Notice of tribunal responsibilities

Tribunal responsibilities fall into various areas pursuant to matters before the bench and the types and styles of tribunals.

The matter addressed hereon concerns this tribunal's orders it has created. This notice deals with the issue of contempt for such orders.

The tribunal has ordered COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY to provide response to a Demand for Bill of Particulars. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY has failed to provide this necessary and required response to provide any accused with the Constitutionally required answers so that the issues may be addressed properly before entry of a plea or continuation of the action.

Since any accused has the right to challenge: jurisdiction, viability, type and style of action, method of delivery, and other matters, prior to entry into and before any tribunal, no tribunal may proceed with any issue until such Bill of Particulars is received by the accused.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY may not fail to provide these written answers since it has chosen to interfere with the privacy of one of the people, subjecting them to seizure, purported indictment, and public showing, and subjection to worry, cost, expense, and loss of time.

To do so, is a direct and distinct refusal to provide the Rights of accused. Which brings COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY as openly committing crimes against the people and their Constitution, and the accused.

And since tribunals may not knowingly allow this type of affront against the Constitution, and against the people, and against accused, regardless of the forum, it must find COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY in contempt of its order and in open disrespect for the Constitution.

A normal course of action followed by tribunals, is to apply sanctions against parties who show such a public display of disrespect for the tribunal. Monetary fines are generally applied as well.

However, when direct and deliberate disrespect is shown for Constitutional Rights, tribunals must take a much firmer stance.

One finds that: sanctions, stiff monetary fines, and the addition of incarceration until compliance becomes justified, as the judge of the tribunal can not allow disrespect for Rights in his presence, unless he wishes to violate his Code of Judicial Responsibility and one of the people's Rights and Law.

One also finds, that the party whom has had their Rights ignored may claim the fine imposed. Such is hereby claimed.

So it be, by public notice, by the signatory below.

signature block removed

___________________________

Maurice Edward, Brahier, a private person of sovereignty, in Kentucky state of the county of Marshall, sui juris