​ ​IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
​Plaintiff,
​Case No. ​CF-2017-3357
​Felony Information

vs.

TIMOTHY RYAN HUTTON

Sui Juris
​Defendant,

​ OTICE AND DEMAND

N
​CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION

Let it be known, that, in relation to your alleged DECISION, as filed

under Case No. CF-2018-2169, which you Judge: Doug Drummond issued on
07/30/2018 and that on received on 07/30/2018. Cases were set for Trial on the
merits for 10/8/2018.

That you issued the above decision, knowingly, willingly, and intentionally
entered above DECISION despite have being already ordered on the 6th day of
June 2018 and filed with Don Newberry Tulsa County Court Clerk State Of
Oklahoma on the 8th day of June 2018 ordered pursuant to Tulsa County
District Court Rule CR4, courts own rules of reassignment of Criminal District
Judge. The Court of Record Steven Hightower entered a Plea of Not Guilty to all
charges in both, CF-2017-3357 and CF-2018-2169.

Whereas I “The Defendant, Timothy Ryan Hutton have been deprived

Due Process of Law and by judge allowing a misrepresentation to occur by
allowing Court of Record Steven Hightower to enter plea when you had no
authority to do so and making a false claim that defendant waives jurisdiction.

“The Defendant” Timothy Ryan Hutton is set for Trial on the Merits on
10/08/2018.

1
 Whereas, all these orders took place on 7/30/2018, was a very stealthy
approach to deprive, “The Defendant” Timothy Ryan Hutton, of his liberty, and
his freedom without Due Process of law. and in support of

​“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to a denial

of due process of law, court is deprived of jurisdiction.”​ ​Merritt v. Hunter,
C.A. Kansas​ 170 F2d 739.

​ Jurisdiction is fundamental and a rendered by a court that does not

“
have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” ​In Re Application of Wyatt, ​300 P.
132; ​ReCavitt,​ 118 P2d 846

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the
jurisdiction asserted.” ​Latanna v. Hopper, ​102 F. 2d 188; ​Chicago v. New
York​ 37 F Supp. 150

​ A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot

“
make a void proceeding valid. ​It is clear and well established law that a void
order can be challenged in any court” ​OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. V.
McDONOUGH​, 204 U.S.

I hereby challenge any lawful jurisdiction which you claim to have, or

any such jurisdiction of the District Court Of Tulsa County State Of Oklahoma
(hereinafter 'ENTITY') under whose mandate you perform your duties, and also
in relation to the making of any and all judgments, decisions, verdicts or any
other such orders against me would amount nothing much more than fraud in
the inducement and where court administrators were acting under color of law
to deprive one of their guaranteed Constitutional Rights which include but are
not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Preamble:

I Am the living human being and man, sui iuris, and under such
authority any jurisdiction which you claim to have over me, or in the making of
the above alleged DECISION, is void. You obtained no permission, authority
nor consent, in any form, to issue any such decision or order, in any claimed
dispute, in which I may have been involved. The said order is void ab initio.
.

2
 However, I might accept your temporary jurisdiction under the
mandate of ENTITY in this matter and grant such described jurisdiction to you
and ENTITY, if you perform and fulfill following specific conditions as described:

1.That you, Doug Drummond, James Kelly of alleged judge(s)), shall

produce, unto this living man, within the period of 7 days from the date hereof, a
sworn affidavit, sworn under your own hand, with full, unlimited, personal
liability, under penalty of perjury, to the effect that you did, articulate, sign and
swear an Oath of Office of Judge, to act under the authority of the ENTITY, and
that you do, at all times, operate in strict compliance with that oath of office in
the ordinary course of your duties, without fear, favour or exception, under Rule
of Law.

2.That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living
man, within the same 7 days, true and certified documentary evidence and
proofs (i.e.a statement, acceptance or declaration), signed under my hand and
seal, that I did, grant unto YOU, and or unto the ENTITY, or unto any other
person, permission, authority or consent; including, but not limited to, YOU, the
ENTITY, the principal of the ENTITY, or the founding principal of the ENTITY, to
honour any judgment, order, decision or verdict of the said parties, in any cause
or matter, in which I may have been involved.

3.That you shall present and deliver by certified mail, to this living
man, within the same 7 days, all the files in your possesion about these matters,
since I do have reasonable doubt that your laws are broken and therefore
crimes committed, including but not limited to articles 279. and 281. of your
Criminal law and I shall demand remedy without prejudice, all rights reserved.

Penal Endorsement:

In the event of default of such valid proofs as described at paragraph

numbers 1. & 2. & 3. herein you shall be deemed to have accepted and
confirmed that the same is NOT true and accurate and that these documents
and actions performed by you do not exist and they have never existed.

That; you possess NO LAWFUL JURISDICTION to make any such

order against me (or my property), nor any jurisdiction and that crimes have
been committed, crimes described in your Criminal law, including but not limited
to crimes described in articles 279. and 281. of said law.
Since I Am the living human being and man
–
a fact which cannot be denied and is unrebuttable
3
–
I Am the one who creates All. You, as PUBLIC SERVANT, nor any
other ENTITY can ever claim nor maintain any jurisdiction over me, this, or any
other living human being. You accepted and consented to service and indenture
to the above named ENTITY, whose authority is always inferior to that of the
living human being, sui iuris, therefore you serve only under the law that serves
living human beings in the hierarchy of Divine Canon Law.

Any attempt to enforce your alleged and purported jurisdiction in any

way, in default of producing the above valid proofs as described, confirming
lawful jurisdiction, such attempts shall be considered to be enforced slavery of
this living human being and man.

Therefore, hereby TAKE NOTICE that; should you persist with any
enforcement action in respect of this matter, I shall act accordingly, under Rule
of Law, and that you shall be held personally accountable, with full unlimited
personal liability. Remedy shall be obtained by way of private law suit, for
cause, on grounds of injury, loss and or damage caused to my estate, to include
the remedy of imprisonment. The motu pro pio of Pope Francis, effective the 1st
day of September 2013,
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/motu_proprio/documents/papa-fra
ncesco-motu- proprio_20130711_organi-giudiziari_en.html) confirms, the
removal of any perceived immunity for criminal offences from members of the
Roman Curia and you are hereby Notified that you shall be held personally
accountable for any and all the decisions which you make hereafter. The said
order and judgment, described above as motu pro pio, confirms; that the Golden
Rule of Law is now operational and in full force; the Golden Rule of Law that
nobody is above the Law and that All are Equal before the Law.

And so it is Done, Issued and Ordered;

Made, under my duly authorized hand and seal, with full original jurisdiction and
I am competent to say so.

This day____ of 2018.

__________________

Timothy Hutton,
sui iuris
4