Page 1

2. Appellant asserts that the court’s assertion of lack of jurisdiction for appellant to bring

claims of relief to this court are inconsistent December 26th 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series

881 and title 8 USC 1481 reinforced by article 6 sections 1 and 2 of our Constitution which states

(“The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract cf [U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers

Surety Corporation., 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.] in which clerks, officials, or officers of the

government pledge to perform (Support and uphold the United States and state Constitutions) in return for

substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of

Contract, Conspiracy cf [Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242]. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3,

Section 3. The order of January 5, 2018 is void as it violates these code sections.

3. Appellant has a duty to respond to the court’s order even though it is a nullity and a

nonenforceable order to and until such time as the court and its officers are in compliance with 5 USC 2902

and the 2000 you sign act recorded under US code title 15 7001 ESQ. None of the courts, none of the

judges, none of the court clerks, and the last 20 years after repeated request to verify these unsigned

documents have done so, even though they are required to under international law emphasis supplied. See

THE December 26th 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 (Convention on Rights and Duties of States)
stated CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all states under international law.
December 9th 1945 International Organization Immunities
Act Relinquished Every Public Office Of The United States To The United Nations.
22 CFR 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office.
Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus you become a foreign
entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions.
(i.e. every single court and that courts personnel is considered a separate foreign entity)
Title 22 USC (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.
Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government,
including the Judiciary Procedural Section.

4. Appellant asserts the action of the court asserting lack of jurisdiction must fall the court is

fully aware that appellant has rightfully notified the Department of State, the US Justice [2]
2

Department,
[2]. Titlethe foreign
28 USC 3002state of Maryland,
Section andthe
15A states that all associate corporate
United States officers
is a Federal of the alleged
Corporation and not a
Page

Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states
That The Court Jurisdiction And Immunity Fall Under A Foreign State.
defendants corporations of their [2] criminal conspiracy against and treasonous acts against the

Constitution of the United States as noted in court of federal claims case 17 – 0009 and United

States Court of Appeals case 17 – 1790 as well as appellant has filed papers to reopen the claim

against the United States government US Justice Department and the American Bar Association

and civil action 1998 – CV – 1235. Not one of these courts or court officers or defendants agents

attempted to make appellant aware that they were foreign entities extorting money from US

citizens under false pretenses as court costs in which they provided no services such as in this case

when the court compelled the appellant to pay a filing fee for services never rendered in the court

failed to notify the appellant it was a foreign for profit public corporation corporation not loyal to

the U.S. Constitution and our Bill Of Rights Emphasis Supplied. See

July 27th 1868 15 Statutes at Large Chapter 249 Section 1 “Acts Concerning American Citizens in a Foreign
State”, expatriation, is what is broken when jurisdiction is demanded, and it is not met with an answer.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12b 6 the prosecution has failed to provide adequate proof that
the parties involved in this situation are actually corporate entities. I have provided ample proof that the
prosecution and other agents are actually corporations.

5. Appellant asserts that this court nor can any other court associated with the appellants

claims for relief can assert a defense that the appellant has not demanded proof of the court to

jurisdictional authority and proof of the oath of offices of the judges, clerks of the court, and other

DOJ employees and administrative personnel required to take such an oath of loyalty to our

Constitution. Everyone knowing the consequences of failure provide such waves any judicial

immunity one might have had had the acted in good faith and in accordance with their

employment contract Emphasis Supplied See [3]

[3]. Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and Intrinsic Fraud cf [Auerbach v Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P.
2nd. 1112,1114. Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437
S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every case. Violating
their oath is not just cause for immediate dismissal and removal from office, it is a federal crime.
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive
3

order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual
Page

oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires
members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5
U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the
Third Part Of The Law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 Which Explicitly Makes It A Federal Criminal Offense
(And A Violation Of Oath Of Office) For Anyone Employed In The United States Government
(Including Members Of Congress) To “Advocate The Overthrow Of Our Constitutional Form Of Government”
6. Appellant now asserts for the record to preserve the matter for appeal arguments

advanced in paragraphs 1 through 5 in the preceding pages as proof that the court clerk lacked

legal jurisdiction to send out forged unsigned per curiam orders of the court which the clerk will

not authenticate or validate with the administrative record required under international law see.

A valid “writing” at UCC 3-104.1, made “unconditional” at 3-104.2, will sustain the “promise” at 3-104.3
regardless of Constitutional arguments by the Patriot. This is jurisdiction of agency over the subject
Citizen. Negotiable Instruments Law is UCC 3-104 and agency “must” follow the charter rules of its
Master; Congress. Remedy is UCC 1-103.6 for “The code is ‘Complimentary’ to the common law which
remains in force except where displaced by the code…”

Appellant entered into a contract with the court for honest services the issuance of unsigned document

which the court clerk will not authenticate or validate or produce the oath of offices of the purported

judges is in violation of the Bill of Rights and is a breach of contract in international law which prohibits the

use of unsigned per curiam orders as stated in Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and

Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of

their oath, in every case Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and Keeton Packing Co. v

State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every

case Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct

violation of their oath, in every case. Violating their oath isnot just cause for immediate dismissal and

removal from office,

APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COURTS 2ND FRIVOLOUS ALLEGATION IN ITS PURPORTED ORDER

7. The court states and I quote ORDERED the petition for writ of mandamus be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction further stating this court has no jurisdiction to review the actions of the Maryland state and

therefore lacks a jurisdictional basis to compel the Maryland state courts judicial system and its officers and

agents to take any actions Pet. At 4. The statement is factually incorrect and not in conformity with the [4]
4

bylaws of the court and its operational manual 9 – 4100+4200 of DOJ manual for reporting crimes appellant
Page

[4]. INTERNATIONAL VIEW The Court of Appeal in Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379 stated that as a
general rule the only cases in which decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam are those of
decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority
binding on the court concerned: so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the
reasoning on which it is based is found, On That Account, To Be Demonstrably Wrong.
was left to report these crimes to the court superiors at the US House of Representatives House Judiciary

Committee and to the U.S. Senate judiciary committee members. By hand delivering documents to each

and every member’s office including certified mail to the president of the United States of America as

required also under title 18 USC 2382 – 83 once again emphasis supplied. SEE TITLE 18 US CRIMINAL CODE.

§2382. Misprision of treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of
the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make
known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some
judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title
XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Based on title 18,
U.S.C., 1940 ed., §3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §3, 35 Stat. 1088). Mandatory punishment provision was
rephrased in the alternative. AMENDMENTS 1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for
"fined not more than $1,000".§2383. Rebellion or insurrection.

Appellant is bound by the above criminal statute to report that which this court refuses to do forwarding

rebellion and insurrection against our Constitution by officers of the court operating as foreign agents

having only allegiance to the ABA over the Constitution of the United States and their respective oath of

office and unsigned forge court order # 2 Court states appellant has not shown any entitlement to the relief

requested which is absolute false not supported by the court record.

8. Appellant’s response to the courts unsigned order stating appeal was from the April 3, 2017 order

denying motion for relief of judgment when the court’s own Docket clearly shows this to be a false claim

see docket printed January 2, 2018 See [E – 2] which clearly shows the appeal was timely filed order was

actually May 5, 2017 notice of appeal May 15, 2017 appeal was timely unsigned order statement is

erroneous and must be stricken. Emphasis supplied from the court’s docket January 2, 2018.

9. Appellant asserts that the court made appellant pay under duress $505 for an appeal which

was received by the lower court per this court’s sham unsigned per curiam order order of

September 8, 2017 creating a negotiable contract for honest services under international law UCC
5
Page
code A valid “writing” at UCC 3-104.1, made “unconditional” at 3-104.2, will sustain the “promise”

at 3-104.3 this court promise to provide honest services according to FRAP rules established by the

Congress of the United States FRAP R. 1- (A)(1)(B)(C) & RULES 40 (A)(1)(2)(4)(B) + 41(B)(D)(1),

something the unsigned unverifiable forged documents received by appellant on January 10, 2018

shows that the court had no intention of providing honest services according to the judicial canons

of law, the judicial oath of office, or even international law which appellant is astounded to find

out actually applies to this foreign entity court controlled by members of a communist

organization the ABA as defined in the 19th 50 Congressional record emphasis supplied.

81st Congress, 2d Session REPORT ON Union Calendar No, 1078^ - ^ < ^HSuse Report No.'^ 123 THE
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party SEPTEMBER 17. 1950 (Original release
date) September 21, 1950. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
and ordered to be printed (.1 V Prepared and Released by the COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. PUBLIC (J). Committee on Un-American Activities U.
S. House of Representatives eighty-first congress, second session John S. Wood, Georgia, Chairman

10. Appellant’s response to alleged court order unsigned unverifiable where the court states and I

quote from the order page 2 paragraph 3 emphasis on the original [E – 1] Emphasis Supplied.

(“that appellant’s “dispositive motion” be denied and the motion for summary affirmance be granted to
the extent appellant seeks to appeal the district courts may 5th 2017 denial of leave to file. The merits of
the parties positions as to the denial are so clear as to warrant a summary action.”)

Once Again The Order Has No Force And Effect The Court Must Issue A Nunc Pro Tunc Order To

Prevent A Miscarriage Of Justice Under FRAP Rule 24, 41.& U.S. Constitution Art 6 Sec. 1, 2, 3, + 5

2902 ESQ and 28 U.S.C. 3331, 3333. & 7311. This court as well as lower court is fully aware that

the record made the record made the record made the record made in both the lower court and

District Court

the record made and the pleadings and papers and documents of both courts refute the assertions

of the purported 3 judges in their fictitious writings dismissing appellant’s claims of relief. The
6

court is dealing with unclean hands and has engaged in a furthering of a criminal conspiracy
Page
against the appellants legal due process rights at law and those of his family members. This court

now must accept this petition for a rehearing by the entire membership of the court on the record

appellant cannot file any documents with the judges superiors because the fact is the unsigned

document sent by the court was sent to the appellant and others with intent to deceive until the

court the court produces the oath of office of each of the judges and assign declaration that they

themselves submitted an electronic order to the clerk of the court to put this piece of fictitious

writing together which is void as it is not supported by the writings with the 50 volumes of the

United States published Constitution as US Sen. Kennedy clearly stated in the recent Supreme

Court nominations that if it is not printed in the public volumes of the United States Constitution it

has no force and effect against parties receiving these fictitious writings.

11. Appellant cannot close without addressing the fact that the court in its order Par. 4 on page

2 the unsigned order states and I quote emphasis on the original. [E – 2]

(“Further ordered that the motion to the court pursuant to federal rules of appellate procedure’s
one, 3, 44, and 45 be dismissed as moot because this ordered disposes of the appeal there is no
need for further proceedings”).

Appellant’s response. Motion is void on its face as the order makes a mockery of the courts

jurisdiction authority and legal responsibility pursuant to the international law which they operate

under appellant is a natural born American citizen who does not waive any of his constitutional

rights secured under common law and our Bill of Rights the court has failed to provide honest

services a matter which will be taken up with the court of federal claims case number 17 – 0009

which a motion for reopening based on fraud on the part of the courts and the purported judges

and clerks of the courts all members of the ABA a subversive organization set out to undermine

and destroy the Constitution of the United States of America as laid out in the Congressional
7

record of the81st Congress, 2d Session REPORT ON Union Calendar No, 1078^ - ^ < ^HSuse Report
Page
No.'^ 123 THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party SEPTEMBER 17.

1950 (Original release date) September 21, 1950.

In summation our founding fathers meant that the court be restrained by the chains of

the Constitution and rule of law is passed by the legislative branch of government the January 5,

2017 purported unsigned order of this court is an affront to our judicial system and to our organic

Constitution and Bill of Rights the court is fully aware that the prevailing law is governed under

UCC 1 – 103. 6 Emphasis Supplied,

Appellant’s search that judges of this court must respect Article III. A prayer or plea to equity must
only reap equity. A commercial Tribunal must be dealt with commercially, the court must be
bound to subject matter only and the Citizen must retain his ‘personam’. Your personam is
‘common Law’ at Bill of Rights, not equity, unless you failed to reserve your Rights.
This courts still aware The rule still stands, if you are challenged by equity, you must
answer with equity. “Without prejudice” UCC1-308 is Remedy because the ‘representation’ in-
personam reveals the ‘discovery’ that no Rights were thereby waived at Bill of Rights. UCC1-103.6
is equalizer via equity and notice, now the code must be read in harmony with the common Law at
the Or. Code.
The court also aware This section of the Uniform Commercial Code is the only place the
Constitution and equity may be joined without ‘contempt’ of the tribunal. A court which presumes
you will appear, cannot issue a criminal warrant for ‘failure to appear’ at corporate bar. ‘Without
prejudice’, written above your ‘writing’ at UCC 3.104.1, destroys its “unconditional” requirement
at UCC 3-104.2 and ‘promise’ is forfeit at UCC 3-104.3. It serves as a bar to all others at ‘Obligation
of Contract’ that a ‘condition’ is prima facie upon the unit and it is utterly void at Law.

IN CONCLUSION

12. Appellant Prays that this court will grant the relief requested in appellant’s motion/petition
for a rehearing en-banc and incorporated motion to strike the alleged order of january 5, 2018 and
for court to issue a nunc pro tunc order to prevent a miscarriage of justice under frcp rule 24,
41.& u.s. Constitution art 6 sec. 1, 2, 3, + 5 usc u.s.c. 3331, 3333. & 7311 requesting the court
reconsider it’s alleged dismissal order review is necessary by the full court as the purported order
unsigned issue by court clerk which is in conflict with our constitution.
Pursuant to frap r. 1- (a)(1)(b)(c) & rules 40 (a)(1)(2)(4)(b) + 41(b)(d)(1)
8
Page
Appellant Further Request That The Court Produce The Oath Of Office Of The 3 Judges Purportedly

Assigned to this case along with the oath of office of the clerk of this court and any related documents

designating these parties as foreign officers and sovereign agents authorized to sit in the judgment of the

citizens of the United States of America without divulging their corporate identities, their corporate oath of

office and loyalty to the bylaws of international law and the United Nations superseding the Constitution

and Bill of Rights the United States of America and its citizens common law rights outlined in the Bill of

Rights of 1779. All rights reserved the appellant reserves all rights to take action in international forums

against any and all agents acting as foreign agents of the United States involved in the theft of appellant’s

properties working in a civil conspiracy against rights codified under title 42 USC 1983 ESQ and title 18

United States criminal code subjecting these foreign agents to civil and criminal penalties for failure to

prevent and failure to report the criminal misconduct of fellow court officers working to subvert the laws of

this nation in a RICO criminal conspiracy with their other members of the Bar Association. And other

fraternal organizations in which the judges hold common membership in which put their oath to these

organizations above the oath of office prescribed under U.S. Constitution article 6 sections 1 through 3.

Appellant incorporates by reference all motions pleadings and papers filed with this court, with the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia case number 16 – CV – 532, the United States

District Court for the District of Columbia case number 98 – CV – 1235 TPJ case number 17 – CV – 0009 and

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case number 17 – 1790 not to forget United States

Supreme Court record 10 – 10236 not one of these courts issues signed orders for will validate any judicial

oath of office or any of the unsigned pleadings required under the title 15 USC 7001 ESQ electronic

signatures act.

Respectfully submitted

George E McDermott

E–# description of exhibit and relevance date of dock page #

E–1 Alleged order of the court unsigned unverifiable belief to be forged 01 /05/2018 10-11
9

E–2 Court docket of this court as of January 2 2017 Refuting Ct. order 01/02/2018 12
Page

E–3 certified letter to the president of the United States seeking an 12/30/2017 13
investigation into corruption in state and federal courts through the
use of unsigned forged documents
 E- 1
Page 10
E- 2
Page 11
 E- 3
Page 12
E- 4
Page 13
 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

I George McDermott certified that document is within the courts specifications containing 3538

words on 9 pages with 4 pages of attachments line with emphasis on statutes submitted this

11th day of January 2017 at the night dropbox by George McDermott_______________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I George McDermott certified that a true and correct copy of this motion captioned APPELLANT’S
MOTION/PETITION FOR A REHEARING EN-BANC AND INCORPORATED MOTION TO STRIKE THE
ALLEGED ORDER OF JANUARY 5, 2018 AND FOR COURT TO ISSUE A NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER TO
PREVENT A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE UNDER FRCP RULE 24, 41.& U.S. CONSTITUTION ART 6 SEC.
1, 2, 3, + 5 USC U.S.C. 3331, 3333. & 7311 REQUESTING THE COURT RECONSIDER IT’S ALLEGED
DISMISSAL ORDER REVIEW IS NECESSARY BY THE FULL COURT AS THE PURPORTED ORDER
UNSIGNED ISSUE BY COURT CLERK WHICH IS IN CONFLICT WITH OUR CONSTITUTION.
PURSUANT TO FRAP R. 1- (A)(1)(B)(C) & RULES 40 (A)(1)(2)(4)(B) + 41(B)(D)(1)
was mailed this 11th day of January 2017 after date stamping with the court to the following parties in
accordance with the court rules postage prepaid US first-class mail by______________________________
Him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him him

14
Page