AUG 0 1 2007

IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI

COUNTY OF CLAY - DIVISION 2
Clay County Circuit Court
William Duff, ) CASE NO. 07CY-CV06125
Plaintiff, )
) ACTION
v. ) FOR TRESPASS, AND
) TRESPASS ON THE CASE
OFFICER WILLIAM FRAZIER, (SERIAL 3092) )
AND )
OFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL # 4090) ) VERIFIED
Defendants. )

IN THIS COURT OF RECORD, THE COURT taking cognizance of the facts and law of this
case respecting plaintiffs motion for judicial notice, and cognizes the facts and law as follows;

LAW:
1. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns
with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page
318.]
2. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics,
and may have a fifth. They are:
A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the
person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per
Shaw, CJ. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688,
689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188

Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per
Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688,
689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual
memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S.,
D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E.
229,231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm.
383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225;
Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St.
205, 117 N.E. 229, 23 l.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
 E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The
Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v.
U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117
N.E. 229, 23 l.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
3. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any
holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].
4. "Inferior courts" are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose
proceedings are not according to the course of the common law." Ex Parte Kearny, 55
Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
5. "The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts
is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none
in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had
power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal.
212. Note, however, that in California 'superior court' is the name of a particular court.
But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain
class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter
what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac.
210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195" 7 Cal. Jur. 579
6. However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme
court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. "The judgment of a court of
record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this
court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to
inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited
by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
7. Exhibit F of plaintiff's action.

FACTS:
1. traffic citations claiming Duff's failure to have valid State Driver License case#
224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial
responsibility case# 2243356(9), (See Exhibit C) is a traffic court with statutory
jurisdiction and fails to meet all the requirements of a court of record;
 2. William Duff vs. William Frazier and Alan Roth 07CY-CV06125 is a court of record
proceeding according to the common law and meets all the requirements of same;
3. A conflict exists between the two courts respecting the duties of the judge in one and the
magistrate in the other as well as jurisdictional issues and the law applicable to this
controversy;
4. The property at controversy, whether it be property or money is the property of William
Duff;
5. The Claim by defendants seeks to take property belonging to William Duff before he is
heard;

THIS COURT OF RECORD FINDS AS FOLLOWS;

Property belonging to Plaintiff is at the center of this controversy in both actions and defendants
seek to take said property pursuant to its claim that is disputed by plaintiff. A property right is
involved. As such, this court possesses superior jurisdiction over the inferior traffic court
respecting adjudication of that property right, to wit;

ORDER

This court of record, being fully informed in this matter; orders as follows;
The traffic court action herein described as; traffic citations State Driver License case#
224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility
case# 2243356(9), being adjudicated in the Municipal Court of Kansas City, Mo in room B
be suspended until such time as this court of record, styled as William Duff vs. William Frazier
and Alan Roth 07CY-CV06125, has fully adjudicated the property rights of plaintiff respecting
the claim brought by William Frazier and his agents.

Further, the property heretofore taken from plaintiff on or about June 5, 2007 by defendant is to
be returned to plaintiff without delay.

PRECEAPE: The Clerk of this court is directed to issue a writ of replevin with waiver of
bond and deliver it to the Sheriff of Jackson County, Missouri or whatever county in
Missouri wherein the property referenced above is located, without cost or delay to
plaintiff and that all costs related thereto are to be taxed against defendants, and that the
property above described be returned to plaintiff at 108 NW 101 Place Kansas City, Mo
64155 without delay. This order shall be copied and delivered to the Municipal court of
Kansas City, Mo room B

Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all other
interested parties a brief no later than 10 (ten) days after receipt of this order to show cause to
this court why this order should not take effect or should be modified and notice of intent to file
said brief must be filed within 3 days of receiving this order either by email or by fax or by filing
same into the record of this case. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the
importance of fair play, will liberally construe the arguments presented.

IT IS SO ORDERED,

Private Attorney Seal of the court

Cc: William Duff to: wdd@wiUiamduff.com,
William Frazier and Alan Roth to: 1001 NW Barry Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri C/O KCMO Police Department - North Division
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify the forgoing document has been sent to all defendants at 1001 NW Barry rd
KCMO c/o Kansas City Police Department - north division