In the constitutional Circuit Court of Calloway County, State of Kentucky

Purported case no. 98-CR-00120

Non-statutory Objections to ORDERS issued by one Dennis Foust, judge of this court.

NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT at section 7.

_____________________________________

Comes now Maurice Edward, Brahier, purported accused in the above styled action to submit further objections to ORDERS of supposed lawful nature issued in this court.

On 11-24-98 one Dennis Foust issued order setting for trial an issue which has yet to be properly addressed by the court and by whatever supposed plaintiff there might be in any action. Also on this date supposed lawful order issued which purports to extend or allow this unlawful entity which calls itself COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY to consolidate supposed lawfully obtained indictments listed as 98-CR-00120 and 98-CR-00134. And on 12-18-98 issued further supposed lawful orders. The purported accused must respond in this fashion to abate these unconstitutional acts and activities:

1. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY and this court and judge, have to date, failed to lawfully proceed under constitutional protections and Rights of accused by failing to comply with full disclosure under due process and "nature and cause" inclusions of the Constitutions.
2. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY has, to date, failed to supply true bill of particulars in any supposed action; failed to and or deliberately refused to supply copy of requested transcript and other records of the Grand Jury; and has unlawful and fraudulently stated it could find no law to support such matters in its prior MOTION TO STRIKE.
3. The judge of the matters, one Dennis Foust, has indicated through his constant statements that he and the court have jurisdiction over these issues, yet for cause or finding of fact; merely list the constitutional statement of "general jurisdiction" while deliberately refusing to answer the question of what type and style of action this general jurisdiction is; as required when questioned by parties before the court.
4. The records of the state indicate that proper jurisdiction was never and has never been properly obtained by this entity which calls itself COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, as: first, it refused to prosecute a criminal child abductor when she unlawfully removed the children from Kentucky state; second, allowed this un-prosecuted child abductor to return to the state under falsely sworn and or perjurious affidavit and other false and or fraudulent evidence; third, by refusing to allow prosecution of this criminal within the state; fourth, by attempting to and in fact intruding into the private lives of one of the people and refusing equal access to law, due process, production of evidence and other required issues of constitutional import and lawful aspects; fifth, by allowing unlawful evidence to be used within the court, as note within the Court's District and Circuit records; sixth, by then allowing this entity which produced this unlawful evidence to proceed against Maurice Edward, Brahier in a supposed criminal case, wherein the judge refused all known lawful procedure and constitutional protections, such as production of evidence, production of witnesses, and other. As displayed upon the face of that record; seventh, by allowing this unconstitutional entity which calls itself Child Support Enforcement, a division of de facto corporate COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY (having conspired to commit crimes before the court in the previous proceedings) to again bring issue against a private sovereign person under these same fraudulently obtained judgements, while COMOONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY continually brings the court and judges into active conspiracy with it, in direct conflict with the constitutional oaths and duties of the judges and members of the court. And these parties continue to work in conjunction with this unlawful entity COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY to intrude upon the privacy and sovereignty of Maurice Edward, Brahier and his children, when this distinctly displays not protection of the children, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY having refused to previously do so, but selective and malicious prosecution of their father in distinctive sexually discriminative manner, while bringing issue which is not supported by the Brahier family.
5. Maurice Edward, Brahier, does appreciate how popular this "politically correct" issue of child support might be to elective officials, and other government officials, however this unconstitutional intrusion into the private lives of the people, when the children are not wards of the state or court, nor receive monies or other benefits from the corporate entity, is unconstitutional under life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These issues where determined in the not so merry England even prior to institution of the unique freedoms and liberties instituted in this country, prior to the unconstitutional statutes which now purport to exist while in direct conflict.
6. And within this supposed ORDER produced on 12-18-98, the judge attempts blanket overruling of matters in the court, which required and requires the court to individually addressed each and every specific issue overruled with its own distinctive reason for overruling for review by whatever court might wish to address such, or to others of whom issues of error or unconstitutional action might be addressed. It appears, contrary to statement by this purported judge, that he is not going to proceed constitutionally, either state or federal, nor has any intent to provide a fair and impartial forum for review of any matters. The record appears to indicate a decided willingness of this judge to act on behalf of COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.
7. NOTICE TO THE CLERK - The judge purports to continue as if his entry of "not guilty" issued from the bench, may be applied to accused when they are not recalcitrant, have not shown inability to handle their own affairs, or otherwise are otherwise unable to proceed with their own protection. Such PLEA may not be submitted by a judge when the afore mentioned and listed matters do not indicate the necessity to proceed on behalf of a party before the court, as previously noticed to this court. Therefore this can not be a PLEA, but can only be a finding of fact on the merits. As such, the clerk will place upon the record such NOTICE OF JUDGEMENT and make effort to clear this supposed case from the docket. The judge has no authority to practice law from the bench, nor may they proceed unconstitutionally.

Wherefore, since this court and judge display a distinct and decided willingness to refuse to or fail to provide constitutional Rights, and have indicated willingness to intrude upon the private lives of the people while aligning with the purported plaintiff as shown upon the face of the records, it is clear that no constitutional action or other proper court action can be had before the court. Pursuant to such readily apparent problem, the matters and issues may not proceed until such time as the constitutional issues have been provided as the Constitutions demand. Further the court, judge and de facto COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY are hereby advised these matters will be presented to the people for their review and or prosecution.

________________________________, Maurice Edward, Brahier, a private party of the people, in sovereignty, in these united states.

Certified as delivered to the plaintiff's attorney at the listed address, the court, and elsewhere on this thirtieth day of the twelfth month, in the Nineteen hundredth and Ninety-eighth year, Anno Domini.

____________________________, Maurice Edward, Brahier, a private person in sovereignty in these united states.