THE TRAFFIC RACKET AND HOW IT WORKS

Aggrieved Parties and the general public has been and is being scammed in the following manner through what is undoubtedly a Traffic Racket:

A. Men and women, herein referred as Victims, through propaganda not based on law, are taught they are required to purchase a “driver’s License”/“chauffeur’s License” to ride their non-commercial vehicles on the roadways; failure to purchase the License will cause the Victim engaged in ordinary travel to be arrested/kidnapped by the weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers.

B. The Victim through harassment and coercion from the Weaponized Peace Officers, are forced into buying the “motor vehicle registration” service and display the receipt via a “License Plate”, failure to display such receipt will cause Victim’s vehicle to be taken through force exercised by the weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers.

C. The weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers ensure the Victim appears before an alleged Traffic Referee who through abuse of process extorts Fines and Court Cost from the Victim.

D. This harassment and coercion is supported and upheld by the State’s Lower courts and is further supported by with a blind eye approval from the State’s higher Courts.

E. The basic proceeds are as follows:

a. Licensed and Registration proceeds are shared by the State and The Municipalities that host DMV Offices.
Proceeds from this racket benefits all State Officers, State/Municipal Employees and all State run pension plans.

b. Fine and Penalty proceeds are shared by the Courts, The Municipalities and The State Treasury.
Proceeds from this racket benefits all State Officers, all State run pension plans and Municipalities who use these funds to hire more revenue making highwaymen and Traffic Referees.

police2

Charlie Sprinkle’s Law Suit

This is the law suit Charlie Sprinkle used to defeat the state of California in their attempt to extort money from him for “driving” without a license. Because of this suit, the state backed down and Charlie traveled in his automobile until his death some 40 years later without a “drivers license”:


Charles Sprinkle’s Section 1983 Case from 1975

Charles Sprinkle                                                                             Filed 3 January 1975

10580 Creek Road Ojai, California 93023

Plaintiff Pro Se.

U.S. District Court

Central District of California

312 Spring Street, Los Angeles California

Charles R. Sprinkle

plaintiff

v

Governor Ronald Reagan,

his wife Nancy Reagan,

District Attorney Stanley Trom,

his wife Joan Trom,

Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hinkle,

his wife Mary Hinkle,

Judge Benjamin Ruffner,

his wife Jacqueline Ruffner,

Judge Donald Polack, his wife Georgia Polack,

Judge Richard Heaton,

his wife Anne Heaton,

Officer Glen White,

his wife Judy White,

Officer Gary Hardman,

his wife Patricia Hardman,

Judge Robert Soares,

his wife Kathryn Soares,

Defendants

Case # CV 75-13 dww(k)

            Complaint for Money Damages for:

            Deprivation of Constitutional Rights,

            Conspiracy do Deprive Plaintiff of Constitutional Rights, and

Failure to Protect Plaintiff from Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional Rights.

Jury is hereby Demanded.

1.         Comes now the Plaintiff above named in his own natural person and complains against Defendants above named for depriving Plaintiff of constitutional rights under color of State Law, custom or usage, conspiracy to so deprive and/or failure, neglect or refusal to protect plaintiff from said conspiracy although it was within the power to do so.

Jurisdiction

2.         This Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1343 (1), (2), (3), and (4) and under USC 1938, 1985.

3.         Plaintiff and individuals, named are citizens and residents of the State of California. Defendants are employees of the State of California and The County of Ventura.

1st Cause of Action

4.         Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Ventura, State of California for the past thirteen years.

5.         Ronald Reagan is Governor of the State of California;

6.         Robert Soares is Judge in the Municipal Court County of Ventura State of California.

7.         Stanley Trom is District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California.

8.         William L. Hinkle is Deputy District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California;

9.         Glen White is Court Officer for the State Highway Patrol, County of Ventura, State of California.

10.       Gary Hardman is Highway Patrol Officer in the County of Ventura, State of California;

11.       Benjamin Ruffner is Judge in Superior Court, County of Ventura, State of California:

12.       Donald Polack is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;

13.       Richard Heaton is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;

14.       Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Ann Heaton, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Polack, Patricia Hardman and Kathryn A. Soares are to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, the wives, respectively of Defendants named above;

15.       They are joined as a protection to Plaintiff against their husbands unlawful dissipation of assets or attempted conveyances of property in a attempt to defraud legitimate creditors.

16.       By Law, Article XX Section 3 of the Constitution, State of California, Defendants, Reagan, Soares, Trom., Hinkle, White, Ruffner, Heaton, Hardman and Polack, have been required by Oath of affirmation, to support and defend Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights when or where they clam to have jurisdiction over or official duties with the Plaintiff.

Stopped by Highway Patrol on Jan 15, 1974

17.       On or about Jan. 15, 1974, Plaintiff while driving a 1967 Triumph automobile on State of California Highway, Plaintiff was arrested and ordered to obtain a Drivers License and a automobile License.

Driver License is Title of Nobility

18.       Both are Titles of nobility.

19.       Said order was in violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of allduties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engagein war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Close .

Federal Reserve notes not backed by silver and gold

20.       Defendant Hardman, Highway Patrolman, also required me to pay for said License with Federal Reserve Notes, That are not backed by gold or silver coin, as stipulated in Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

21.       Defendant Hardman threatened Plaintiff with deprivation of Liberty and property with out due process of Law.

22.       All this was done under, Color, Custom and Usage of California State Vehicle Code.

23.       Defendant White acting in conspiracy with Hardman and under color, custom and usage of law, ordered Plaintiff to court.

24.       The constitutes a violation of his Oath of Office as covered by Title 18, USC 241and 242.

25.       Defendant Soares was assigned to Court wherein Plaintiff appeared as defendant in a criminal Traffic Case.

26.       Plaintiff filed a motion for counsel of his own choice, as is his right, as set forth in the 6th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

27.       Defendant Soares in concert with the California State Legislature, has denied Plaintiff’s motion for counsel of his own choice.

28.       Plaintiff is guaranteed Freedom of Speech and Freedom of association under the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution.

29.       Therefore, Plaintiff is free to associate with counsel of his choice and to have a spokesman (counsel of his choice to speak for him).

Denial of Due Process

30.       Plaintiff is guaranteed Due process of Law by the Fifth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

Denial of Counsel of Choice

31.       The Bill of Rights includes, Counsel of choice in the 6th amendment.

32.       Due Process is guaranteed by the both the 5th and the 14th amendments to the constitution.

Infliction of Excessive and therefore Cruel and Unusual Punishment

33.       Under the 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment may not be applied against Plaintiff.

34.       Defendants have imposed just such cruel and unusual punishment upon Plaintiff by the mental stress placed upon Plaintiff as a result of Defendant Soares’s denial of Counsel of choice.

35.       Under the 9th amendment to the constitution Plaintiff’s right to counsel of choice is protected from encroachment by any individual or government body under the 10th amendment to the constitution.

36.       Plaintiff reserves all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal or State Government and he has not waived any of the rights aforementioned, which for the most part are natural rights, but which are also protected by the constitution.

Infliction of Peonage and Involuntary Servitude

37.       Under the 13th. amendment to the constitution Plaintiff is protected against peonage and involuntary servitude, where the actions of Defendants appear to destine Plaintiff.

38.       Under the 14th amendment of the, Plaintiff is protected under Title 18 USC, Sec. 241and 242 from the acts of Defendants.

California Bar in Violation of Sherman Antitrust Act

39.       Defendants , Under Color, Usage and Custom of California set forth in Article VI Sec.9 of the California constitution (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and made a part here of as though stated in total herein, in their capacity of public ministers have denied plaintiff the unalienable right to counsel of Plaintiff own choice, Who may or may not be a member of an exclusive organization, Which Organization may well be in Violation of the Sherman antitrust Act 25 USC 1,2,3,

40.       Defendants Trom and Hinkle Conspired in concert with other Defendants, Hardman, White, Soares, Reagan, Ruffner, Polack and Heaton, acting outside their Lawful Duties, To bring to bear upon Plaintiff unconstitutional acts under Color, custom and Usage of State laws.

41.       Defendants Reagan, Soars, Hardman, Trom, Hinkle, Pollack, Heaton, Ruffner and White acted outside the perimeters their Lawful Duties.

42.       Defendants Violated their Oaths of office. They did so under Color, Custom and usage of Federal and State Law. Defendants acted Grossly, Willfully, Wantonly, Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Maliciously, purposefully, Intentionally and Discriminatingly against Plaintiff and did so taking advantage of Color, Custom and Usage of State Law and custom within a citizen’s fear of State personal prosecuting good citizens for having stood up for their Natural rights protected by the U.S. constitution and the California State Constitution.

Conspiracy. Overt Acts

43.       Defendants conspired together and with others as yet unknown to Plaintiff to deprive him of his rights.

44.       Overt acts committed by Defendants Pollack, Ruffner, Soares, Hardman, White, Reagan, Trom and Hinkle includes that complained of in above paragraph of this complaint.

45.       Denying Plaintiff a right to counsel, are all in collusion with the State Legislative Branches of the State of California.

46.       Defendants named above relying on their own discretion and erroneous interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, Which is the Constitution and not any statute in conflict there with issued or coursed to be issued order for plaintiff conspire with Defendants to subvert the constitution by excepting Titles of Nobility and to make something other them gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt.

47.       All these are contrary Article 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution.

48.       Defendants aforenamed deprived Plaintiff of his 9th and 10th Amendment rights, which protect him from Oath-breaking so-called “public servants” who wallow in the pubic trough while trampling upon Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights.

49.       Said defendants, Meanwhile attempt to impose totalitarian Socialism upon the People, Although such a System is the Antithesis of the Constitution, That public servants and duly constituted Authorities are Sworn to uphold

50.       Defendants have exceeded their jurisdiction.

51.       They have abused their discretion.

52.       They have acted outside the Lawful perimeters of their official duties.

53.       They have Grossly, Willfully, wantonly, 19) Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Intentionally, 20) maliciously, Purposefully, and Discriminatingly Conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights and They have Refused, neglected or Failed to Protect Plaintiff from said Conspiracy although they have been a position to do so.

54.       Defendants Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Pollack, Anne Heaton, Patricia Hardman, Kathryn A. Soares, are the wives respectively of the afore-named Defendants Who are Employed as Erstwhile “public-servants”;These wives are in effect are “Socialist- Queens”, enjoying and living on the Largess and Unlawful spoils brought home by their husbands as compensation for said husband’s Violation of their Oaths of Office and for their willing perversion of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.

55.       Said wife Defendants named above have failed, refused or neglected to protect Plaintiff from the conspiracy of their husbands and said failure is intentional, purposeful and malicious.

56.       The acts of omission of said wife Defendants named above constitute an overt act of conspiracy to refuse to protect Plaintiff.

57.       Defendant acts as heretofore complained of, Have caused harm and damage to Plaintiff.

58.       Said acts have caused mental and physical suffering, insomnia, worry, financial insecurity, stress and strain in relationships, in his work, with his family, relatives and friends, Defendants activities have impaired Plaintiffs credit standing.

59.       They have subjected him to public ridicule and embarrassment.

Prayer

60.       Defendants complained of acts entitle Plaintiff to recover money 21) damages from Defendants and from each of them as follows:

61.       For general damages $ 50,000;

62.       For punitive damages $100,000;

63.       This shall be payable to Plaintiff in Constitutional Lawful Money redeemable in gold or silver coin as set forth in Article 1 Sec. 10 of the constitution.

64.       In addition plaintiff prays such other and further relief as to the jury demanded in this case shall appear just.

65.       Defendants herein are sued in their individual capacities and not as agents of the State of California or The United States.

66.       This is a civil rights Suit and not under the torts claims act.

67.       The United States or the State of California can not be substituted as a party defendant and the consent of the united States or the State of California to be sued is not demanded.

68.       If necessary; Plaintiff demands for all issues to be decided by the Jury Demanded;

69.       If defendants move to dismiss this suit, Plaintiff Demands that it be heard by the jury demanded, and only be dismissed if the Jury considers it lacks merit.

(Respectfully submitted)

Charles Sprinkle, Laborer, Pro Se

Charles Sprinkle

1273 Rice Road #48, Ojai CA 93023

640 0439

Notice of Violation of my Constitutional Rights

Demand to Cease and Desist

Letter #5673

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Greg Totten
District Attorney
800 South Victoria
Ventura CA 93003

Dear Mr. Totten:

I am a member of a revolutionary group. We forced the King to sign the Magna Charta in 1215 at the point of a sword in a field near Runnymede. Later we wrote the Declaration of Independence which is still recognized authority in some jurisdictions today. Then we wrote the constitution. We the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.

I am informed that recently you swore to uphold the constitution. That is why I am writing.

We the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.

From:

Charles Sprinkle

Ojai California
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FEE SCHEDULE CONTRACT

I do not encourage the art of ”holding court at the side of the road” as it can be detrimental to ones health and well being. Therefore, if you choose to hand this Contract to a person in a blue costume, wearing a badge and packing a gun, who is a member of a gang of thugs known as “policemen/police officers” or the like, be forewarned that the majority of them are NOT going to be nice. They do not act as “public servants”. Their master is the CORPORATION which employs them, rather that CORPORATION be a city, state or federal CORPORATION and they advertise that on their badges and on the side of their vehicles.
                             
NOTICE OF FEES

1. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT – I WILL BE EXERCISING THAT RIGHT.

2. I HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO INCRIMINATE MYSELF – I WILL BE EXERCISING THAT RIGHT.

       2 A. ANY INFORMATION I GIVE TO YOU I GIVE UNDER DURESS AND AT THE POINT OF YOUR GUN IN FEAR THAT YOU MIGHT JAIL OR KILL ME IF I DO NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR DEMANDS.

3. I DO NOT CONSENT TO SEARCHES OF MY PERSON OR MY PROPERTY.

4. IF THIS STOP/DETAINMENT/ARREST IS IN ANY WAY IN VIOLATION OF MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, OR IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR TO PROTECT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THEN THIS CONTRACT WILL BE ENFORCEABLE IN ALL STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND FEES WILL BE LEVIED AGAINST YOU AND/OR YOUR BONDING AGENT(S) AND YOUR SUPERIORS IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:

A. ONE TROY OUNCE OF GOLD FOR EVERY STOP OR DETAINMENT THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS, UNALIENABLE OR OTHERWISE, OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

B. TWO TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY ACT OF CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE ME OF MY RIGHTS, UNALIENABLE OR OTHERWISE, OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

C. TEN TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY CUSTODIAL ARREST IN WHICH I AM DETAINED AGAINST MY WILL IN VIOLATION OF MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE MISSOURI STATE CONSTITUTION, OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

D. ONE-HUNDRED TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY ARREST IN WHICH I AM PLACED IN CONFINEMENT RATHER THAT CONFINEMENT BE IN HANDCUFFS, A POLICE CAR OR JAIL, WHEN IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

E. ONE-THOUSAND TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY TEN HOURS, OR ANY PART THEREOF, OF CONFINEMENT WHEN IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

 THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS, OR MY RIGHTS, PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, THEN YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED TO CONSULT WITH COMPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL.   

NOTICE: FAILURE TO SIGN THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT VOID THIS CONTRACT.

*ALL GOLD VALUES ARE DETERMINED TO BE THEIR VALUE AT THE TIME OF VIOLATION(S) OF THIS CONTRACT.

DATED AND SIGNED THIS ______DAY OF________, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, 2013 AT__________(AM/PM).

__________________________________________                           ______________________________________________________

             DETAINING OFFICER                                                                                MYSELF                            

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

pv-tags-01

EVERYTHING IN COMMERCE IS FICTION (ANC)

By Douglas Joseph

Everything that has been created in commerce is fiction and I mean EVERYTHING. Because commerce is fictional, nothing within that commercial world can be real, including the statutes. To operate my business entity lawfully in commerce, I must use a “legal entity/legal name” that has been registered properly with the government entity that created that commercial fiction in the first place.

The law requires everyone do this, not just I. Very few if any do however and it is all due to ignorance of the law.

The law created in each and every state in the “United States” require this legal name registration and in California, it can be found in Section 17900 of the Business and Professions Code (Fictitious Business Name Statement). The government agency that generally registers all legal names in this state (in the United States) is the Secretary of State (SOS) but in California the County Clerk handles that duty under the auspice and authority of the SOS.

The document that I filed to register my legal name is called an “Assumed Name Certificate” (ANC) and I filed it with the SOS of Minnesota. This document is official and valid evidence proving that my business entity is properly registered with the SOS as the state requires to operate lawfully in commerce.

So then, what “legal name” used in commerce is everyone required to file?

The legal name/legal entity found within the creation of the “Certificate of Live Birth” which of course is also issued by the Secretary of State. By properly filing the ANC with the SOS, this provides my registered business entity a status of “Active and In Good Standing”.

This means my business entity can defend itself in court as well as sue other entities with standing. In essence, the ANC is the “game piece” that I use allowing me to conduct business lawfully in commerce while demonstrating that I am the living man that exists outside of that fictional Continue reading “EVERYTHING IN COMMERCE IS FICTION (ANC)”

The Crown Really Appreciates Your Apathy

It’s as simple as this. Everything that we have been told about ‘Ireland’ (26 Counties) being somehow a sovereign entity is a lie.
It’s existence is from and under the Crown. This upsets a lot of folks. Personally I just wanted to know the Truth of the matter.
I needed to understand how it all happened. I never gave a jot about Politics (And still don’t).

The methods used on Ireland to control and manipulate it’s population into thinking it was a Free and Sovereign entity are exactly the same as those used by the Crown on many other Countries to do the exact same thing.

Do you think that the crown just gave up on trying to control the world?
Do you think that the crown just gave up on trying to control the world?

India, Australia, Canada, America etc. If you do some simple research and have a logical mind you will clearly see how they match. Look at Sheriffs globally for example. You will be told that each area that has Sheriffs have them under different situations, but in reality they couldn’t possibly. it’s pretty simple to deduce that the Crown empire simply made it ‘look’ like they have receded from all of these areas when in fact they had not. They still maintain control.

Does anybody really think that the Crown simply decided to ‘Give’ Ireland back to the Irish ? even though it had control. Even though it took the time effort and energy to violently suppress a sovereign government and it’s people. Are we to think the Crown simply tired of Ireland and decided that the strategically placed island on the doorstep to the Atlantic was fine to let go after all … Sure there’d be no hard feelings from the way the Crown treated the Irish people…. Right?
What’s a little Rape Murder and pillage after all between friends.

The Crown realized that the only way to ‘Feel’ safe from all of it’s global conquest was to convince all they had abused that somehow they are now ‘Free’ …. It’s nothing but a despicable lie.

If you don’t see this I’m okay with that … I’m happy that finally I see through all the bullshite.

Kind regards

Vin

Source

Surrender the Strawman to the Court

This is along the same lines as the notice of mistake, except instead of entering the Birth Certificate as evidence that you are not surety you enter it to ‘surrender’ the legal fiction to the court, effectively disassociating it with the living man. You could also alter this to “surrender” the ANC (Assumed Name Certificate) if you have registered your legal name (plus if you have an ANC you have standing. Residency – (2) an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, … if a plaintiff, only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business; 28 U.S. Code § 1391 – Venue generally)

You can download a .PDF HERE (straw-man-surender-to-the-court) or view the text below:

JONN HENRY DOE,       )
PETITIONER,                )
V                                    )
STATE OF OREGON      )
COUNTY OF MARION   )
CITY OF SALEM,          )
RESPONDANT,             )
)
THE MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
Case No.: 49XXX-XXXX-XX-XXXXXX
AND ALL ASSOCIATED CASE NO.(s) WITH THIS MATTER

AFFIDAVIT OF FACT AND SURENDER OF THE ALLEDGE DEFENDANT/LEGAL
PERSON/LEGAL ENTITY “JONN HENRY DOE”

Petitioner John Henry of the family Doe; as a self aware living man hereby (affirm) that I am not JONN HENRY DOE, it is a “fictitious entity” I declare that I am John Henry of the family Doe a Sovereign living and breathing man and not the LEGAL ENTITY/LEGAL FICTION/LEGAL PERSON “JONN HENRY DOE”. I John Henry of the family Doe the living man on the land herby surrender the LEGAL ENTITY “JONN DOE”, “JONN H DOE” and or “JONN HENRY DOE” by way of a CERTIFIED
COPY of “CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH” CERTIFICATE NO/FILE NO. XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX and or XXXXXXXXX to this court in order to satisfy this matter, as well as satisfy the warrant for “JONN HENRY DOE” which a certified copy is hereby attached.

Petitioner John Henry of the family Doe hereby demands that the COURT and or Presiding JUDGE remove any so called warrant for the living man John Henry of the family Doe.The Foregoing Instrument is being executed under the hand and seal of the self aware living man and is my free-will act and Deed. So help me God.

Respectfully Submitted:

Self aware living man by Special appearance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF WITNESSES
State Oregon )
) SS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Marion County )
Personally appeared John Henry-Doe & John Henry-Doe #2 known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence of identification) to be the living men whose names is subscribed upon these instrument(s) and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacity; and by their signature on this instrument, as their freewill act and deed.

Subscribed and affirmed before We, the below signed witnesses on the ______Day of July 2016.

Witness 1:______________________________ Print:____________________ Date:____________
Witness 2:______________________________ Print:____________________ Date:____________
Witness 3:______________________________ Print:____________________ Date:____________
Witness 4:______________________________ Print:____________________ Date:____________