As a living-breathing American Man, one of “We the People”, the Owners of Our Government, I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, have the authority to address any felony that I witness firsthand (CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant). (King James Version) Galatians 6:7-8, Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Amen.
It is upon “the People” to ensure justice prevails when those in positions of power reveal themselves to be an enemy of those who put their trust in them.
CASE LAW & MAXIMS OF LAW:
Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
"The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better."
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63,64 (1997)
Conspiracy "A conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense."
It is "the common-law principle that, so long as they share a common purpose, conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators."
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 - Supreme Court 1923
Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact by the Supreme Court, that writ of habeas corpus--may be invoked if the petitioner is free from bodily restraint and thereby the court is prohibited from dismissing this petition on the grounds the petitioner is not a prisoner or jailed.
As to LIBERTY, “While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Maxim of Law – “The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.” All aspects of “government” at all levels must be fully transparent and fully accountable to the people they swore to protect and serve.
Maxim of Law – “The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.”
All Officers, Agents, Clerks, Judges, Administrators, and Actors of the Corporations and Associations Doing Business as the STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; plus, PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC., CONNECTICUT BAR ASSOCIATION, and AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION have No Authority to Adjudicate, Govern or Legislate as they are “AT WAR WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION” and “ENGAGE IN ACTS OF TREASON”. They are the “ENEMY” of the American People executing “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” and “GENOCIDE” by “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” in weaponized courts, and the use of “BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS” by delivery systems from injection to Climate Engineering.
CHARGES & CLAIMS:
Title 18 U.S. Code 2441 War Crimes; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions “Domestic Terrorism”; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries; Title 18 U.S. Code § 175 - Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason; and Title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason by a weaponized the US Judicial Branch from top to bottom executing upon “We the People” of America through pirated power affirmed by “ENEMY” Courts. Plus, violation of the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act & Geneva Conventions as affirmed by October 8, 2025, DECLARATION AND ORDER OF THE ALLIANCE OF INDIGENOUS NATIONS (AIN) INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL which states, “This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the 'COVID-19 nanoparticle injections' or 'mRNA nanoparticle injections' or 'COVID-19 injections meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction, according to the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, of 1989, 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023), Canada‘s Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 2004, and the International Biological Weapons Convention. This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the COVID-19 injections, mRNA injections, or mRNA nanoparticle injections, are in fact biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.” Climate Engineering systems affirmed by Geoengineeringwatch.org.
LEGAL MAXIM:
The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.
AUTHORITY:
As a living-breathing American Man, one of “We the People”, the Owners of Our Government, I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, have the authority to address any felony that I witness firsthand (CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant). (King James Version) Galatians 6:7-8, Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Amen.
Respectfully,
Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, American, Free-Man, 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut
Subject: November 14, 2025, In the Supreme Court of the United States – Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve: Public Notice and Judicial Notice - WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441
Maxim of Law- The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, Living American, Beneficiary in Equity-Executor of 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut delivers my testimony, so help me God.
My jurisdiction is the Constitution for the united states of America, the Supreme Law of the Land, as defined by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
I am a witness to abandonment, default, and “Treason” by an “Enemy” Tribunal.
It is upon “the People” to ensure justice prevails when those in positions of power reveal themselves to be an enemy of those who put their trust in them.
The War Crime of armed seizure of home and property is a violent violation of human rights.
On November 17, 2025, the Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve regarding WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441 was sent Certified Mail #9589 0710 5270 3283 8227 48 and was never delivered, returned or found.
On December 15, 2025, the Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve regarding WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441 was sent Certified Mail #9589 0710 5270 2936 6131 39, and was received on December 23, 2025, but was not stamped as required by law.
On January 2, 2026, the Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve regarding WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441 was stamped “Received” by Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court, U.S.
On February 12, 2026, the Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve regarding WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441 was returned 42 days later with a cover letter RE: Writ of Mandamus in which they write about Writ of Habeas Corpus without any rebuttal to the claims made in the Writ of Mandamus.
The court has abandoned all pleadings and all claims are uncontested; thus, tacit acquiescence.
Legal Maxim: “A claim not contested, stands true.”
Legal Maxim: “A claim bought in law that is not contested or rebutted, then stands true. Hence silence to a controversy is considered consent to any judgment.”
Legal Maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
Legal Maxim: "An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in law."
If the government or any party fails to respond to an affidavit; then, the Affidavit is considered the binding truth between the parties involved.
Sampson v. Channell, 110 F.2d 754, 762 (1st Cir. 1940):
This case reiterates that an affidavit stands as truth unless specifically rebutted. The government, like any other party, is bound to respond to an affidavit in a timely and substantive manner. Ignoring it does not extinguish its validity; instead, it acknowledges the claims as true.
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the 1 government in its enforcement and collection activities.” See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Maxim of Law –
“The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.” All aspects of “government” at all levels must be fully transparent and fully accountable to the people they swore to protect and serve.
Armed seizure of liberty is unacceptable and unlawful.
King James Version (KJV) Galatians 6:7, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806).
In the early days of our Republic, "prosecutor" was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.
Affirmation by the Third Circuit Appellate Court of the use of a Writ of Capias
On April 4, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Document Case No. 24-2242 filed by Appellant titled “Writ of Capias-Demand for Arrest”:
“Any further review must be sought in the United States Supreme Court”
Legal Maxim: “The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.”
Legal Maxim: “A claim not contested, stands true.”
Legal Maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
Legal Maxim: “Failure to enforce the law does not change it.”
Legal Maxim: “A claim bought in law that is not contested or rebutted, then stands true. Hence silence to a controversy is considered consent to any judgment.”
Legal Maxim: “An Unrebutted Affidavit is Truth.”
Legal Maxim: “No one is judge in their own case.”
Legal Maxim: “Judicial notice is a form of evidence.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Clarence Thomas
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil M. Gorsuch
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Clerk of the Court
Scott S. Harris
CONNECTICUT:
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut Judge
Victor Bolden
Omar A. Williams
Sarala V. Nagala
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Chase Theodora Rogers (RET. 2018)
Richard A. Robinson
Superior Court Judges
Robert L. Genuario
Kevin M. Tierney
Kevin A. Randolph
John F. Blawie
Charles T. Lee
A. William Mottolese
John F. Kavanewsky, Jt.
Ronald E. Kowalski, II
Douglas C. Mintz
David R. Tobin
Kenneth B. Povodator
Walter Michael Spader, Jr.
Bruce P. Hudock
Vikki Cooper
Robert G. Golger
Alex V. Hernandez
Sheila Ann Ozalis
Taggart D. Adams
Yamini Menon
Thomas Colin
Eric Tindil
William Clark
Gary White
Donna Heller
Margarita Moore
Mary Elizabeth Reid
Peter McShane
Maria Gonzales
Scott M. Jones
Chief Court Administrator, Judge
Patrick L. Carroll, III
Appellate Court Judges
Joseph P. Flynn
Bethany Jean Alvord
Alexandra Davis Dipentima
Connecticut Governor
Ned Lamont
Dannel P. Malloy
Connecticut Attorney General
William Tong and other Complicit Participants
Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney
Laurence Tamaccio
DELAWARE
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judge
Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves
Patty Shwartz
Anthony J. Scirica
United States District Court for the District of Delaware Judge
Colm Felix Connolly
Richard G. Andrews
Jennifer L. Hall
Maryellen Noreika
Gregory B. Williams
United States District Court of Delaware Clerk of Court
Randall C. Lohan
Delaware Supreme Court Justice
Abigail M. Legrow
Karen L. Valihura
Gary F. Traynor
N. Christopher Griffiths
Superior Court Judge
Eric M. Davis
Dannielle J. Brennan
Delaware Governor
John Carney and other Complicit Participants
NEW JERSEY
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Judge
Renee Marie Bumb
Jamel K. Semper
Christine P. O’Hearn
Superior Court Judge
Frank J. DeAngelis
James M. DeMarzo
• Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.
Sui Juris
Definition and Citations:
Lat. Of his own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship. Having capacity to manage one’s own affairs; not under legal disability to act for one’s self. Story, Ag.
Affirmation by the Third Circuit Appellate Court of the use of a Writ of Capias directed the Petitioner to submit it to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On April 4, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Document Case No. 24-2242 filed by Appellant titled “Writ of Capias-Demand for Arrest”:
“Any further review must be sought in the United States Supreme Court”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 - Supreme Court 1923
Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact by the Supreme Court, that writ of habeas corpus--may be invoked if the petitioner is free from bodily restraint and thereby the court is prohibited from dismissing this petition on the grounds the petitioner is not a prisoner or jailed.
As to LIBERTY, “While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 (2000)
The Supreme Court held that the American People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government. The court went on to define that local, state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign People by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions.
A Speakers' Corner is an area where free speech open-air public speaking, debate, and discussion are allowed. The original and best known is in the north-east corner of Hyde Park in Westminster, England, near Marble Arch. Historically there were a number of other areas designated as Speakers' Corners in other parks in London, such as Lincoln's Inn Fields, Finsbury Park, Clapham Common, Kennington Park, and Victoria Park. Speakers' Corners have been established elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in other countries.
The Australian historian Henry Reynolds, who visited London in the early 1960s, noted the impression the corner had on him:
At Hyde Park Corner, race and colonialism were more commonly discussed than older concerns about class or religion. One morning we joined a crowd listening to an articulate and fiery young African man. To our embarrassment he was being heckled by a party of young Australians. Among other things they told him was that there was no racial prejudice in Australia because everyone there was equal. With that the speaker turned on the hecklers and launched a tirade about Australia's treatment of the Aborigines. He was probably better informed about the matter than were the Australians in his audience, myself included.[9]
Lord Justice Sedley, in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999), described Speakers' Corner as demonstrating "the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear." The ruling famously established in English case law that freedom of speech could not be limited to the inoffensive but extended also to "the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome, and the provocative, as long as such speech did not tend to provoke violence", and that the right to free speech accorded by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights also accorded the right to be offensive. Prior to the ruling, prohibited speech at Speakers' Corner included obscenity, blasphemy, insulting the Monarch, or inciting a breach of the peace.[10][11]
AUTHORITY:
As a living-breathing American Man, one of “We the People”, the Owners of Our Government, I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, have the authority to address any felony that I witness firsthand (CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant). (King James Version) Galatians 6:7-8, Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Amen.
It is upon “the People” to ensure justice prevails when those in positions of power reveal themselves to be an enemy of those who put their trust in them.
CASE LAW & MAXIMS OF LAW:
Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
"The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better."
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63,64 (1997)
Conspiracy "A conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense."
It is "the common-law principle that, so long as they share a common purpose, conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators."
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 - Supreme Court 1923
Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact by the Supreme Court, that writ of habeas corpus--may be invoked if the petitioner is free from bodily restraint and thereby the court is prohibited from dismissing this petition on the grounds the petitioner is not a prisoner or jailed.
As to LIBERTY, “While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Maxim of Law – “The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.” All aspects of “government” at all levels must be fully transparent and fully accountable to the people they swore to protect and serve.
Maxim of Law – “The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.”
WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441
PUBLIC NOTICE & JUDICIAL NOTICE (11/25/2025):
All Officers, Agents, Clerks, Judges, Administrators, and Actors of the Corporations and Associations Doing Business as the STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; plus, PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC., CONNECTICUT BAR ASSOCIATION, and AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION have No Authority to Adjudicate, Govern or Legislate as they are “AT WAR WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION” and “ENGAGE IN ACTS OF TREASON”. They are the “ENEMY” of the American People executing “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” and “GENOCIDE” by “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” in weaponized courts, and the use of “BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS” by delivery systems from injection to Climate Engineering.
CHARGES & CLAIMS:
Title 18 U.S. Code 2441 War Crimes; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions “Domestic Terrorism”; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries; Title 18 U.S. Code § 175 - Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason; and Title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason by a weaponized the US Judicial Branch from top to bottom executing upon “We the People” of America through pirated power affirmed by “ENEMY” Courts. Plus, violation of the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act & Geneva Conventions as affirmed by October 8, 2025, DECLARATION AND ORDER OF THE ALLIANCE OF INDIGENOUS NATIONS (AIN) INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL which states, “This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the 'COVID-19 nanoparticle injections' or 'mRNA nanoparticle injections' or 'COVID-19 injections meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction, according to the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, of 1989, 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023), Canada‘s Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 2004, and the International Biological Weapons Convention. This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the COVID-19 injections, mRNA injections, or mRNA nanoparticle injections, are in fact biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.” Climate Engineering systems affirmed by Geoengineeringwatch.org.
LEGAL MAXIM:
The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.
AUTHORITY:
As a living-breathing American Man, one of “We the People”, the Owners of Our Government, I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, have the authority to address any felony that I witness firsthand (CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant). (King James Version) Galatians 6:7-8, Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Amen.
Respectfully,
Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, American, Free-Man, 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut
AFFIDAVIT: STATEMENT OF TRUTH (2/20/2026)
Subject: November 14, 2025, In the Supreme Court of the United States – Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve: Public Notice and Judicial Notice - WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441
Maxim of Law- The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, Living American, Beneficiary in Equity-Executor of 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut delivers my testimony, so help me God.
My jurisdiction is the Constitution for the united states of America, the Supreme Law of the Land, as defined by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
I am a witness to abandonment, default, and “Treason” by an “Enemy” Tribunal.
It is upon “the People” to ensure justice prevails when those in positions of power reveal themselves to be an enemy of those who put their trust in them.
The War Crime of armed seizure of home and property is a violent violation of human rights.
On November 17, 2025, the Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve regarding WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441 was sent Certified Mail #9589 0710 5270 3283 8227 48 and was never delivered, returned or found.
On December 15, 2025, the Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve regarding WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441 was sent Certified Mail #9589 0710 5270 2936 6131 39, and was received on December 23, 2025, but was not stamped as required by law.
On January 2, 2026, the Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve regarding WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441 was stamped “Received” by Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court, U.S.
On February 12, 2026, the Writ of Mandamus to Post and Serve regarding WAR CRIMES - Title 18 U.S. Code § 2441 was returned 42 days later with a cover letter RE: Writ of Mandamus in which they write about Writ of Habeas Corpus without any rebuttal to the claims made in the Writ of Mandamus.
The court has abandoned all pleadings and all claims are uncontested; thus, tacit acquiescence.
Legal Maxim: “A claim not contested, stands true.”
Legal Maxim: “A claim bought in law that is not contested or rebutted, then stands true. Hence silence to a controversy is considered consent to any judgment.”
Legal Maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
Legal Maxim: "An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in law."
If the government or any party fails to respond to an affidavit; then, the Affidavit is considered the binding truth between the parties involved.
Sampson v. Channell, 110 F.2d 754, 762 (1st Cir. 1940):
This case reiterates that an affidavit stands as truth unless specifically rebutted. The government, like any other party, is bound to respond to an affidavit in a timely and substantive manner. Ignoring it does not extinguish its validity; instead, it acknowledges the claims as true.
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the 1 government in its enforcement and collection activities.” See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Maxim of Law –
“The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.” All aspects of “government” at all levels must be fully transparent and fully accountable to the people they swore to protect and serve.
Armed seizure of liberty is unacceptable and unlawful.
King James Version (KJV) Galatians 6:7, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Respectfully,
Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris
Living American
Beneficiary in Equity-Executor
9 Sylvester Court
Norwalk, Connecticut
Phone: (203)858-7949
Email: apritchard1963@gmail.com
SUI JURIS - ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT CGS 54-170:
United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806).
In the early days of our Republic, "prosecutor" was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.
Affirmation by the Third Circuit Appellate Court of the use of a Writ of Capias
On April 4, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Document Case No. 24-2242 filed by Appellant titled “Writ of Capias-Demand for Arrest”:
“Any further review must be sought in the United States Supreme Court”
Legal Maxim: “The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.”
Legal Maxim: “A claim not contested, stands true.”
Legal Maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
Legal Maxim: “Failure to enforce the law does not change it.”
Legal Maxim: “A claim bought in law that is not contested or rebutted, then stands true. Hence silence to a controversy is considered consent to any judgment.”
Legal Maxim: “An Unrebutted Affidavit is Truth.”
Legal Maxim: “No one is judge in their own case.”
Legal Maxim: “Judicial notice is a form of evidence.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Clarence Thomas
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil M. Gorsuch
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Clerk of the Court
Scott S. Harris
CONNECTICUT:
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut Judge
Victor Bolden
Omar A. Williams
Sarala V. Nagala
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Chase Theodora Rogers (RET. 2018)
Richard A. Robinson
Superior Court Judges
Robert L. Genuario
Kevin M. Tierney
Kevin A. Randolph
John F. Blawie
Charles T. Lee
A. William Mottolese
John F. Kavanewsky, Jt.
Ronald E. Kowalski, II
Douglas C. Mintz
David R. Tobin
Kenneth B. Povodator
Walter Michael Spader, Jr.
Bruce P. Hudock
Vikki Cooper
Robert G. Golger
Alex V. Hernandez
Sheila Ann Ozalis
Taggart D. Adams
Yamini Menon
Thomas Colin
Eric Tindil
William Clark
Gary White
Donna Heller
Margarita Moore
Mary Elizabeth Reid
Peter McShane
Maria Gonzales
Scott M. Jones
Chief Court Administrator, Judge
Patrick L. Carroll, III
Appellate Court Judges
Joseph P. Flynn
Bethany Jean Alvord
Alexandra Davis Dipentima
Connecticut Governor
Ned Lamont
Dannel P. Malloy
Connecticut Attorney General
William Tong and other Complicit Participants
Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney
Laurence Tamaccio
DELAWARE
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judge
Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves
Patty Shwartz
Anthony J. Scirica
United States District Court for the District of Delaware Judge
Colm Felix Connolly
Richard G. Andrews
Jennifer L. Hall
Maryellen Noreika
Gregory B. Williams
United States District Court of Delaware Clerk of Court
Randall C. Lohan
Delaware Supreme Court Justice
Abigail M. Legrow
Karen L. Valihura
Gary F. Traynor
N. Christopher Griffiths
Superior Court Judge
Eric M. Davis
Dannielle J. Brennan
Delaware Governor
John Carney and other Complicit Participants
NEW JERSEY
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Judge
Renee Marie Bumb
Jamel K. Semper
Christine P. O’Hearn
Superior Court Judge
Frank J. DeAngelis
James M. DeMarzo
• Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.
Sui Juris
Definition and Citations:
Lat. Of his own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship. Having capacity to manage one’s own affairs; not under legal disability to act for one’s self. Story, Ag.
Affirmation by the Third Circuit Appellate Court of the use of a Writ of Capias directed the Petitioner to submit it to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On April 4, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Document Case No. 24-2242 filed by Appellant titled “Writ of Capias-Demand for Arrest”:
“Any further review must be sought in the United States Supreme Court”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 - Supreme Court 1923
Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact by the Supreme Court, that writ of habeas corpus--may be invoked if the petitioner is free from bodily restraint and thereby the court is prohibited from dismissing this petition on the grounds the petitioner is not a prisoner or jailed.
As to LIBERTY, “While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 (2000)
The Supreme Court held that the American People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government. The court went on to define that local, state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign People by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions.
A Speakers' Corner is an area where free speech open-air public speaking, debate, and discussion are allowed. The original and best known is in the north-east corner of Hyde Park in Westminster, England, near Marble Arch. Historically there were a number of other areas designated as Speakers' Corners in other parks in London, such as Lincoln's Inn Fields, Finsbury Park, Clapham Common, Kennington Park, and Victoria Park. Speakers' Corners have been established elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in other countries.
The Australian historian Henry Reynolds, who visited London in the early 1960s, noted the impression the corner had on him:
At Hyde Park Corner, race and colonialism were more commonly discussed than older concerns about class or religion. One morning we joined a crowd listening to an articulate and fiery young African man. To our embarrassment he was being heckled by a party of young Australians. Among other things they told him was that there was no racial prejudice in Australia because everyone there was equal. With that the speaker turned on the hecklers and launched a tirade about Australia's treatment of the Aborigines. He was probably better informed about the matter than were the Australians in his audience, myself included.[9]
Lord Justice Sedley, in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999), described Speakers' Corner as demonstrating "the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear." The ruling famously established in English case law that freedom of speech could not be limited to the inoffensive but extended also to "the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome, and the provocative, as long as such speech did not tend to provoke violence", and that the right to free speech accorded by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights also accorded the right to be offensive. Prior to the ruling, prohibited speech at Speakers' Corner included obscenity, blasphemy, insulting the Monarch, or inciting a breach of the peace.[10][11]