE TO DISMISS
THOMPSON, MAURICE EDWARD, ET. AL
10
Defendant
11
FACTS
12
On 30th of April, 2019 the PROBATION OFFICE, by way of officer NYAISA TEN, issued a report that
13
claimed the defendant THOMPSON, MAURICE EDWARD was in violation of the conditions of his probation. G.S.
14
15A-1345. The authorized representative had given the officer a copy of his withdrawal of consent, copy attached,
15
and also informed the officer of his habeas corpus and belief that this was a double jeopardy matter. The defendant
16
also filed a motion to vacate judgement, an appeal, and the writ of habeas corpus. The representative is currently
17
awaiting a reply. Also, see attachment, 15CRS050711 was a “DISMISSAL WITHOUT LEAVE BY DA” by the
18
SUPERIOR COURT in LENOIR COUNTY. This matter was the reason for probation. The defendant was ordered
19
to “pay” $209 a month, in which the defendant was unable to “pay” any money. And was ordered to get an
20
assessment and treatment.
21

22
SUPPORTING FACTS
23
I. The Plaintiff was notified of the Defendant being an ENS LEGIS. “If courts are to regard the
24
Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution,
25
and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” Marbury v. Madison, 5
26
U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) verified
27

28
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFNOTICE TO DISMISS - 1
1 II. And since the defendant was unable to “pay”, and was willing, it is not considered a violation. G.S.

2 15A-1364(a) “When a defendant who has been required to pay a fine or costs or both defaults in

3 payment or in any installment, the court, upon the motion of the prosecutor or upon its own, may

4 require the defendant to appear and show cause why he should not be imprisoned or may rely upon a

5 conditional show cause order entered under G.S. 15A-1362(c),” (b)…”unless the defendant shows

6 inability to comply and that his nonpayment was not attributable to a failure on his part to make a good

7 faith effort to obtain the necessary funds for payment, the court may order the suspended sentence, if

8 any, activated, or, if the law provides no term of imprisonment for the offense for which the defendant

9 convicted or if no suspended sentence was imposed, the court may order the defendant imprisoned for

10 a term not to exceed 30 days. The court, before activating a sentence of imprisonment, may reduce the

11 sentence….” (c)(3)…”the court may enter an order revoking the fine or costs or the unpaid portion in

12 whole or in part.”

13 III. “Since, in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the

14 phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it. But there is no hard [312 U.S. 600, 605] and fast rule of

15 exclusion. The purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive

16 interpretation of the statute are aids to construction which may indicate an intent, by the use of the

17 term, to bring state or nation within the scope of the law.” UNITED STATES v. COOPER

18 CORPORATION, 312 U.S. 600 (1941) verified

19 IV. JURISDICTION. “No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether

20 judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril.” Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v.

21 Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

22 CONCLUSION

23 For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Notice to Dismiss should be granted and this matter should be

24 disposed of.

25

26

27 Dated this day of 13th day of June, 2019.

28
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFNOTICE TO DISMISS - 2
1 Authorized Representative

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFNOTICE TO DISMISS - 3