All Criminal Complaint Clay Cover

William Duff
2605 So Westport Rd
Independence, Mo 64052
816-503-9055
cell 816-365-1600
email wdd@williamduff.com
ASSOCIATE JUDGE JANET SUTTON

7 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI
Division 7
11 SO WATER ST
LIBERTY, MISSOURI 64068
web@circuit7.net
407-3970 fax 407-3971
Judge of the Court

7 th or 16th Judicial Circuit of Missouri
I am providing felony complaints comprehending both Clay and Jackson County venues against
two Kansas City, Missouri Police officers and two Judges, one in Clay County and one in
Jackson County in comprehension of RSMO 544.020 and expect same to be vigorously pursued
in comprehension of RSMO 575.020. 1(1) AND (2). I am faxing only the Frazier complaint to
the division and emailing all said complaints to the clerk/secretary for judge and by certified mail
#
In view of the fact that the complaints involve government men I expect all actions thereon to be
copied to me for audit and documentation at the above address without exception. In addition, I
demand to be present at any indictment proceedings herewith associated and transcripts
therefrom in that it is reasonable to presume that it is possible a prosecuting attorney, also being
a government man/woman, may be tempted to fail intentionally.
If you have any questions concerning any of the complaints or the probable cause thereof you
may contact me through email or at one of the phone numbers as above referenced. Please be
advised that all my contact information is subject to change momentarily so please try all
provided phones and email when attempting to contact
Should action not proceed upon these complaints within 30 days of you receiving them I will
copy them to the U.S. Attorney’s office for investigation.
Thank you in advance
William Duff
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
FELONY COMPLAINT
IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF CLAY
COMES NOW; William D Duff, SWEARING UPON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AND STATES THAT THERE IS PROBABLE
CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 5,2007, AND CONTINUING
THEREAFTER, THE ACCUSED; WILLIAM FRAZIER, PERFORMED THE ACTS
COMPLAINED OF WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO SO ACT AND EFFECTIVELY
VACATING HIS OFFICE OF TRUST THROUGH WILLFUL DISREGARD FOR DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND RIGHTS OF ACTION BELONGING TO THIS INJURED
PARTY AND IN THE FACE OF NOTICE OF HIS WRONG DOING THAT
CONSTITUTED LOSS OF JURISDICTION TO SO ACT, AS SUCH HE ASSUMED
PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR THOSE ACTS AS RECOGNIZED IN RSMO 562.061
“A person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an
offense which he performs or causes to be performed in the name
of or in behalf of a corporation or unincorporated association
to the same extent as if such conduct were performed in his own
name or behalf”, AND IN SO DOING COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES:
COUNT 1: KIDNAPPING
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 565.110 (5), COMMITTED THE CLASS B FELONY OF
KIDNAPPING, CHARGE CODE 1602005.0 PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(2), RSMO,
IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT UNLAWFULLY
RESTRAINED William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INFLICTING PHYSICAL INJURY ON AND OR TERRORIZING William Duff, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND
PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE: FELONIOUS RESTRAINT
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF , RSMO SECTION 565.120 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF
FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT
ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR
OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, SO AS
TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSES HIM TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.
COUNT 2: KIDNAPPING
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 565.110 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS A FELONY OF
KIDNAPPING, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT
JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY
RESTRAINED William Duff, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, FROM HIS LIBERTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THAT
PERSON FOR RANSOM OR REWARD, OR FOR ANY OTHER ACT TO BE PERFORMED OR NOT PERFORMED FOR THE RETURN
OR RELEASE OF William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF
WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.
FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT
ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR
OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, FROM HIS LIBERTY, SO AS
TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSES HIM TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE
COUNT 3: ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 571.015, RSMO, COMMITTED THE UNCLASSED FELONY OF
ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION, CHARGE CODE 31010990 PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015,
RSMO, IN THAT UNDER COLOR OF LAW ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF
MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FELONIES OF ROBBERY AND KIDNAPPING OR FELONIOUS RESTRAINT
CHARGED IN COUNT I & 4, ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN
BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONIES OF
ROBBERY, KIDNAPPING AND OR FELONIOUS RESTRAINT BY, WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF
A DEADLY WEAPON.
COUNT 4: ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 569.020, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS A FELONY OF
ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT ON OR
ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, UNDER COLOR OF LAW THE DEFENDANT
COMMITTED THE FELONY OF ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE DURING THE KIDNAPPING CHARGED IN COUNT I, ALL
ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF
WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONY ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE BY,
WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON.
COUNT 5: FALSE AFFIDAVIT
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 575.050, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF
MAKING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT, PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT ON OR
ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY and JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT
COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF MAKING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY CLOAKING HIMSELF WITH THE SAME
OFFICE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY VACATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP CRIMES IN COUNTS 1 THRU 4, CITING
CHARGES: STATE DRIVER LICENSE CASE# 224354(4), VALID STATE LICENSE PLATES CASE# 2243355(1) AND
PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CASE# 2243356(9) AND INSTRUCTION TO TOW DUFFS CAR TO THE KCMO
TOW LOT AGAINST William Duff AND CAUSING THE KANSAS CITY, MO PROSECUTOR JUDGE AND TOW LOT
OPERATOR TO RELY THEREON. ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED
HEREIN AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL BY REFERENCE.
.
COUNT 6 FALSE IMPRISONMENT:
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 565.130. 1, RSMO COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF
FALSE IMPRISONMENT BECAUSE HE UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED DUFF OF HIS LIBERTY IN THAT DEFENDANT,
AND OR HIS AGENTS UNLAWFULLY TOOK JURISDICTION OVER THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF
William Duff WITHOUT HIS CONSENT AND WITHOUT LAWFUL JURISDICTION TO DO SO. THE FACTS THAT
FORM THE BASIS FOR THIS INFORMATION AND BELIEF ARE CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF
FACTS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, WHICH STATEMENTS ARE MADE A PART HEREOF BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN
IN FULL AND ARE SUBMITTED HEREWITH AS A BASIS UPON WHICH THIS COURT MAY FIND THE EXISTENCE OF
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT.
WHEREFORE, William Duff, PRAYS THAT ARREST WARRANTS, ATTACHED HERETO,

BE ISSUED AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN MISSOURI

Address: 2605 So. Westport Rd Independence, Missouri
Phone; 8165039055 cell 8163651600
Email: wdd@williamduff.com
WITNESSES:
JOHN MICHAEL OYER
CHARLES OLIVER
KCMO POLICE OFFICER ATTACHED TO NORTH PATROL STATION (UNKNOWN)
BOND REQUEST: $3,000,000.00 COB
SEE ATTACHED PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT
RANGE OF PUNISHMENT: PER MISSOURI STATUTE 558.011.1, RSMO
__________________________ 10/2/2008
(Signature)
NOTE: Notary is only necessary if signor does not swear a solemn affirmation in recognition of
the laws of perjury
Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________day

of_______________, 20___.
___________________________
Notary Public
PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT
I, William Duff, one of the people within Missouri, being the real injured party, and
being first duly sworn according to law, having first hand knowledge of the facts and law herein,
and being of sound mind and competent to testify, do aver, testify and affirm that the facts and
law herein are stated by William Duff, the real injured party, and are true, correct, complete, not
misleading, nor declared for any immoral or unethical purpose or frivolous reason, and are
material to the matter at hand and made with respect and awareness for the penalties of perjury
under the laws of the United States of America. To wit:
LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF THIS LAND MATERIAL TO THIS
COMPLAINT
1. THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF MISSOURI: RSMo 1.010: The
common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the
fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local
to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the
United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time
being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the
contrary notwithstanding;
2. THE MAGNA CARTA AS ALTERED BY INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY
IN AMERICA IS THE COMMON LAW PER BILL OF RIGHT:
CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM October 10, 1297, 25 Edw. i, c. i. Danby
Pickering (ed.), Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1726-1807), I, 273-75. Declares
the Magna Carta to be the common law of England and was so declared during
the era eluded to in #1 above;
3. COMMON LAW VALID IN MISSOURI: 1
In determining the status of the
common law on the issue before us, we follow the general principle that unless a
statute clearly abrogates the common law either expressly or by necessary
implication, the common law rule remains valid. N.E. & R. Partnership v. Stone,
745 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).;
NOTE: A STATUTE, BEING A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT HAS NO
STANDING TO ALTER THE DUE PROCESS AS WRITTEN IN THE
MAGNA CARTA. NOR THE 5TH AMENDMENT AND EQUAL RESTRAINTS
AS REPRESENTED IN THE MISSOURI STATE CONSTITUTION SEE #4
NEXT
4. DUE PROCESS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL LIFE, LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY FROM ALL GOVERNMENT INTRUSION: “Due process
principles extend to every proceeding, which may deprive person of life, liberty,
or property. - Legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the judicial
determination of issues involving life, liberty, or property, a fortiori the finding of
a bureau chief or a government department head ruling cannot do so, consistently
with the guarantees embodied in the Constitutions of this state and the United
States. The protective principles summed up in these due process clauses extend
to every proceeding, which may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property,
whether the process be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos
v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943).
5. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF THIS LAND:
"An act of the legislature is not necessarily the 'law of the land.' A state cannot
make anything 'due process of law' which, by its own legislation, it declares to be
such." Burdick v. People, 36 N.E. 948, 949, 149 Ill. 600 (1894).
6. DUE PROCESS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL
OPINION: "Due process of law does not mean merely according to the will of
the Legislature, or the will of some judicial or quasi-judicial body upon whom it
may confer authority. It means according to the law of the land, including the
Constitution with its guaranties and the legislative enactments and rules duly
made by its authority, so far as they are consistent with constitutional limitations."
Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N.W. 595, 620 (1913), cases cited.
7. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TERMINATES ALL JURISDICTION:
“Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction
of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due
process”, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const.
Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).
8. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND:
"Daniel Webster, in the Dartmouth College Case, stated: ‘By the law of the land
is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns;
which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning
is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the
protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass
under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the
land.’ - It is thus entirely correct in assuming that a legislative enactment is not
necessarily the law of the land." - Judge Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on
Constitutional Limitations, 5th Ed. Little, Brown & Co.: Boston, 1883, Sec.353-
54, p.432.
9. DUE PROCESS MEANS “DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW” AS
BEING THE LAW OF THIS LAND: “The understanding which the founders
of the American constitutional system, and those who wrote the due process
clauses, brought to the subject they derived from Coke (Sir Edmund Coke), who
in his Second Institutes expounded the proposition that the term ``by law of the
land'' was equivalent to ``due process of law,'' which he in turn defined as ``by
due process of the common law,’’ As such, the due process mandated in the 5th
amendment to the fed constitution and copied in all State constitutions means
"Due Process of the Common law is the supreme law of this land” pursuant to
Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America.
10. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW AS MANDATED BY THE
MAGNA CARTA (some elements material to this action):
a. ARTICLE 45. “We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or
bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded
to observe it rightly.”
i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: Officials must be
knowledgeable about the law, and willing to apply it rightly and
obey it as a condition of their office of trust.
b. ARTICLE 39: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized,
or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send
upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the
land.”
i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: One can only be put in jail if a
jury puts him there (or if he agrees to be put there). Peers are
members of the peerage (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron, in
America the “people”).
c. ARTICLE 38. “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth
put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.”
i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: No government official may be
a witness in court. And if he is going to impose his law on another,
then he must have the support of non-governmental witnesses (2 or
more). Witnesses paid by the government are not considered
faithful witnesses.
d. ARTICLE 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. “
i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: "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 would be deprived of his own court. In America, there
can be no order or act by an official that would cause a freeman to
lose his court where the subject matter originates in his own
private domain consisting of his Life, Liberty and Property and
secured by the constitution in its “blessings of Liberty” clause.
(see “The American Birthright” www.williamduff.com for detailed
definition)
e. ARTICLE 40. “To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or
justice. “
i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: Free justice, without delay.
The government will assume the entire cost of prosecution.
Defense from that prosecution is included. This is why the court
will appoint free counsel.
f. USA SUPREME COURT: “Where rights are secured by the
Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: Rights secured by the
constitutions are specifically Individual Life, Liberty and Property.
11.FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS VOIDS JURISDICTION: ‘Violation of due
process vacates jurisdiction over the subject matter’, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.
458, 58 S.Ct. 1019
FACTS
12. Duff went to the Kansas City Missouri north patrol police station seeking help
with an unrelated theft by deception issue on or about June 5, 2007. Clerk (doe)
asked for proof of ownership of the property in question. Duff provided said
proof in a signed and witnessed original bill of sale for the property. Clerk (doe)
then asked for Duff’s State Driver License for identification purposes. Duff
informed Clerk doe that he did not use a State driver license and offered other
forms of identification. Clerk doe asked Duff ‘how did you get here?’. Duff
replied ‘ I traveled using my private property upon the public right of way’.
Clerk doe then went to talk with the duty officer (Frazier). Thereafter Frazier
came to the counter and asked the same questions of Duff. Duff’s answers were
virtually identical as when first answered. Frazier said that Duff must have a
State Driver license. Duff disagreed. Frazier threatened to have his agent,
another officer, stop Duff as he left the Station and arrest him for not having the
State Driver License. Duff informed Frazier that doing so would be an unlawful
restraint on his Liberty and Right of action, in that; The protective principles
summed up in these due process clauses extend to every proceeding, which may
deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, whether the process be judicial,
administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25
S.E.2d 806 (1943). Frazier terminated the conversation and Duff went to his
automobile and was arranging paperwork when Frazier and another officer yelled
at Duff to stop. Frazier approached Duff’s auto with his hand on his gun,
ordering duff out of his auto (in derogation of #10(b,c & f) above and therefore
lost all jurisdiction to proceed upon this action pursuant to #10 & 11 above and
become COUNTS 3, 4, 5 AND 6 ABOVE. Duff informed them he did not
consent to this action and gave Frazier a three-page document entitled “Notice”
that informed Frazier of his wrongdoing. Frazier ignored said notice. Duff was
searched, seized, bound and imprisoned (COUNT 1 thru 6 ABOVE). Duff’s
property in his body and auto were searched and seized by Frazier, in derogation
of #10(b,c & f) above, and his agent who declared Duff’s auto and property
therein would be towed to the police impound lot somewhere in the vicinity of the
Royals Baseball Stadium. Frazier, with agent Alan Roth, thereby forfeited
their office of trust and committed the acts described in the complaint
numbering Counts 1 thru 6, above, without being due the respect and
protection of that office (pursuant to #4 above) and RSMO 562.061. Duff
declared he did not consent to enter into any contractual duty with anyone and
especially not the police tow lot. Frazier did remove Duff’s private plate from
Duff’s auto claiming to keep it as evidence. Frazier, serial # 3092, wrote three
civil traffic citations claiming Duff’s failure to have valid State Driver License
case# 224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of
financial responsibility case# 2243356(9), all of which are Kansas City, Missouri
Municipal ordinance violations (COUNT 5) where Frazier later testified without
the assent of non government witnesses respecting the charges and where Frazier
failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of his claim. Duff was held
in that jail, approximately 1.5 hours, until he posted bond of $300, (COUNTS 1
& 2), all of which are denial of due process as referenced in #10, a,b,c,f and
#11 above.
Duff called next friends; John Michael Oyer and Charles Oliver who came
to the Station and who called the bondsman on Duff’s behalf. Both witnessed
Duff’s release from that facility. Duff posted the bond and was released to find
that Frazier had made good on his threat to take duff’s car and personal property
including but not limited to original bills of sale for the car taken and a second car
owned by Duff (COUNT 4). Duff presumed that Frazier had had Duff’s car with
personal property towed to the police tow lot. Later, Duff found that to be true
and noticed the person in charge of the error. It is important to note here that
Duff’s car was parked in the parking lot at the station, in a publicly owned right of
way, and was not obstructing others use.
SUMMARY
Duff claims Defendants and all their agents in support of their action have individually
and severally injured Duff with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Right of action,
unreasonable search and seizure of Duff’s person and property, armed criminal action,
kidnapping, false imprisonment, Trespass with violence, conspiracy against rights, battery,
making a false affidavit, and false imprisonment against Duff’s Dominion over his own private
domain and Right of action done under color of law and without lawful authority to act nor
office of trust because the Police Power of this State does not and can not extend beyond the
boundaries established by the controlling constitutions. As such, their actions deserve no more
respect than a criminal engaged in those same acts. All acts of which have restrained Duffs
Liberty and capacity to pursue further opportunities in order to fulfill his needs and therefore,
resulting in loss of other unnamed properties; restraint of his liberty from that day to this,
tantamount to a walking distance prison, and are directly and by enlarge responsible for Duffs
current inability to satisfy his most basic needs, where for the past 40 years this circumstance has
never existed. As such, to say that Duff desperately needs to find an office holder in Missouri
who understands the law of this land and is willing to apply and observe it rightly is a gross
understatement. Duff, one of the people within Missouri, is due that office holder and has a right
to prefer criminal charges against all who refuse to rightly prosecute their office of trust.
Frazier exceeded his jurisdiction in that he ignored due process of law, and therefore
vacated his office of trust, by either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another did
cause plaintiff Duff to be unlawfully and forcibly carried away and imprisoned1 against his will
and in disregard for prior notice to them of the wrong they engaged, without jurisdiction or good
cause shown (pursuant to #4 above). Even if Duff were subject to the rules Frazier was
attempting to enforce, which he is not and no proof to the contrary emerged at trial, they would
be “civil” in nature and not subject to criminal enforcement such as was used. At the onset of the
unlawful imprisonment and property theft plaintiff Duff injured no one and was duly2 engaged in
good faith and in his own private capacity, and at all times within the “Bright Line Boundary” of
his own private domain, and exercising his Right to go with his property upon the Public Right
of Way while injuring no one. Said Defendants, being noticed, and acting with willful and
wanton disregard for Duff’s Rights secured by the Constitutions and without good cause,
interrupted Duff’s Private Right of Action putting him in apprehension of further harm, and
stating claims of compulsory duties arising out of jurisdictions foreign to Duff’s domain and
Right of Action therein, did, without consideration for his lack of consent unreasonably searched
and seized and then imprison plaintiff Duff. During imprisonment the Defendants took further
ill-considered actions to further injure plaintiff Duff by trespassing upon Duff’s Domain and his
Dominion over that domain, did search and seize Duff’s property, over Duff’s express objection
thereto, in the form of his papers and effects and one 1996 Buick Rivera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668
and original bill of sales for two other automobiles, under color of laws foreign to Plaintiff’s domain
and individual private capacity and without good cause shown, the judgment of the people of
Missouri or due process of law.
1 Imprison: To confine a person or restrain his liberty in any way. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition
Imprisonment: ...it may be in a locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual
application of any physical agencies of restraint (such as locks or bars), as by verbal compulsion and the display of
available force. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition
2 Duly: ...according to law in both form and substance. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition
From the moment he was taken away till the present, Duff, under color of law,
was kept in actual or constructive imprisonment. Although he objected to the assumed

jurisdiction, those who kept him imprisoned under color of law did not respond to any of his
demands and requests for proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his liberty. Defendants and
their agents continued to assume the jurisdiction without proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at
proof of jurisdiction in direct contravention of #4 and #10(f) above. Duff continues to be
subjected, under color of law, to the assumed jurisdiction, will and control of the Defendants and
their agents and therefore needs and is due this relief in order to again secure his liberty.
This collectivist mentality ignores the exclusivity of dominion over property that is so
pervasive among our office holders is causing otherwise good people to act as criminals. This
must stop. You must respect the Life, Liberty and Property of everyone and you must secure
that for everyone if you are to hold an office of trust in this society. If you don’t you must lose
your office and be held accountable for your acts that harm others. It is incredible how many
judges think that they have no duty to secure the Life, Liberty and property rights of the people
who hire them. It is the opinion of this man that the general welfare of the people of Missouri is
first in the securing of those blessings of liberty and that there is no excuse for a government
entity to initiate action against one of them without probable cause shown that they are engaged
in an intentional injury to another. To do otherwise is intellectual dishonesty at the very least.
The facts and law are represented in this document to the best of Duffs ability the quality
of which far exceeds contemporary legal thought. Any such allegations of facts that are shown
to be misapplied or tangled with other facts are correctible through interaction with Duff for that
purpose. Duff makes these allegations by solemn affirmation of the truth herein contained and in
recognition of the laws against perjury.

Wherefore Duff believes he has provided sufficient facts and law to support probable
cause to believe that all the named defendants and their agents have intentionally injured Duff
with willful and wanton disregard for their duty and for Duffs right of action.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT
_________________________________________ 10/2/2008
William Duff, Affiant
the laws of perjury
Subscribed and sworn to before me this__________day of_______________, 20___.
___________________________
Notary Public
WARRANT FOR ARREST
STATE OF MISSOURI )
COUNTY OF CLAY )
IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL COURT WITHIN AND FOR SAID COUNTY.
THE STATE OF MISSOURI TO ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI:
You are hereby commanded to arrest WILLIAM FRAZIER who is charged with multiple
felonies, alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of this court and in violation of
the laws of the State of Missouri, and to bring him forthwith before this court to be here dealt
with in accordance with law; and you, the officer serving this warrant, shall forthwith make
return hereof to this court.
WITNESS THE HONORABLE Judge of the said court and

the seal thereof, issued in the county and state aforesaid on this day of , 20
........................................ Judge/Clerk of said Court
........................................ .......................................
Return
Served the within warrant in my County of and in the State of Missouri on this
day of 19 by arresting the within named and producing
him before the said court on the day of 19
SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZING SEARCH FOR STOLEN PROPERTY
STATE OF MISSOURI )
COUNTY OF CLAY )
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY THE STATE OF MISSOURI TO ANY PEACE OFFICER
IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI:
WHEREAS a complaint in writing, duly verified by oath, has been filed with the undersigned Judge of this court,
stating that heretofore the following described personal property, to-wit: one 1996 Buick Rivera vin #
Ig4gd2215t4710668 and original bill of sales for two other automobiles along with legal files documents tools and personal property of
the goods and chattels belonging to William Duff, has been unlawfully stolen, and it further appears from the
allegations of said complaint that said property is last known to be kept or held at the Kansas City, Mo police tow lot
in Jackson County of this state.
NOW, THEREFORE, these are to command you that you search the said premises above described within 10 days
after the issuance of this warrant by day or night, and take with you, if need be, the power of your county, and, if
said above described property or any part thereof be found on said premises by you, that you seize the same and take
same into your possession, making a complete and accurate inventory of the property so taken by you in the
presence of the person from whose possession the same is taken, if that be possible, and giving to such person a
receipt for such property, together with a copy of this warrant, or, if no person be found in possession of said
property, leaving said receipt and said copy upon the premises searched, and that you thereafter return the property
so taken and seized by you, together with a duly verified copy of the inventory thereof and with your return to this
warrant to this court to be herein dealt with in accordance with law. Witness my hand and seal of this court on this
...... day of ........, 19....
In the event that said property has been disposed you are to ascertain to where and whom said property is now and
go there and execute it, or send this warrant to that local authority for execution within 10 days of your knowledge
thereof.
........................................ JUDGE OF SAID COURT
RETURN AND INVENTORY
I, ……………………………….. being a peace officer within and for the aforesaid county, to-wit: ........, do hereby
make return to the above and within warrant as follows: that on the ...... day of ......, 19..., and within ten days after
issuance of said warrant, I went to the location and premises described therein and searched the same for personal
property described therein, and that upon said premises I discovered the following personal property described in the
warrant which I then and there took into my possession (inventory of property taken on back): or I found the
property had been disposed to another party: to wit: ………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………… , county of ……………………. State of ………….
Where I forwarded copy of this warrant for execution. Or:
723 that I made this inventory in the presence of the person from whose possession I took said property (that there
was no person present from whose possession said property was taken); that I delivered to such person a receipt for
the property taken, together with a copy of this warrant (that, there being no person in possession of said property
present on said premises, I left a copy of this warrant with a receipt for the property taken, in a conspicuous place on
said premises); that I have now placed said property so taken in the possession of this court.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ...... day of ........, 19....
........................................ CLERK, MAGISTRATE COURT
FELONY COMPLAINT
COMES NOW; William D Duff, BEING DULY SWORN UPON SOLEMN

AFFIRMATION INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AND STATES THAT THERE IS
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6,2006, AND
CONTINUING THEREAFTER, THE ACCUSED; ALAN ROTH, A KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI POLICE OFFICER AFTER VACATING HIS OFFICE OF TRUST
THROUGH LOSS OF JURISDICTION, COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES AS
ACCESSORY TO THE FACT WITH WILLIAM FRAZIER:
COUNT 1: KIDNAPPING
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 565.110 (5), COMMITTED THE CLASS B FELONY OF
KIDNAPPING, CHARGE CODE 1602005.0 PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(2), RSMO,
IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT
UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, IN KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLICTING PHYSICAL INJURY ON AND OR TERRORIZING William Duff, ALL
ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS
IF WRITTEN IN FULL.
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF , RSMO SECTION 565.120 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY
OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN
THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT,
UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY, WITHOUT HIS
CONSENT, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSES HIM TO A
SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE
AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.
COUNT 2: KIDNAPPING
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 565.110 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS A FELONY OF
KIDNAPPING, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON OR ABOUT
JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF LAW,
UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, FROM HIS LIBERTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
HOLDING THAT PERSON FOR RANSOM OR REWARD, OR FOR ANY OTHER ACT TO BE PERFORMED OR NOT
PERFORMED FOR THE RETURN OR RELEASE OF William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND
PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN
FULL.
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF , RSMO SECTION 565.120 (1), COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY
OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN
THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT,
UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED William Duff, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, FROM HIS
LIBERTY, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSES HIM TO A
SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE
AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.
ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION, CHARGE CODE 31010990 PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION
571.015, RSMO, IN THAT UNDER COLOR OF LAW ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE
OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FELONIES OF ROBBERY AND KIDNAPPING OR FELONIOUS
RESTRAINT CHARGED IN COUNT I & 4, ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE
FOREGOING FELONIES OF ROBBERY, KIDNAPPING AND OR FELONIOUS RESTRAINT BY, WITH AND THROUGH
THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON.
COUNT 4: ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 569.020, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS A FELONY OF
ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT
ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, UNDER COLOR OF LAW THE
DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FELONY OF ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE DURING THE KIDNAPPING
CHARGED IN COUNT I, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE
FOREGOING FELONY ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE BY, WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND
AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON.
COUNT 5: FALSE AFFIDAVIT
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 575.050, RSMO, COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
OF MAKING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT, PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT
ON OR ABOUT JUNE 6, 2006, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY and JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE
DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE CLASS A MISDEMEANOR OF MAKING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY CLOAKING
HIMSELF WITH THE SAME OFFICE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY VACATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP
CRIMES IN COUNTS 1 THRU 4, CITING CHARGES: STATE DRIVER LICENSE CASE# 224354(4), VALID STATE
LICENSE PLATES CASE# 2243355(1) AND PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CASE# 2243356(9) AGAINST
William Duff AND CAUSING THE KANSAS CITY, MO PROSECUTOR TO RELY THEREON. ALL ALLEGATIONS
AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL BY
REFERENCE.
.
THE FACTS THAT FORM THE BASIS FOR THIS INFORMATION AND BELIEF ARE CONTAINED IN THE
ATTACHED STATEMENT OF FACTS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, WHICH STATEMENTS ARE MADE A PART
HEREOF BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL AND ARE SUBMITTED HEREWITH AS A BASIS UPON WHICH
THIS COURT MAY FIND THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT.


Phone; 8165039055 cell 8163651600
WITNESSES:
JOHN MICHAEL OYER
CHARLES OLIVER
KCMO POLICE OFFICER ATTACHED TO NORTH PATROL STATION
(UNKNOWN)
RANGE OF PUNISHMENT: PER MISSOURI STATUTE
558.011.1, RSMO
__________________________ 10/2/2008
(Signature)
the laws of perjury

of_______________, 20___.
___________________________
Notary Public
I, William Duff, one of the people within Missouri, being the real injured party, and
being first duly sworn according to law, having first hand knowledge of the facts and law herein,
and being of sound mind and competent to testify, do aver, testify and affirm that the facts and
law herein as stated by William Duff, the real injured party, and are true, correct, complete, not
LAW MATERIAL TO THIS COMPLAINT
745 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).;
STANDING TO ALTER THE DUE PROCESS AS WRITTEN IN THE MAGNA
CARTA. SEE #4 NEXT
v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943).
54, p.432.
MAGNA CARTA (some elements material to this action):
bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded
to observe it rightly.”
obey it as a condition of their office of trust.
or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send
upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the
land.”
America the “people”).
c. ARTICLE 38. “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth
put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.”
more). Witnesses paid by the government are not faithful
witnesses.
d. ARTICLE 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. “
private domain. (see “The American Birthright”
www.williamduff.com for detailed definition)
justice. “
will appoint free counsel.
which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
process vacates jurisdiction over the subject matter’, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.
458, 58 S.Ct. 1019
FACTS
24. Duff went to the Kansas City Missouri north patrol police station seeking help
with an unrelated theft by deception issue on or about June 6, 2006. Clerk (doe)
asked for proof of ownership of the property in question. Duff provided said
proof in a signed and witnessed original bill of sale for the property. Clerk (doe)
then asked for Duff’s State Driver License for identification purposes. Duff
informed Clerk doe that he did not use a State driver license and offered other
forms of identification. Clerk doe asked Duff ‘how did you get here?’. Duff
replied ‘ I traveled using my private property upon the public right of way’.
Clerk doe then went to talk with the duty officer (Frazier). Thereafter Frazier
came to the counter and asked the same questions of Duff. Duff’s answers were
virtually identical as when first answered. Frazier said that Duff must have a
State Driver license. Duff disagreed. Frazier threatened to have his agent,
another officer, stop Duff as he left the Station and arrest him for not having the
State Driver License. Duff informed Frazier that doing so would be an unlawful
restraint on his Liberty and Right of action, in that; The protective principles
summed up in these due process clauses extend to every proceeding, which may
deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, whether the process be judicial,
administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25
S.E.2d 806 (1943). Frazier terminated the conversation and Duff went to his
automobile and was arranging paperwork when Frazier and another officer; Alan
Roth, yelled at Duff to stop. Frazier approached Duff’s auto with his hand on his
gun, ordering duff out of his auto (in derogation of #10(b,c & f) above and
therefore lost all jurisdiction to proceed upon this action pursuant to #10 & 11
above and become acts as described in COUNTS 3, 4, 5 AND 6 ABOVE for
want of all jurisdiction. Duff informed them he did not consent to their action
and gave Frazier a three-page document entitled “Notice” that informed Frazier
and Roth of their wrongdoing (filed in CLAY COUNTY Case #07CY-
CV06125. Frazier ignored said notice. Duff was searched, seized, bound and
imprisoned (COUNT 1,2,6 ABOVE). Duff’s property in his body and auto were
searched and seized by Frazier, in derogation of #10(b,c & f) above, and his agent
who declared Duff’s auto and property therein would be towed to the police
impound lot somewhere in the vicinity of the Royals Baseball Stadium. Frazier,
with agent Alan Roth, thereby forfeited their office of trust and committed
the acts described in the complaint numbering Counts 1 thru 6, above,
without being due the respect and protection of that office (pursuant to #4
above). Duff declared he did not consent to enter into any contractual duty with
anyone and especially not the police tow lot. Frazier did remove Duff’s private
plate from Duff’s auto claiming to keep it as evidence. Frazier, serial # 3092,
wrote three civil traffic citations claiming Duff’s failure to have valid State Driver
License case# 224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof
of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9), all of which are Kansas City,
Missouri Municipal ordinance violations (COUNT 5) where Frazier later testified
without the assent of non government witnesses respecting the charges and where
Frazier failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of his claim. Duff
was held in that jail, approximately 1.5 hours, until he posted bond of $300,
(COUNTS 1 & 2), all of which are denial of due process as referenced in #10,
a,b,c,f and #11 above.
Duff called next friends; John Michael Oyer and Charles Oliver who came
to the Station and who called the bondsman on Duff’s behalf. Both witnessed
Duff’s release from that facility. Duff posted the bond and was released to find
that Frazier had made good on his threat to take duff’s car and personal property
including but not limited to original bills of sale for the car taken and a second car
owned by Duff (COUNT 4). Duff presumed that Frazier had had Duff’s car with
personal property towed to the police tow lot. Later, Duff found that to be true
and noticed the person in charge over the lot of the error. It is important to note
here that Duff’s car was parked in the parking lot at the station, in a publicly
owned right of way, and was not obstructing others use.
SUMMARY
unreasonable search and seizure of Duff’s person and property, armed criminal action,
kidnapping, false imprisonment, Trespass with violence, conspiracy against rights, battery,
making a false affidavit, and false imprisonment against Duff’s Dominion over his own private
domain and Right of action, all of which done under color of law and without lawful authority to
act nor as a lawful function of the office of trust. As such, their actions deserve no more
respect than a criminal engaged in those same acts. All acts of which have restrained Duffs
capacity to pursue further opportunities in order to fulfill his needs and therefore, resulting in
loss of other unnamed properties; restraint of his liberty from that day to this, tantamount to a
walking distance prison, and are directly and by enlarge responsible for Duffs current inability to
satisfy his most basic needs, where for the past 40 years this circumstance has never existed. As
such, to say that Duff desperately needs to find an office holder in Missouri who understands the
law of this land and is willing to apply and observe it rightly is a gross understatement. Duff,
one of the people within Missouri, is due that office holder and has a right to prefer criminal
charges against all who refuse to rightly prosecute their office of trust..
Frazier and Roth exceeded their jurisdiction, and therefore vacated their office of trust,
by either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another did cause plaintiff Duff to be
unlawfully and forcibly carried away and imprisoned3 against his will and in disregard for prior
notice to them of the wrong they engaged, without jurisdiction or good cause shown (pursuant
to #4 above). Even if Duff were subject to the rules Frazier was attempting to enforce, which he
is not and no proof to the contrary emerged at trial, they would be “civil” in nature and not
subject to criminal enforcement such as was used. At the onset of the unlawful imprisonment
and property theft plaintiff Duff injured no one and was duly4 engaged in good faith and in his
own private capacity, and at all times within the “Bright Line Boundary” of his own private
domain, and exercising his substantive Right to go with his property upon the Public Right of
Way. Said Defendants, being noticed, and now acting with willful and wanton disregard for
Duff’s Rights secured by the Constitutions and without good cause, interrupted Duff’s Private
Right of Action putting him in apprehension of further harm, and stating claims of compulsory
duties arising out of jurisdictions foreign to Duff’s domain and Right of Action therein, did,
without consideration for his consent or lack thereof, then imprison plaintiff Duff. During
imprisonment the Defendants took further ill-considered actions to further injure plaintiff Duff
by trespassing upon Duff’s Domain and his Dominion over that domain, did search and seize
Duff’s property, over Duff’s express objection thereto, in the form of his papers and effects and
one 1996 Buick Rivera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668 and original bill of sales for two other automobiles, under
color of laws foreign to Plaintiff’s domain and individual private capacity and without good
cause shown, the judgment of the people of Missouri or due process of law.

demands and requests for proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his liberty. Defendants and
their agents continued to assume the jurisdiction without proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at
proof of jurisdiction in direct contravention of #4 and #10(f) above. Duff continues to be
your office. It is incredible how many judges think that they have no duty to secure the Life,
Liberty and property rights of the people who hire them. It is the opinion of this man that the
general welfare of the people of Missouri is first in the securing of those fundamental liberties
and that there is no excuse for a government entity to initiate action against one of them without
probable cause shown that they are engaged in an intentional injury to another. To do otherwise
is intellectual dishonesty at the very least.
The facts and law are represented in this document to the best of Duffs ability. Any such
allegations of facts that are shown to be misapplied or tangled with other facts are correctible
through interaction with Duff for that purpose. Duff makes these allegations by solemn
affirmation of the truth herein contained and in recognition of the laws against perjury.
with willful and wanton disregard for their duty and for Duffs right of action..
__________________________ 10/2/2008
(Signature)
the laws of perjury

of_______________, 20___.
___________________________
Notary Public
WARRANT FOR ARREST
STATE OF MISSOURI )
COUNTY OF CLAY )
You are hereby commanded to arrest ALAN ROTH who is charged with multiple felonies,
alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of this court and in violation of the laws
of the State of Missouri, and to bring him forthwith before this court to be here dealt with in
accordance with law; and you, the officer serving this warrant, shall forthwith make return hereof
to this court.

........................................ .......................................
Return
FELONY COMPLAINT
COMES NOW; William Duff, SWEARING UPON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION TO

THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND STATES THAT THERE EXISTS
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 22,2007, AND
CONTINUING THEREAFTER, THE ACCUSED; ANTHONY (REX) GABBERT
(hereinafter GABBERT) OF THE CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IN
LIBERTY, MISSOURI CONSPIRED WITH WILLIAM FRAZIER AND OTHER
AGENTS TO INJURE William Duff BY IGNORING FUNDAMENTAL DUE
PROCESS, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND ASCEEDING TO CORRUPTION, ALL
WITH WILLFUL AND WANTON INTENT TO INJURE William Duff, AS SUCH,
HE EFFECTIVELY VACATED HIS OFFICE OF TRUST BECAUSE GABBERT KNEW
OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN HE POSSESSED NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER WITH WHICH TO ACT OR DECIDE UPON DUFF’S CLAIMS IN CASE
#07CY-CV06125, IN THAT GABBERT WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THAT FACT IN
DUFFS PETITION FILED AS A CIVIL COMPLAINT #07CY-CV06125 AND
STRUCTURED AS A COURT OF RECORD PROCEEDING ACCORDING TO THE
COURTSE OF THE COMMON LAW WHEREIN SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
WAS ALLOCATED TO THE TRIBUNAL(SEE PETITION FOR SPECIFICS)
RESPECTING SAID CHARGES, AND GABBERT, WHO WAS EMPOWERED ONLY IN
A MINISTERIAL CAPACITY TO HOLD THE ACTION IN THE PEOPLES COURT
AND TO EXTEND THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE PEOPLE TO A JUST
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTROVERSY, ATTEMPTED TO PROTECT FRAZIER,
ROTH, WILLIAMS AND THEIR AGENTS BY UNLAWFULLY TAKING SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION BY FORCE AND BY USING THE POWER OF THE
JUDICIARY AND AN ARMED BALIFF TO ENFORCE RULINGS AND JUDGMENTS
AGAINST THE EXPRESS REFUSAL OF CONSENT BY THE TRIBUNAL. GABBERT
INTENTIONALLY ENTERED UPON A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT CAUSED HIS
AUTHORITY IN HIS OFFICE OF TRUST TO BE EXTINGUISHED AND THEREBY
FACILITATED OR COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES:
COUNT 1: ACCEDING TO CORRUPTION

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 575.280. 1 (1) COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF
ACCEDING TO CORRUPTION, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(2), RSMO, IN THAT
ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 2007 AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI,
GABBERT UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY AGREED TO ACCEPT ANY BENEFIT, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, ON
THE REPRESENTATION OR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL INFLUENCE HIS OFFICIAL ACTION IN A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING PENDING IN ANY COURT OR BEFORE SUCH OFFICIAL IN THAT HAVING BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE
TRIBUNAL OF HIS LACK OF ALL JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE HIM HE IGNORED SAID
FACT WHICH ACT WAS TO HIS BENEFIT, THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO AND TO THE
BENEFIT OF WILLIAM FRAZIER AND HIS AGENTS WITH WHOM HE CONSPIRED TO UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRE
DOMINION OVER THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF William Duff, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE
CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.
COUNT 2: FELONIOUS RESTRAINT
FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON
OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 2007 AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI,
DEFENDANT AND OR HIS AGENTS, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED THE TRIBUNAL AND
THE TRIBUNALS SPECIAL MASTER, JOHN MICHAEL OYER FROM HIS DULY APPOINTED DUTIES AND HIS
LIBERTY, WITHOUT THE TRIBUNAL’S CONSENT, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY
AND EXPOSE HIM TO A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND
PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN
FULL.
THE DEFENDANT AND OR HIS AGENT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 571.015, RSMO, COMMITTED THE
UNCLASSED FELONY OF ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION, CHARGE CODE 31010990 PUNBHABLE UPON
CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 571.015, RSMO, IN THAT UNDER COLOR OF LAW AT HEARINGS RESPECTING
CASE #07CY-CV06125, IN THE COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, GABBERT DID USE AN ARMED
BALIFF TO OBSTRUCT DUFF AND THE SPECIAL MASTER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES,
ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS
IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONIES OF FELONIOUS
RESTRAINT BY, WITH AND THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON.
COUNT 4: CONSPIRACY
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 564.016. 1, RSMO, COMMITTED

THE CLASS C FELONY OF. CONSPIRACY BECAUSE HE CONSPIRED WITH
ANOTHER PERSON OR PERSONS TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE IF, WITH THE PURPOSE
OF PROMOTING OR FACILITATING ITS COMMISSION HE AGREES WITH SUCH
OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS THAT THEY OR ONE OR MORE OF THEM WILL
ENGAGE IN CONDUCT WHICH CONSTITUTES SUCH OFFENSE RSMO564.016. 1., IN
THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 2007 AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, IN THE
COUNTY OF CLAY, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT BY CLOAKING
HIMSELF WITH COLOR OF AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP
CRIMES IN ALL COUNTS PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED AGAINST FRAZIER, ROTH AND
WILLIAMS AND THEIR AGENTS, IN MAKING RULINGS AND JUDGMENTS AGAINST
William Duff WITHOUT POSSESSING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND
CAUSING THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT TO RELY THEREON. ALL
ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE
INCORPORATED HEREIN AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL BY REFERENCE.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ISSUED AGAINST WILLIAM FRAZIER, ALAN ROTH
AND KCMO MUNICIPAL JUDGE WILLIAMS COURT A FILED IN EITHER CLAY
OR JACKSON COUNTY, MO. ARE ENTERED HERE BY REFERENCE AS IF
WRITTEN IN FULL..

Phone; 8165039055 cell 8163651600
WITNESSES:
JOHN MICHAEL OYER
CHARLES OLIVER
__________________________ 10/2/2008
(Signature)
the laws of perjury

of_______________, 20___.
___________________________
Notary Public
I, William Duff, one of the people within Missouri, being the real injured party herein,
and being first duly sworn according to law, having first hand knowledge of the facts and law
herein, and being of sound mind and am competent to testify, do aver, testify and affirm that the
facts and law herein as stated by William Duff, the real injured party, are true, correct, not
25. THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF MISSOURI: RSMo 1.010: “The
contrary notwithstanding”;
the Magna Carta to be the common law of England and was so the law of this
land during the era eluded to in #1 above as it is today here in Missouri;
27. COMMON LAW VALID IN MISSOURI: “In determining the status of the
common law on the issue before us, we follow the general principle that unless
a statute clearly abrogates the common law either expressly or by necessary
implication, the common law rule remains valid”. N.E. & R. Partnership v.
Stone, 745 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).;
NOTE: A statute, being a legislative enactment has no standing to alter the due
process of law as written in the Magna Carta and secured by the 1820 Missouri
constitution through article 13 clause 22 as a right retained by the individual people .
SEE #4 NEXT
whether the process be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.”
Zachos v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943).
made by its authority, so far as they are consistent with constitutional
limitations." Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N.W. 595, 620 (1913), cases
cited.
"Daniel Webster, in the Dartmouth College Case, stated: ‘By the law of the land is
most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns;
protection of the general rules, which govern society. Everything which may pass
54, p.432.
"Due Process of the Common law is the supreme law of this land” and is
mandated upon all States without their consent and as a condition of statehood by
MAGNA CARTA AND THE 5TH AMENDMENT, TO THE
CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (some
elements material to this action):
bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are
minded to observe it rightly.”
obey it as a condition of their office of trust. Failure to do so is a
denial of due process5.
or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or
send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of
the land.”
America the “people”). Failure is a denial of due process (see FN
1).
c. ARTICLE 38. “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall
henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses
in evidence.”
witnesses. Failure to do so is a denial of due process (see FN 1).
5
Should such official fail to be knowledgeable of the law of this land or unwilling to apply it rightly they are
denying due process of the law and have lost all jurisdiction to act. Any action that injures another without that
jurisdiction must be treated in the same way as any other intentional injury as their oath admits their competence in
their knowledge.
d. ARTICLE 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. “
www.williamduff.com for detailed unassailable definition)
justice. “
will appoint free counsel. Failure to do so is a denial of due
process (see FN 1).
which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491
(1966).
process vacates jurisdiction over the subject matter’, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304
U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019
FACTS
Gabbert was advised as to the nature and structure of case #07CY-CV06125 by the
original complaint filed by William Duff 6/15/2007 service was returned 7/17/2007. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, dated 8/4/2007 but not filed until after 8/16/2007 per case file,
claiming Duff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as a matter of law
but provided no other answers to allegations in Duffs petition. Duff filed rebuttal to defendants
claim and the Tribunal denied defendants motion to dismiss. During the 8/29/07 preliminary
hearing that followed Duff referred to the court as being the “Duff Court” to which Gabbert
responded ‘ this is not the Duff court this is the Clay County Circuit Court’ (see transcript for
accurate statement) (discoverable on the record of that hearing). Duff then asked Gabbert if he
had read the papers filed in the action to which Gabbert responded that he had. Gabbert
demeanor showed strain and unwillingness to engage Duff. Toward the end of that hearing
Gabbert attempted to set another hearing to hear defendants motion to dismiss to which Duff
Objected by saying “I do not consent”. Gabbert ignored Duff and ended the hearing but did set
hearing over Duffs objection.

The Tribunal issued a writ of error quo coram nobis which vacated the Gabbert ordered
hearing date and subject matter as a caution to Gabbert of his excess and ordered a new hearing
to discuss the evidence supporting the action., the fact that defendant had defaulted their defense
as they failed to timely answer the complaint, and to discuss the appropriateness of the Attorney
General defending defendants as defendants were sued in their private capacity for acts
performed outside their official capacity. In the mean time Duff motioned the tribunal for tender
of issue in that defendants had defaulted and their late answer was non responsive. The tribunal
thereafter sustained Duff’s tender and ruled in Duff’s favor. At approximately the same time the
defendant (Ass’t AG Emily Dodge) motioned for hearing on its motions to dismiss for
11/07/2007. Duff objected by motion and the Tribunal denied the hearing on defendant’s motion
to dismiss as being moot.

At the hearing on 11/07/2007 Gabbert called the case and when Duff and Special Master
Oyer proceeded to the bench the bailiff restrained all but Duff from entering the bar and then he
asked defendant to make argument in support of its motion to dismiss. Duff objected. Gabbert
said, “you can’t object”. Gabbert listened to defendant and then asked Duff for rebuttal. Duff
said ‘you can read that in the paperwork’ and once again objected to the hearing in its entirety.
Then Duff attempted to address the matters mentioned in the preceding paragraph and Gabbert
disallowed that subject matter and concluded the hearing saying he would consider the evidence
and rule.
A day or two later Gabbert dismissed Duff’s action for the reasons stated by defendants
in their motions to dismiss. The Tribunal issued a writ of error quo coram nobis vacating all that
Gabbert had done and reasserted its default judgment.
APPLICATION OF FACTS TO THIS COMPLAINT
Gabbert, apparently not accepting the structure of the court and his capacity therein and
effectively denying Duff his court and any interaction that included determination of Duffs right
of action as was comprehended by the original complaint in this case, obstructed the business of
the court in order to deny Duff a fair hearing and remedy to the benefit of all the government
actors herein engaged as well as his own. Gabbert facilitated the taking of Duff’s court, his
Liberty and Property without due process of law in direct violation of Article 34, 38 and 45 of
the Magna Carta and every principle of justice in this society.
unreasonable search and seizure of Duff’s person and property, Trespass with violence, armed
criminal action, and conspiring against Duff while adversely effecting his Dominion over his own
private domain and Right of action, all of which was done under color of law and without lawful
authority to act nor as a lawful function of the offices of trust herewith associated. As such, their
actions deserve no more respect than a criminal engaged in those same acts. Anthony (rex)
Gabbert had a duty to know the law of the land and to observe it rightly.(see #10 (a) above) and
further that failure to do so is a basic due process violation that must extinguish all his
jurisdiction over the proceedings and his acts that facilitated the wrongs committed by Frazier,
Roth, Williams and their agents appear to be an attempt to hide all such crimes in derogation of
# 10 (f) and # 11 above and finally binds him as an accessory after the fact.
Anthony (rex) Gabbert and his agents exceeded their jurisdiction, and therefore vacated
their offices of trust, by either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another caused,
facilitated or obscured the crimes committed against plaintiff Duff in willful and wanton
disregard for prior notice to each of them of the wrong they engaged, and without jurisdiction or
good cause shown (in derogation of #4 above).
At the onset of action Duff vs. Frazier Duff as plaintiff brought subject matter
jurisdiction with him and allocated it to the tribunal rather than Gabbert who sat generally to hold
the proceeding. In doing so Gabbert was denied jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
discretion that goes hand in hand therewith. From the outset, Gabbert was empowered with the
Territorial jurisdiction, as are all such courts have which necessarily limit his authority to a
ministerial capacity wherein he can make no lawful rulings or judgments without the consent of
the Tribunal that does have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Duff injured no one and was duly6 engaged in good faith and in his own private capacity,
and at all times within the “Bright Line Boundary” of his own private domain, and exercising his
Right to go with his property upon the Public Right of Way. Gabbert willfully and wantonly
conspired with defendants and made himself accessory thereto by refusing to allow justice to
prevail respecting the following:
Said Defendants acting with willful and wanton disregard for Duff’s Rights secured by
the Constitutions and without good cause shown at any point in the proceedings, interrupted
Duff’s Private Right of Action putting him in apprehension of further harm, and stating claims of
compulsory duties arising out of jurisdictions foreign to Duff’s domain and Right of Action
therein, did, without consideration for his consent or lack thereof, then imprison plaintiff Duff.
During imprisonment the Defendants took further ill-considered actions to further injure plaintiff
Duff by trespassing upon Duff’s Domain and his Dominion over that domain, did search and
seize Duff’s property, over Duff’s express objection thereto, in the form of his person, papers
and effects and taking one 1996 Buick Rivera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668 and original bill of sales for two
other automobiles, under color of laws foreign to Plaintiff’s domain and without good cause shown,
the judgment of the people of Missouri or due process of law (see 10 (b) above ). Judge
Williams, like Frazier and others, had a duty to know the law of the land and to observe it
rightly.(see #10 (a)(f) above) and thereby knew or should have known that Frazier having lost
jurisdiction to act from the outset had therefore failed to bring to his court any proof of
jurisdiction over the subject matter or of the person for which Judge Williams was further
advised by Duff in his answer to the charges on or about 6/22/07 and the only lawful action
remaining for Williams was to dismiss the Frazier action in its entirety and to notify the proper
office of government of the probable crimes he was now privy to, and further that failure to do so
is a basic due process violation that must extinguish all jurisdiction over the proceedings. In
addition, Williams ignored two court orders from the clay county court, case 07CY-CV06125
first to stay his proceedings while Duffs right of action was litigated and second to dismiss that
action with prejudice for lack of all jurisdiction once Duff’s rights had been proven Williams
ignored everything and passed judgment upon Duff where even Williams must have known he
had no lawful jurisdiction to do so. In view of these facts, Williams actions constitute probable
cause to believe he was in fact an accessory to the criminal acts of others associated herewith.,
Williams effectively vacated his position of honor and joined Frazier and other agents as an
accomplice and was likely attempting to cover up the crimes associated therewith.
demands and requests for proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his liberty (all evidence
thereof being discoverable). Defendants and their agents continued to assume the jurisdiction
without providing proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at providing proof of jurisdiction on the
record of the case in direct contravention of #4 and #10(f) above. Duff continues to be
NOTE: NO INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION OF THIS COMPLAINT

CAN POSSIBLY BE THOROUGH WITHOUT HIS PARTICIPATION AND
THEREFORE WISHES TO BE COPIED WITH ALL AUDIO OR WRITINGS
HEREWITH ASSICIATED.
FORWARD ALL SUCH MATERIAL TO:

William Duff
2605 So Westport Rd.
Independence, Mo 64052
816-5039055
816-3651600
wdd@williamduff.com
__________________________ 10/2/2008
(Signature)
the laws of perjury

of_______________, 20___.
___________________________
Notary Public
WARRANT FOR ARREST
STATE OF MISSOURI )
COUNTY OF CLAY )
You are hereby commanded to arrest JUDGE ANTHONY (REX) GABBERT, who is charged
with multiple felonies, alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of this court and in
violation of the laws of the State of Missouri, and to bring him forthwith before this court to be
here dealt with in accordance with law; and you, the officer serving this warrant, shall forthwith
make return hereof to this court.

........................................ .......................................
Return
FELONY COMPLAINT
IN THE 16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF
JACKSON
COMES NOW; William Duff, BEING DULY SWORN UPON SOLEMN

AFFIRMATION TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND STATES
THAT THERE EXISTS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE
22,2007, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, THE ACCUSED; JUDGE WILLIAMS
OF THE KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI MUNICIPAL COURT, ROOM A, CONSPIRED
WITH THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO. PROSECUTOR AND WILLIAM FRAZIER
AND HIS AGENTS TO INJURE William duff BY IGNORING FUNDAMENTAL
DUE PROCESS, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND ASCEEDING TO CORRUPTION,
ALL WITH INTENT TO INJURE William Duff, AND EFFECTIVELY VACATED
HIS OFFICE OF TRUST IN SO DOING BECAUSE THE COURT POSSESSED NO
JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OR THE PERSON WITH WHICH TO
ACT OR DECIDE UPON FRAZIER’S CLAIMS IN THAT WILLIAMS WAS DULY
NOTIFIED OF THAT FACT IN DUFFS ANSWER TO SAID CHARGES AND A
RESULT OF WHICH WILLIAMS, HAVING DISPOSED OF HIS JUDICIAL
IMMUNITY, INTENTIONALLY ENTERED UPON A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT
FACILITATED OR COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES:
COUNT 1: ACCEDING TO CORRUPTION

THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF, RSMO SECTION 575.280. 1 (1) COMMITTED THE CLASS C FELONY OF
ACCEDING TO CORRUPTION, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(2), RSMO,
IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 22, 2007, IN THE COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT
UNLAWFULLY AND KNOWINGLY AGREED TO ACCEPT ANY BENEFIT, DIRECT OR
INDIRECT, ON THE REPRESENTATION OR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL
INFLUENCE HIS OFFICIAL ACTION IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING PENDING IN ANY
COURT OR BEFORE SUCH OFFICIAL IN THAT HAVING BEEN NOTIFIED BY William
Duff OF HIS LACK OF ALL JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER BEFORE HIM HE
IGNORED SAID CLAIM WHICH ACT WAS TO HIS BENEFIT, THE BENEFIT OF THE
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO AND TO THE BENEFIT OF WILLIAM FRAZIER WITH
WHOM HE CONSPIRED TO ACQUIRE DOMINION OVER THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY OF William Duff, ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE
COUNT 2: FELONIOUS RESTRAINT
FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, PUNISHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 558.011.1(1), RSMO, IN THAT ON
OR ABOUT JUNE 22, 2007, IN THE COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, DEFENDANT, UNDER COLOR OF
LAW, UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED, OR FACILITATED SAID RESTRAINT, William Duff FROM HIS LIBERTY,
WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, SO AS TO INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH HIS LIBERTY AND EXPOSE HIM TO A
SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY., ALL ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT
OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL.
ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION, CHARGE CODE 31010990 PUNBHABLE UPON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION
571.015, RSMO, IN THAT UNDER COLOR OF LAW ON OR ABOUT JUNE 22, 2007 AND SEVERAL TIMES
THEREAFTER, IN THE COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT ASSISTED IN THE
COMMIISION OF THE FELONIES OF ROBBERY AND KIDNAPPING OR FELONIOUS RESTRAINT CHARGED IN
COUNT I OF THE 9/11/08 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST WILLIAM FRAZIER, ALLEGATIONS AND PROBBLE
CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL. AND
THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE FOREGOING FELONIES OF FELONIOUS RESTRAINT BY, WITH AND
THROUGH THE USE, ASSISTANCE AND AID OF A DEADLY WEAPON.
.
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 565.130. 1, RSMO COMMITTED THE CLASS A

MISDEMEANOR OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT BECAUSE HE UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED DUFF OF HIS
LIBERTY IN THAT DEFENDANT, AND OR HIS AGENTS UNLAWFULLY TOOK JURISDICTION OVER
THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF William Duff WITHOUT HIS CONSENT AND WITHOUT
LAWFUL JURISDICTION TO DO SO. THE FACTS THAT FORM THE BASIS FOR THIS INFORMATION
AND BELIEF ARE CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED STATEMENT OF FACTS CONCERNING THIS MATTER,
WHICH STATEMENTS ARE MADE A PART HEREOF BY REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL AND ARE
SUBMITTED HEREWITH AS A BASIS UPON WHICH THIS COURT MAY FIND THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE
CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT
COUNT 5: CONSPIRACY
THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 564.016. 1, RSMO, COMMITTED

THE CLASS C FELONY OF. CONSPIRACY BECAUSE HE CONSPIRED WITH
ANOTHER PERSON OR PERSONS TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE IF, WITH THE PURPOSE
OF PROMOTING OR FACILITATING ITS COMMISSION HE AGREES WITH SUCH
OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS THAT THEY OR ONE OR MORE OF THEM WILL
ENGAGE IN CONDUCT WHICH CONSTITUTES SUCH OFFENSE RSMO564.016. 1., IN
THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15, 2007 AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER, IN THE
COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF MISSOURI, THE DEFENDANT BY CLOAKING
HIMSELF WITH COLOR OF AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP
CRIMES IN ALL COUNTS PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED AGAINST FRAZIER, ROTH,
GABBERT AND THEIR AGENTS, IN MAKING RULINGS AND JUDGMENTS AGAINST
William Duff WITHOUT POSSESSING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND
CAUSING THE 16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT TO RELY THEREON. ALL
ALLEGATIONS AND PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT OF WHICH ARE
INCORPORATED HEREIN AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL BY REFERENCE.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ISSUED AGAINST WILLIAM FRAZIER, ALAN ROTH
FILED IN EITHER CLAY OR JACKSON COUNTY, MO. ARE ENTERED HERE BY
REFERENCE AS IF WRITTEN IN FULL..

Phone; 8165039055 cell 8163651600
WITNESSES:
JOHN MICHAEL OYER
CHARLES OLIVER
__________________________ 10/2/2008
(Signature)
the laws of perjury

of_______________, 20___.
___________________________
Notary Public
I, William Duff, one of the people within Missouri, being the real injured party herein,
and upon solemn affirmation, having first hand knowledge of the facts and law herein, and being
of sound mind and competent to testify, do aver, testify and affirm that the facts and law herein
as stated by William Duff, the real injured party, are true, correct, not misleading, nor declared
for any immoral or unethical purpose or frivolous reason, and are material to the matter at hand
and made with respect and awareness for the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America. To wit:
745 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).;
STANDING TO ALTER THE DUE PROCESS AS WRITTEN IN THE MAGNA
CARTA. AND REFERENCED IN THE 5 TH AMENDMENTSEE #4 NEXT
v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943).
54, p.432.
MAGNA CARTA AND THE 5 TH AMENDMENT (some elements material to
this action):
bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are
minded to observe it rightly.”
obey it as a condition of their office of trust. Failure to do so is a
denial of due process.
or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or
send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of
the land.”
America the “people”). Failure is a denial of due process.
c. ARTICLE 38. “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall
henceforth put any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses
in evidence.”
witnesses. Failure to do so is a denial of due process.
d. ARTICLE 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. “
www.williamduff.com for detailed unassailable definition)
justice. “
will appoint free counsel. Failure to do so is a denial of due
process.
which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491
(1966).
process vacates jurisdiction over the subject matter’, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304
U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019
FACTS
47. Williams, having read Duff’s answer to Fraziers charges knew or should have
known he had no jurisdiction to make rulings in those cases other than to dismiss
or to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction. Williams did neither.
Williams heard fact scenario of the cases and refused to hear jurisdictional
challenges. Because Williams did make rulings that restrained Duff as well as
issuing warrants for Duff respecting those rulings, all of which injure Duff, he
refused to provide due process of law and therefore lost any jurisdiction he may
have had in that denial of due process as comprehended by The 5th amendment
and the Missouri declaration of rights having the same meaning vacates
jurisdiction. (see #11 above).. Williams act became willful and wanton upon
actual notice of the facts and in so doing made himself an accessory to the crimes
committed against Duff by Frazier and his agents.
48. Frazier, serial # 3092, wrote three civil traffic citations claiming Duff’s failure to
have valid State Driver License case# 224354(4), Valid State License plates case#
2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9), all of which
are Kansas City, Missouri Municipal ordinance violations where Frazier later
testified without the assent of non government witnesses respecting the charges
and where Frazier failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of his
claim. Williams held all Frazier’s actions to be valid except the financial
responsibility charge which he dismissed saying “ you can’t charge that unless the
vehicle is registered’ (COUNTS 1,2,3,4 AND 5 ). Duff was held in that jail,
approximately 1.5 hours, until he posted bond of $300, ( FRAZIER COUNTS 1
& 2), all of which are denial of due process as referenced in #10, a,b,c,f and
#11 above.
49. Duff called next friends; John Michael Oyer and Charles Oliver who came to the
Station before Duff was released and who called the bondsman on Duff’s behalf.
Both witnessed Duff’s release from that facility. Duff posted the bond and was
released to find that Frazier had made good on his threat to take duff’s car and
personal property including but not limited to original bills of sale for the car
taken and a second car and other valuable personal property owned by Duff. Duff
presumed that Frazier had had Duff’s car with personal property towed to the
police tow lot. Later, Duff found that to be true and gave notice of the unlawful
act to the person in charge over the tow lot of the error. It is important to note
here that Duff’s car was parked in the parking lot at the station, in a publicly
owned right of way, and was not obstructing others use.
50. Thereafter Frazier did take the three charges previously defined to the City
prosecutor where the case against Duff was filed before the Municipal court and
Judge Williams of courtroom A was appointed to hear the matters. Duff filed an
answer with that court on or about June 22, 2007 and from that time on Williams
had full knowledge of the facts herein related and failed to dismiss with prejudice
and later at the hearing refused to dismiss. (COUNT 1)
51. Williams issued or caused to be issued orders of appearance against bond
(COUNTS 1,2)
52. Williams issued judgment against Duff with an armed bailiff poised and ready to
do the judges bidding. (COUNTS 1,2,3,4)
53. Williams issued bench warrant for contempt as Duff did not pay fines imposed by
Williams associated with the charges and therefore extended the constructive
imprisonment of Duff to this day. (COUNT 5)
54. During testimony the only witness against Duff was one government witness,
William Frazier, who provided no evidence in support of his charges. (see # 10
(c) above COUINTS 1, 2 )
SUMMARY
unreasonable search and seizure of Duff’s person and property, kidnapping, false imprisonment,
Trespass with violence, armed criminal action, battery, robbery, and false imprisonment against
Duff adversely effecting his Dominion over his own private domain and Right of action, all of
which was done under color of law and without lawful authority to act nor as a lawful function of
the offices of trust herewith associated. As such, their actions deserve no more respect than a
criminal engaged in those same acts. Judge Williams, as did all actors, had a duty to know the
law of the land and to observe it rightly.(see #10 (a) above) and further that failure to do so is a
basic due process violation that must extinguish all jurisdiction over the proceedings including
the charges made by Frazier that appear to be an attempt to hide his crimes (see # 10 (f) and 11
above ).
Frazier and Roth exceeded their jurisdiction, and therefore vacated their office of trust,
by either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another causing plaintiff Duff to be
unlawfully and forcibly carried away and imprisoned 7 against his will and in willful and wanton
disregard for prior notice to them of the wrong they engaged, without jurisdiction or good cause
shown (pursuant to #4 above). Even if Duff were subject to the rules Frazier was attempting to
enforce, which he is not and no proof to the contrary emerged at trial, they would be “civil” in
nature and not subject to criminal enforcement such as was used. At the onset of the unlawful
imprisonment and property theft plaintiff Duff injured no one and was duly8 engaged in good
faith and in his own private capacity, and at all times within the “Bright Line Boundary” of his
own private domain, and exercising his Right to go with his property upon the Public Right of
Way. Said Defendants, being noticed, and now acting with willful and wanton disregard for
Duff’s Rights secured by the Constitutions and without good cause, interrupted Duff’s Private
Right of Action putting him in apprehension of further harm, and stating claims of compulsory
duties arising out of jurisdictions foreign to Duff’s domain and Right of Action therein, did,
without consideration for his consent or lack thereof, then imprison plaintiff Duff. During
imprisonment the Defendants took further ill-considered actions to further injure plaintiff Duff
by trespassing upon Duff’s Domain and his Dominion over that domain, did search and seize
Duff’s property, over Duff’s express objection thereto, in the form of his person, papers and
effects and taking one 1996 Buick Rivera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668 and original bill of sales for two
other automobiles, under color of laws foreign to Plaintiff’s domain and without good cause shown,
the judgment of the people of Missouri or due process of law (see 10 (b) above ). Judge
Williams, like Frazier and others, had a duty to know the law of the land and to observe it
rightly.(see #10 (a)(f) above) and thereby knew or should have known that Frazier having lost
jurisdiction to act from the outset had therefore failed to bring to his court any proof of
jurisdiction over the subject matter or of the person for which Judge Williams was further
advised by Duff in his answer to the charges on or about 6/22/07 and the only lawful action
remaining for Williams was to dismiss the Frazier action in its entirety and to notify the proper
office of government of the probable crimes he was now privy to, and further that failure to do so
is a basic due process violation that must extinguish all jurisdiction over the proceedings. In
addition, Williams ignored two court orders from the clay county court, case 07CY-CV06125
first to stay his proceedings while Duffs right of action was litigated and second to dismiss that
action with prejudice for lack of all jurisdiction once Duff’s rights had been proven (COUNT
1,2) (see #10 (d) ).. Williams ignored everything and passed judgment upon Duff where even
Williams must have known he had no lawful jurisdiction to do so. In view of these facts,
Williams actions constitute probable cause to believe he was in fact an accessory to the criminal
acts of others associated herewith., Williams effectively vacated his position of honor and joined
Frazier and other agents as an accomplice and was likely attempting to cover up the crimes
associated therewith.
requests for evidence of proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his liberty (all evidence
thereof being discoverable). Defendants and their agents continued to assume the jurisdiction
without proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at proof of jurisdiction in direct contravention of #4

and #10(f) above. Duff continues to be subjected, under color of law, to the assumed
jurisdiction, will and control of the Defendants and their agents and therefore needs and is due
this relief in order to again secure his liberty.

__________________________ 10/2/2008
(Signature)
the laws of perjury

of_______________, 20___.
___________________________
Notary Public
WARRANT FOR ARREST
STATE OF MISSOURI )
COUNTY OF JACKSON )
You are hereby commanded to arrest JUDGE WILLIAMS OF COURTROOM A KANSAS

CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, who is charged with multiple felonies, alleged to have been
committed within the jurisdiction of this court and in violation of the laws of the State of
Missouri, and to bring him forthwith before this court to be here dealt with in accordance with
law; and you, the officer serving this warrant, shall forthwith make return hereof to this court.

........................................ .......................................
Return

All Criminal Complaint Clay Cover

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

All Criminal Complaint Clay Cover

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

William Duff

ASSOCIATE JUDGE JANET SUTTON

407-3970 fax 407-3971

Judge of the Court

Thank you in advance

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE: FELONIOUS RESTRAINT

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE: FELONIOUS RESTRAINT

COUNT 3: ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION

COUNT 4: ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE

COUNT 5: FALSE AFFIDAVIT

WHEREFORE, William Duff, PRAYS THAT ARREST WARRANTS, ATTACHED HERETO,

William Duff, ONE OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN MISSOURI

RANGE OF PUNISHMENT: PER MISSOURI STATUTE 558.011.1, RSMO

the laws of perjury

Subscribed and sworn to before me this __________day

under the laws of the United States of America. To wit:

LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF THIS LAND MATERIAL TO THIS

1. THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF MISSOURI: RSMo 1.010: The

2. THE MAGNA CARTA AS ALTERED BY INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

IN AMERICA IS THE COMMON LAW PER BILL OF RIGHT:

CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM October 10, 1297, 25 Edw. i, c. i. Danby

Pickering (ed.), Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1726-1807), I, 273-75. Declares

the era eluded to in #1 above;

statute clearly abrogates the common law either expressly or by necessary

745 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).;

NOTE: A STATUTE, BEING A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT HAS NO

STANDING TO ALTER THE DUE PROCESS AS WRITTEN IN THE

MAGNA CARTA. NOR THE 5TH AMENDMENT AND EQUAL RESTRAINTS

AS REPRESENTED IN THE MISSOURI STATE CONSTITUTION SEE #4

4. DUE PROCESS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL LIFE, LIBERTY AND

PROPERTY FROM ALL GOVERNMENT INTRUSION: “Due process

determination of issues involving life, liberty, or property, a fortiori the finding of

a bureau chief or a government department head ruling cannot do so, consistently

to every proceeding, which may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property,

whether the process be judicial, administrative, or executive in its nature.” Zachos

v. Huiet, 195 Ga. 780, 25 S.E.2d 806 (1943).

5. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF THIS LAND:

6. DUE PROCESS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL

7. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TERMINATES ALL JURISDICTION:

“Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction

Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).

8. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND:

land.’ - It is thus entirely correct in assuming that a legislative enactment is not

necessarily the law of the land." - Judge Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on

9. DUE PROCESS MEANS “DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW” AS

Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America.

10. DUE PROCESS OF THE COMMON LAW AS MANDATED BY THE

MAGNA CARTA (some elements material to this action):

i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: Officials must be

knowledgeable about the law, and willing to apply it rightly and

obey it as a condition of their office of trust.

b. ARTICLE 39: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized,

or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send

i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: One can only be put in jail if a

members of the peerage (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron, in

America the “people”).

i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: No government official may be

a witness in court. And if he is going to impose his law on another,

then he must have the support of non-governmental witnesses (2 or

more). Witnesses paid by the government are not considered

i. MEANING IN THIS SOCIETY: "Praecipe" = order to show

cause against property. "Rights" are property. A free man (i.e.

nobleman would be deprived of his own court. In America, there

Subscribed and sworn to before me thisday of___, 20_.