|
COLOR OF LAW: INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND AND DISCLAIMER On August 22, 2022, after being rejected by over 100 national attorneys, I filed a case in Federal District Court regarding my Constitutional GOD given rights. On March 30, 2023, the Constitutional claim was denied. The reason stated on the Court's Order was that there was no evidence of what the Court referred to as "color of law." What follows is an open letter to the Court and the public regarding the research I conducted and the evidence I gathered over the course of those four long years pursuing the remainder of my claim in Court. After March of 2023, I was not setting out to research the question of "color of law" or even the Constitutional question . . . but as I worked on the remainder of the case, the small portion that survived endless dismissal attempts and lawyer games and dragging this out for years, this evidence emerged. I didn't find it. It found me. This research and the evidence I uncovered was not the topic of the jury trial the first week of May 2025. It should have been, but it was not. The jury never got to hear it. This was due to the Constitutional claim having been dismissed over two years prior. As you read the following, please bear in mind that I am not a lawyer. I did not go to law school. I do not have a law degree. I am not a member of what the Court calls "the bar and bench." In the eyes of the Court as you will later read, I am referred to as an "indigent" person. I write this as a citizen of the United States of America and a member of "We the People." I write this as a Pro Se ("for yourself"), Self-Represented person. I write this under the principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to redress. I write this in order to redress a wrong. What follows is my own research, evidence, and conviction as a member of "We the People," as a Pro Se, Self-Represented person. The reader is encouraged to conduct his or her own research, gather his or her own evidence, form his or her own point of view, and seek his or her own legal counsel as he or she sees fit. Thus begins my memo . . . COLOR OF LAW What if there was no law? Let’s take a brief walk down memory lane, shall we? In 2020 and 2021 the company I worked for started implementing a bunch of policies. They went something like this: wear a face cover; get an injection; get an injection or wear a face cover; get and injection and wear a face cover. The policies bounced around. One day we were required to wear the face cover. The next day we could take it off if we were injected. One day we had to wear the face covering again even if we were injected. I was working remotely at the time and had been for well over a year, so none of this affected me . . . that is until I was mandated to show up in person at a meeting in the City of Saint Louis and the company had announced an anticipated recall of all employees in January 2022. Now I had a compliance problem because my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief and health forbid me from wearing a face cover or receiving an injection. Simply stated, the company said then, has repeated said the last four years, and recently said during the trial the week of May 5, 2025 that “the law made us do it.” They have repeatedly used the law as an excuse for the development of their policies that required injections and face covers. They have stated in writing and verbally that their company is “regulated,” “ordered,” and “mandated” to create such policies. Really? Really? They never issued policies like this before, and, when issued, the policy didn’t say anywhere that the law was making them do it, but all of a sudden there was this excuse that “the law made us do it.” It seems like a logical excuse, doesn’t it? It’s like saying “Well, I’m not responsible for anything I did. It was the government. Yea. The government did it, so I had to go along with it.” Well, what if I told you that it was all bologna? What if I could prove beyond any and all reasonable doubt that, not only was there no law in 2020 and 2021, but there could also be no such law in 2020 and 2021, or in 2025, or at any point in time in the United States of America? What then? What would that mean? If I could prove that there was no law and could be no such law, what would that mean? First it would mean that the company issued its policies irrespective of any “law,” “mandate,” “order”, “regulation,” etc. Secondly, it would mean that, via its lame excuse, the company was trying to excuse its behavior and its violation of law via a lie that there was somehow a higher law that the government issued that would forgive its obligation to follow the actual law it was supposed to follow. In this case, the law it is supposed to follow is called Title VII. I don’t have time to explain Title VII here, but in short, the company was using the excuse “we have to follow the law” in order to excuse its obligation under the actual law that is Title VII that would require it to honor the multiple requests I had made to continue working remotely so I would not be in a position of having to wear a face cover or receive an injection that is in complete opposition to my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief. It could have easily let me continue to work remotely, but instead it denied my multiple requests, harassed me, treated me differently than the other employees, made me get doctor’s notes for a request that was based on religion and strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs, gave me a different set of policies to follow, and then forced me out the door via an ultimatum (destructive discharge). But let’s return to the excuse . . . “we couldn’t possibly honor your request not to wear a face cover or receive an injection because of the LAW.” What if there was no LAW? What if they had no excuse to fall back on? And let’s push the question even further. What if the very creation of their policies actually VIOLATED THE LAW? Well, that would mean they were lying about the “law,” that they were using the fake “law” to violate my civil rights, that they violated the law from the moment they wrote the egregious policy, and that every event thereafter was totally and completely illegal under actual law. It would mean the company was using an illusion, a pretend “law” as an excuse when there was no excuse. It would mean that the company could no longer say “the law made us do it.” What is an affirmative defense? I am no lawyer. Like most Americans, I don’t speak lawyer. I speak English. But over the past four years as a Pro Se, Self-Represented person advocating for my certain, unalienable, SACRED rights ENDOWED by GOD my CREATOR, I have had to learn to speak lawyer, at least to some degree. “Affirmative defense” is lawyer speak. In plain English an affirmative defense is like the company saying “Well, we didn’t do it, but if we did do it, we have a good reason for having done it.” What would be a good reason? Would “the law made us do it” be a good reason? Probably. Well, that is what the company said. They used that excuse many times. They used it on the days of the trial. They had witnesses who said the law made them do it. They had actual copies of what looked to be “law” there. They spoke to the “law” at that time as they provided sworn testimony. But what if all that “law” was not actual law? What happens then? Well, if that is the case, all they have is the policy to stand on, and there is no excuse. If that is the case, they can only talk about the actual law they violated, not the supposed “law” that protects and shields their bottom line. So, let’s say there is no law, and let’s say there is no affirmative defense. Let’s say, in simple terms, that the company cannot fall back on its lame excuse that “the law made us do it.” Well then, there is no excuse. The company did what it did. Ah, but what if it knows there is no affirmative defense and yet it still says: “the law made us do it”? What if it is aware – or at least has the responsibility to be aware –and still blames it on the law? That’s an interesting question, isn’t it? If the law wasn’t there and they know it wasn’t law but they blame the law anyway? Interesting. Isn’t it? What if such "law" were submitted as law? Now what if we are in a Courtroom. What if the company knows - or at least should know – that there is no such law and could be no such law but is presenting such “law” as law anyway per its excuse that “the law made us do it”? What if the Court has no idea that the “law” being referenced is not actual law because its rules only look at the form of the document and not what’s actually in it? What if the Court has no idea that the argument “the law made us do it” is completely bogus because the supposed “law” that supposedly “made us do it” is not law at all? What if the Jury hears such “law,” thinks it is actual law, and has no idea what is presented is not and could not possibly ever be actual law? Then what? What happens then? Frankly, I don’t know. I am not a lawyer. So now what? They submit “laws.” They are not real laws. They are the illusion of law. These “laws” are admitted into evidence, talked about, and testified to. If they don’t know they are not actual laws, they should know it. They are LAWyers, after all. But they do it. Right. Well . . . Let’s say I’m there. I am Pro Se. I am Self-Represented. I am no lawyer. I’m hearing all of this. I know in my heart of hearts this is only the illusion of law. Can I say anything? All I’m thinking is “are these people for real? They are lawyers. How do they not know this? Now what do I do? Now what?!” I am on the witness stand, and I can only answer the questions I am being asked. Beyond this, I am going to look really stupid in a Court of law schooling lawyers on the law, and if I do this I will get my case kicked right out of Court as any objection I raise is overruled, so now what? I’ve already presented my evidence, and it didn’t include this because they didn’t raise it, so now what? I am using physical exhibits and can only wheel so much from my house to my car to the Courthouse back to my car and back to my house in a day, and don’t have what I need when I’m sitting there on the witness stand, so now what? My constitutional case was denied two years ago, so I can’t even mention the Constitution, or I will risk having my Title VII case thrown out too, so now what? I haven’t slept in four days and my heart is pounding out of my chest being cross examined and never having done anything remotely like this in my life, so now what? I just had three-quarters of what I was planning to present to the Jury crossed out just before this, and I am a nervous wreck, so now what? I’m thinking I am going to go to jail in Court if I start questioning the law in a Court of law with a bunch of lawyers who are supposed to know the law, so now what? I could not get a lawyer to represent me (see the reasons in 3118; 3118.html), so I’m up here all alone with no one to help me, so now what? I am doing my best to try to write down the questions and “talking points” of what I am being asked while I’m being cross examined, but I’m missing almost everything because it’s going so fast and I can’t write and talk at the same time, so now what? My brain is fried from all of this and from having not slept in four days which is not helping, so now what? I’ll tell you what. My heart goes into my throat. My mind blanks out. My emotions take over. I freeze up. What do I even say? My Constitutional Claim left the tracks two years ago. I can’t talk about the Constitution now. It was denied. I can’t even bring up the Constitution. So now what? What do I even say? If I can’t talk about the Constitution, I don’t have a leg to stand on. I can’t say anything. That’s what. But the trial goes on. The company says: “the law made us do it.” It presents the “laws.” It talks about “laws” in 2020 and 2021. It puts on a show. It displays these “laws” on a big monitor for the Jury to see. It calls witnesses who testify about the “law.” And I’m sitting there like a deer in the headlights. “Law.” What “law”? What just happened? And I’m silent as a door mouse because if I can’t talk about the Constitution, what am I even going to talk about? The rest of the trial is a blur. My brain shuts down. Emotions take over. I lose it from there so that I can’t even think of a proper closing argument. Anyway, you get the picture. There’s “law” and then there’s law. What happened in 2020 and 2021 was not “the law made us do it.” It was “law” yes, but it was not law. This needs a lot of explanation, so please stick with me. It’s a lot to explain. This may take a while, and the week of May 5, 2025 I was only given about a day to prove my case. This will take considerably longer . . . How am I going to prove the statement "the law made us do it" is full of bologna? First, I need to bring up a few facts. Mind you, the facts that I am going to bring up are all obvious facts. Some of the facts are at one level of the law (like a local law). Some of the facts are at a different level of the law (like a federal law). Then there are “laws.” These are not actual laws. They might look like laws, but they are not actual laws. Then there are company policies which are also facts. These are rules governing employee behavior. The company said there were actual laws that forced it to create these policies . . . but . . . what we are going to study is whether the “laws” it relied on were real laws or just illusions of “law.” If they were real law, okay. Maybe the company’s defense that the “law made us do it” holds water. But if these “laws” are just the illusion of “law,” then all they have is their own policy . . . and if that policy violates the actual law, it’s game over. Let’s see how this plays out. Stick with me, and we will sort it all out, piece by piece, step by step. First, let’s look at two concepts we have already touched on but have not given words to. We need to give them words so we can talk about them. The first concept is MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT, which translates as “that which is known need not be proven” or “obvious facts need no proof.” As I said before, we need proof, and the proof I am going to provide is obvious fact that conforms to this standard of MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT. The second concept we will explore is called COLOR OF LAW. It is a name for this concept that we have mentioned where there is actual law versus the illusion of “law.” What we are going to largely discuss is how the company operated under color of law in development and administration of policy as well as how it used it to shirk its responsibility to follow actual law. We need to understand both concepts before we move on, so what follows is an explanation and definition of both concepts . MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT Don’t you just love Latin? I don’t know much Latin, but it’s used a lot in law. I came across this term, MANIFESTA PROBATIONE NON-INDIGENT, and I really like it. I like it because it is an appeal to common sense. It’s translated as “that which is known need not be proven” or “obvious facts need no proof.” In simpler terms, it means “Hey buddy! If there is something so obvious a fourth grader would know, let’s not waste time in Court. We know it. Don’t’ waste time trying to prove common sense. Move on!” A simple example would be “the sky is blue.” The typical example lawyers use for it is “it was raining Monday.” I find that example funny. Why? Because that doesn’t seem like an obvious fact to me. Raining where? Raining when? How hard was it raining? Anyway, that’s the example they give. The examples of proof I am going to give are far more obvious than the weather. They are KNOWNS. In fact, they are so widely accepted that a fourth grader would know most of them, and I did know most of them in fourth grade. Other facts we will use are known to the Court, and, by extension, to the general population. At least, they are available if you know where to look for them. The significance of this concept of MANIFESTA PROBATIONE NON-INDIGENT is that if we have a fact that is obvious, we need not prove it because we all pretty much already know it. We can say it or not say it, but we all know it. That is the proof I will offer. MANIFESTA PROBATIONE NON-INDIGENT, “that which is known need not be proven,” “obvious facts need no proof.” WHAT IS COLOR OF LAW? I will admit I never even heard of this concept until very recently, and, even when I did hear about it, I had no idea what it meant. Color of law? What is that? I first saw it on an order from the Court. This was on March 30, 2023 when the Court kicked out my Constitutional Claim. At that time, the Court said I could not and did not prove that the company was operating under “color of law.” “Color of law? What’s that?” I thought . . . so I looked it up. I went to the Courthouse. It occurred to me that the Court issued the order. The Court said “color of law” on the March 30, 2023 order, right? The Court must know what it means. So I went to the Court to ask the Court what it meant by “color of law.” I went to the Law Library on the 22nd Floor of the Courthouse. What I found was interesting. Very interesting. I somehow managed to locate a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary. Black’s Law Dictionary is a dictionary of terms specific to law. In other words, if you are a lawyer and you don’t know what a legal term means, you can look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary. So that’s what I did. I looked it up. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, color of law is: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance of a legal right. The term usually implies a misuse of power made possible because the wrong doer is clothed with the authority of the state.” Whatever case law and petty low-level rulings propose as interpretation of color of law, that is what it says in Black’s Law Dictionary. Simple. Clear. Direct. It is the legal definition of Color of Law, and it is so clear a fourth grader could demonstrate understanding as to what it is saying. We will refer to the color of law again and again, so keep it in mind. Remember that there is a difference between actual law and the illusion of law. There is a difference between actual law and the appearance without the substance of law. In other words, there is a difference between actual law and the COLOR OF LAW. Proving Color of Law Now how am I going to: A.) Bring you up to speed on some basic facts, and then B.) Bring it all together so I can prove the company did not base its 2020 and 2021 policies on actual law but rather on the color of law? Well, I am going to do just that. Our first section is going to be MANIFESTA PROBATIONE NON-INDIGENT. I am going to lay out all of the obvious facts. In Section One, we are going to look at all of that evidence that needs no proof. We’re going to talk about proof that’s so simple even a fourth grader could comprehend it. We are going to talk about things so common and obvious that they need no explanation. After that, we’ll move to Section Two. In Section Two, we’re going to take that proof, and we are going to see exactly how the company was operating under color of law. We’re going to learn how the company built its policies on the illusion of law. We’re going to see how the company said it was building its policy on “law,” “mandate,” “order,” and “regulation” when there was none. We’re going to see how the company was trying to excuse its behavior and its violation of law under the premise that there was a higher law somewhere that the government issued that made the company violate the law it was really supposed to comply with, namely Title VII. Here’s really short explanation and example of Title VII. Let’s say the company has a policy that requires employees to cover their face and inject something into their body. Well, one of your employees can’t do that. They tell you they can’t because it’s against their religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief. According to Title VII, you have to permit someone to work remotely, if you already have a policy that allows for 100% remote work and you’re not paying anything extra for one person to work remotely. Bingo! That’s exactly what happened to me. That’s Title VII. It’s a really simple example of Title VII, but let’s keep this example in mind as we refer to Title VII. Now, what the company did was basically say “Well, we did not violate Title VII by not letting the employee work remotely even though we had a policy in place and didn’t have to pay anything extra . . . but we did this because “the law made us do it. Yea. The law made all these regulations we had to follow, so what else were we supposed to do?” Well, that’s fine if there is some law in place that’s higher than Title VII. But if there is no law? Well, that’s color of law. With all this said, let’s get into proving the color of law, shall we? Let’s prove that the “law” for the excuse “the law made us do it” are not actual laws. First, we will look at the facts, and then we will see how the facts line up to prove that the company’s policies were not based on law, never could be based on law, and were, in fact, in violation of the law at all levels of the law. COLOR OF LAW: SECTION ONE - MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT Obvious facts need no proof. That which is known need not be proven. Let’s look at some obvious facts that need no proof, facts which are known, facts which are so obvious they do not need to be proven. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE My first point of fact exhibit is A1A-1 (a1a-1.html), my Great Grandfather Bartol Brnjac’s Citizenship and Naturalization papers. He is my mother’s father’s father. His papers say he was “Hungarian.” Not true. He was Croatian. His papers say “Hungarian” because he was living under the Austria Hungarian rule at the time as you can read in the historical work I personally authored entitled “Midnight Train: A Croatian’s Search for Freedom” as well as its sequel “Liberté” which I also personally authored and published (www.kmpinner.com). As you can clearly understand if you read these books and study history, my Great Grandfather is American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, not Hungarian. If anyone reading this memo is not educated on such topics in order to clearly understand that fact, then please read and educate yourself. I do not have the time to spend to educate you on obvious facts and the history of my Croatian people when I already spent years of my life writing it all down for you so that you could read it for yourself. By the way, I already provided hard copies of these books to the Court and to the company on the record as shown on the docket, so it is my expectation they were both read. I will therefore not be providing any further courtesy copies. You may purchase them if you need them now via the website. As you can see from my Great Grandfather’s original citizenship and naturalization paper, he was naturalized in this very Courthouse. It’s the District Court of Missouri for the Eastern District, a different building perhaps but the same exact Court. And what does his naturalization and citizenship paper prove? It proves that this Court recognizes the Declaration of Independence as part of the Constitution of the United States of America! Look at the bottom of the document. It’s right there. It says he was naturalized “on the 4th day of April in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and Fourteen, AND OF OUR INDEPENDENCE THE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHTH.” Let’s do some basic math. Between 1776 and 1800 there are 24 years. Between 1800 and 1900 there are 100 years. Between 1900 and 1914 there are 14 years. Last I checked 24 + 100 + 14 = 138. This document is citing the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution of the United States of America as being the founding date of our nation and our government. This Court therefore recognizes the Declaration of Independence, not only as equal to the Constitution in weight and gravity but also acknowledges the fact that the Constitution of the United States of America descended from the Declaration of Independence, just as I descended from my Great Grandfather. Never mind the building, brick, and mortar, this document was stamped in this very Court; and the same Court it was in 1914 it is now in 2025; and so this Court acknowledges the Declaration of Independence as being the Great Grandfather of the Constitution of the United States of America, not only equal in value but being of the same shared legal DNA. My Great Grandfather was naturalized in the year of our Independence, and, as everyone knows who has celebrated the 4th of July in America, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. Therefore, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights must all be considered as having the same weight by this Court, and I will refer to them henceforth throughout this document, so bear this in mind in your reading of it. 42 US CODE, SECTION 1983 Next, let us turn to federal law, specifically 42 US Code, Section 1983, available to this Court on the 22nd Floor in its own Law Library. It states: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” That statement is clear as crystal to this Court, and so I will only state that I, Katherine Maria Pinner, was, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjected to and caused to be subjected to the deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws by my employer, and that I am therefore eligible for an action at law, suit in equity, and other proper proceeding for redress. JURISDICTION Now, there is a major misconception in this Country, an urban legend if you will, that the United States Supreme Court is the only Court in this Country that can hear Constitutional matters and the only Court capable of ruling on matters pertaining to the Constitution of the United States of America. Not so. That misconception on the part of the general public is nothing more than mythology. It was never the intent that our rights, the rights of the American people secured under the Constitution of the United States of America be decided by nine people in Washington DC. How did this fallacy ever permeate our society and group consciousness? Read the Constitution of the United States of America, and it’s clear that an equal distribution among these United States was first to be decided in the District Court within the State itself and then and only then where a conflict existed, escalated from the Court to the Supreme Court in order to address the conflict. If necessary, the ruling judge would go to the Supreme Court and argue the law on behalf of the State if necessary. If we are not educated on such basic civics, then a re-reading of the Constitution of the United States of America is appropriate and necessary. This concept is backed by lower law as EVERY COURT in the United States of America has jurisdiction to ensure that all matters of law conform to the Supreme LAW of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America, and this fact is further substantiated by Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the United States District Court Eastern Division of Missouri has original jurisdiction over this “color of law” matter. US CODE, TITLE 28, SECTION 1343a3 Let’s now turn to US Code, Title 28, Section 1343a3, another federal statute, which states: “The DISTRICT COURTS shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States” and “To recover damages or to secure other equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.” It is right there in black and white, dispelling the myth that only a Supreme Court of the United States of America may hear and rule on a Constitutional matter or color of law matter. The DISTRICT COURT has initial jurisdiction over the matter and this cause is in federal DISTRICT COURT. Therefore, the United States DISTRICT COURT has full authority and jurisdiction to hear and rule on a Constitutional matter or color of law matter and, if necessary, to personally take the matter to the Supreme Court to argue with another DISTRICT COURT if necessary. It is particularly OBLIGATED AND BOUND to do so if it is to protect the Constitution of the United States of America, as per Article VI, Section 2. Yes, the Judge in the case is a lawyer and not only represents the Court but is the representative of the State to the Supreme Court of the United States of America and can personally take the case him or herself if he or she deems it necessary to the protection, preservation, and security of “We the People” as secured under the Constitution of the United States of America. I’d like to further point out that the Supreme Court is obligated to hear such a case as per the Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 1 under which it was created and according to which it is permitted by the several States and “We the People” to exist at all. THE ORDER OF LAW My next point of fact exhibit is A1A-2 (a1a-2.html) the Order of Law. I found this by writing to CPA Books, PO Box 314, Clackamas, OR 97015, 503-657-4699; and it is printed in the US under ISBN: 0-944379-01-X. I urge everyone to order a copy of the publication as it is the best printed copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, the Order of Law, the Gettysburg Address, and other Words of Wisdom from our Founding Fathers I have been able to locate. A copy was already provided to the Court and the company, and I will not be providing any additional copies. Additional copies may be secured by writing to the address above. The Order of Law is a pictorial graphic of the orders and priorities of law in this Country. I have been told by lawyers that they cannot verify the accuracy of the order and priority of laws in this Country, and my only response to this is what are they teaching in law school if not the Order of Law? What?! If an attorney cannot verify the Order of Law, why is that person a lawyer to begin with? That is beyond preposterous. When I was a young girl, my father and mother taught me the Order of Law. My father who came here to escape communism made sure I knew it. My mother who married him and was an elementary school teacher at Saint George on Gravois Road in Affton made sure I knew it. I also learned it in basic civics. I learned about the Order of Law in fourth grade when I was attending Saint John the Baptist parish school in the South Saint Louis Bevo Mill neighborhood. Our class learned about religion, and we learned about civics. I may have only been ten or eleven years old, but I had a brain. I had reason. I had discernment. I was a citizen. I had rights. I had a right and duty to know, and the school, in its wisdom and duty to its Country and its kindness to me, was responsible enough to teach me my basic civil rights and duties. And let me point out to the lawyer that told me he is unable to verify the Order of Law that my parents were not well financed. They barely got by financially, but they prioritized my education and morals, because “to educate a man in mind and not morals is to educate a menace to society.” (-Theodore Roosevelt) It is a supreme injustice in the United States of America in which I now seek redress, that any member of society should not be intimately familiar with the Order of Law. My parents paid their hard-earned money to the government for its schools AND paid for our own parish school education. Yet, the government school did not teach basic civics but ours did. Why did my parents have to pay taxes on top of funding our education if those taxes were not being spent on a basic curriculum in civics in order to teach those public-school children about their basic civil rights too? That is discrimination, and this is an inequality and injustice that is still happening in America today. We have a Department of Justice and a Department of Education, yet neither is ensuring civics in the classroom. That is not justice, and that is not education. A serious redress is in order! The Constitution of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights pertain to ALL PERSONS within our Country’s borders, the borders of the several States; and if any public school is not teaching the Order of Law and basic civics, it should not exist. We the People should not have to pay for it. “We the People” should not be taxed for any schools that do not provide basic civics for the citizens and potential citizens of our Nation, and this should be done at the earliest possible age, the age of reason. All citizens (and especially members of the “Bar”!) should be intimately familiar with the Order of Law, at least by the time they graduate eighth grade, if not high school! Anything less is unjust, unethical, unfair, and unconstitutional; and this more than anything else I can point to is unraveling the basic fabric of our society. Are we “one Nation under GOD with Liberty and Justice for ALL” or aren’t we? If not, this above all else will be our undoing. As Ronald Reagan so eloquently pointed out “Without GOD, there is no virtue, because there is no prompting of the conscience. Without GOD, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without GOD, there’s a coarsening of the society. And without GOD, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.” He said this on August 23, 1984. Coincidentally that was 38 years and one day before I filed this case in federal district Court; and look at where we are today as a Nation. We must resurrect the Order of Law and every American school should be familiar with it, else how can we expect to have a productive well-ordered society? Now back to the exhibit. In the Order of Law, the Constitution of the United States of America is just under GOD’S LAW. It’s GOD’S LAW first and then man’s law. It must be so. Why? To understand this, we must have some understanding of history. I do not have time to educate the reader on the topic of history, but leave it to say that if history proves one thing it proves this: Every tyrannical, unjust system and every crime against humanity perpetrated throughout history by such systems has justified its actions by calling and deeming them “legal.” In my dad’s homeland under communism, our Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic people were murdered at the hands of the communists, and it was all considered 100% “legal” because the communist system deemed it “legal.” If you don’t know about Bleiberg and the other atrocities committed under this communist regime, I urge you to read about it. It’s documented in “Midnight Train” so that we do not forget. We must remember. The book and any book on communism like it, proves that “legal” is a slippery slope. There is a big difference between what is “legal” and what is “constitutional.” This is why, not only must the Constitution be the origin and measure of all law, we must look to GOD’S LAW; for it is written: “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens and His sovereignty rules over all.” (Psalm 103: 19) Must our concept of GOD the CREATOR be a fixed debate on religion? Certainly not. But our concept of Law and Order and Justice must include a reference to and reverence for THE CREATOR. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently penned: We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF-EVIDENT, that ALL men are CREATED EQUAL, that they are ENDOWED by THEIR CREATOR with CERTAIN, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that AMONG THESE are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If you do not understand that these words, our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights are tied to GOD and originate from GOD’S LAW, I urge you to educate yourself. A good starting point is the video of the next point of fact exhibit 2123 (2123.html)of the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen, along with the corresponding supportive essay “A Declaration of Dependence” which is Chapter 10 of his book “A Declaration of Dependence: Trusting GOD amidst Totalitarianism, Paganism, and War.” I was mocked for citing a “dead man” during trial the week of May 5, 2025. Perhaps those mocking have need to read more on the topic and the timeless truths of a Venerable, a man who dedicated his entire life to education, publications, public speaking, theology, academics, philosophy, not to mention visiting leper colonies, helping the needy, leading the World Missionaries, and countless other acts of charity. Myself and many other Croatians, hold the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen in special regard because our families experienced tyranny and totalitarianism firsthand. We were genocided. We were dispersed throughout the globe because of an evil system, totalitarianism, socialism, communism, globalism, or any other “ism” dis – ease word you want to call it by. Our people were persecuted for being Croatian, could not even call ourselves Croatian in our own homeland. The Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheens remarkable words resound in my ears and my heart and my mind because of my dad’s story of what he personally lived through. To many like me the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen is already a saint. I urge anyone to read his book, watch his speeches, look at his videos like the one presented in Court, read a firsthand account by a survivor of a totalitarian regime and then that person will certainly realize that his words are even more true today than they were 50 years ago. He knew what was on the horizon. He knew what was coming if we didn’t change the direction of the ship, and he was right. There can be no human dignity without GOD. GOD is the origin of our human dignity. Our rights and liberties come to us from GOD. GOD’S LAW is above man’s law. I do not have time or energy to educate a person on these basic principles of Liberty, Justice, and Democracy; so I urge you to educate yourself if you do not know. A good place to start is point of fact exhibit AAA (aaa.html), a collection of profound verses that demonstrate GOD’S LAW, many of which were on the Trial Exhibits admitted, published, and read into record as part of this case. The Order of Law is more fact and truth than any measly case law, and any lawyer that does not acknowledge this should revisit history, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, and become more familiar with the tragedies and atrocities committed by totalitarian systems of governments that declare themselves the sole rulers of men and what is “legal.” THE CDC, THE WHO, AND THE COLOR OF LAW I am going to point out a few points of facts to the federal government, and the federal government can do its own “fact checking” and research into the topic, but it is my impression it should already know something that a ten-year-old knew in parish school. The CDC is not law. It does not issue law. It does not author law. It does not have any representative elected by “We the People” to create, write, and enforce law. It does not have any elected representatives in its employ as demonstrated on the Order of Law. It is not even on the Order of Law. It does not advise on law. It does not enforce the law; nor can it obligate businesses to enforce or make law. It is not above the Supreme LAW of the Land. In fact, it does not even hold the same authority as local government as pertains to law and law enforcement. It is not in a position of being able to infringe on the certain, unalienable, SACRED rights of “We the People” of the United States of America; and, perhaps most importantly, it is not above GOD’S LAW! I would like to thank United States District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle for leading the charge in this Country to straighten us out on this point via Case # 8:21-CV-1693-KKM-AEP in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. You are a hero of the American people, and more people should be aware of your leadership. The case basically stated that the CDC exceeded its authority over face coverings in airports. The basic ruling is what is stated above regarding the CDC as pertains to the Color of Law. The CDC has nothing to do with law. The same is even more true of the WHO. WHO are you to take away my constitutional rights? You are a nobody. The WHO isn’t even an American entity. It doesn’t just fail as “law” based on the standards described above, the WHO isn’t even recognized by the American people as having any authority at all as its people are FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES! The only common item it should be governed by is GOD’S LAW as all people should seek to abide by GOD’S LAW, but I would argue that the way and manner in which it has conducted itself demonstrates it does not even acknowledge or prescribe to GOD’S LAW. Therefore, it is defunct as pertains to the law in this Country. It was not established under the Constitution of the United States of America and is therefore defunct as it carries no legal authority whatsoever. Therefore any citation to the CDC or the WHO as law is operating under the color of law as the CDC and WHO are not law, do not make law, do not enforce law, do not appear in the Order of Law, and on and on I could go. MISSOURI SUPREME COURT RULE #8.15 Further, all lawyers must abide by this point of fact truth that is Missouri Supreme Court Rule #8.15, which is their Oath as shown in point of fact exhibit A1A-3 (a1a-3.html), published in black and white on www.courts.mo.gov. Note that the first item under this oath is to “support the Constitution of the United States.” That statement means that they should know what is and is not law and that they should be intimately familiar with the Order of Law. Any citation of the WHO or CDC as law or regulation to excuse the company’s behavior is color of law (see response to Plaintiff Interrogatories 1, 2, and 3). I, as a citizen of the United States of America expect a lawyer to know that the CDC and the WHO are not law. Anyone and especially those sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the “Supreme LAW of the Land” per Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America must know that the CDC and the WHO are not in the Order of Law. And guess where the lawyers in the State of Missouri take their Oath . . . In the Federal District Courthouse, the United States District Courthouse Eastern Division of Missouri. They swear in Court in front of a Judge and then they file their paperwork in the Clerk’s Office in Suite 300 on the third floor. I know. I was there. I saw it for myself. I’ve been in the Courthouse many times filing motions, and two lawyers came in looking for the Courtroom and dropping off their paperwork. So, it stands to reason that if someone is a lawyer and that lawyer swears and oath, that lawyer should know: 1.) the Order of Law, and 2.) that the CDC and WHO are not law. The CDC and the WHO are the color of law. Anyone quoting or citing them as law is operating under color of law. It is so obvious that the CDC and WHO are not law that anyone in this Country with even a knowledge of basic civics knows that the CDC and the WHO are not law. There was no CDC or WHO “law” in 2020, 2021 or at any time in history, nor can there ever be in the future. Calling the CDC and the WHO “law” is operating under the color of law, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law. This idea that the CDC and the WHO are law – even and especially if declared by a lawyer - demands a redress. It is wrong, and I am writing to redress a wrong. AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE Let’s look at another obvious point of fact exhibit, American Jurisprudence, A1A-4 (a1a-4.html). When I was researching the law (the actual law), I spent many hours in the Law Library. The librarians are amazing people. They were so kind and helpful, just like the security officers on the ground floor when you enter the building and the people in the clerk’s office. Wonderful people, all of them. The Library is an especially beautiful place. I wish more people would go there. I never saw another person there in four years. Every time I went it was totally vacant. Sad. It should be overflowing, but it was empty. Perhaps it’s for the best though. Perhaps it was a blessing because I could really focus. I went up there to find a specific quote. I didn’t even know what American Jurisprudence was. I just had the quote but no context. What I unearthed was incredible. It was a preponderance of evidence. There are volumes and volumes of books, but there is one series that is above them all: American Jurisprudence. Phenomenal! I don’t know how lawyers and judges use this book, but they should use it. They should all use it, and they should teach it. Every law school should teach it. Every high school civics class should teach it. It is the best explanation of the Order of Law I have ever read! The exhibit is a compilation of all the quotes I accumulated at the library; and there are a few I would like to point out. They are all cited in the Exhibit as per their location in that vast volume of Constitutional Law. I would like to call special attention to the quote on page 28 as it so eloquently and directly reinforces this concept of COLOR OF LAW: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose. Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed and never existed; that is, it is void ab initio. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, it follows that generally the statute imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office or liabilities, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, is incapable of creating any rights or obligations, does not allow for the granting of any relief, and justifies no acts performed under it. Once a statute is determined to be unconstitutional, no private citizen or division of the state may take any further action pursuant to its provisions. A contract that rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. A law contrary to the United States Constitution may not be enforced. Once a statute has been declared unconstitutional, courts thereafter have no jurisdiction over alleged violations. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. Simply put, any law that is unconstitutional is not law. Period. To put it another way, any law that is unconstitutional is merely COLOR OF LAW, not actual law and is thereby rendered entirely null and void in perpetuity. I urge a close reading of the exhibit, but for the sake of time, I will point out a few important quotes that reinforce this concept of actual law as per the actual Constitution of the United States of America versus COLOR OF LAW.
Let me say here that my constitutional case was prematurely denied under this standard. Now let us continue . . .
SO, WHAT ABOUT A PERSON’S RIGHT TO BREATHE? WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN IMMUNE SYSTEM? WHAT ABOUT A RIGHT TO THE INSIDE OF THE BODY, THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM, THE IMMUNE SYSTEM, THE CONSCIENCE? What is the point of the Constitution, or any law made in pursuance thereof if it does not protect these? Did I miss something? In fact, it is my firm belief that the Founders would have thought this so OBVIOUS and SELF-EVIDENT as not even worth mentioning. THESE ARE ME, and if I do not have a right to ME, what good are any other rights? Talk about rights that are so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed! If governments are instituted to “secure these rights” and the right to ME (my internal systems, my respiratory system, my immune system, my conscience, my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief) is not secured, what is the point of government as understood under the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights? There is no point. Securing fundamental rights is not a role of government, it is THE role of government. According to the Declaration of Independence, it is the ONLY role of government. Let me be clear. I seek redress that the Court kicked out my Constitutional Claim on my fundamental right to BREATHE. HAVE AN IMMUNE SYSTEM. HAVE SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE INSIDE OF MY OWN BODY, including my respiratory system, my immune system, my health, my mind, my soul, my person, my conscience . . . I am a patient, respectful, kind, and courteous person, but I am writing to redress a wrong. The Court denied my Constitutional Claim prematurely. And I am not alone in my request for redress. A reading or “hearing” of these matters is in order as these are fundamental rights to all people. These rights are endowed to all persons, regardless of their religion (or even the lack thereof) because regardless of whether a person believes in THEIR CREATOR, they are nonetheless endowed by THEIR CREATOR with these rights. OUR ENDOWMENT The words “ENDOWED WITH” are important. It is an important point of fact that these words were very carefully selected by Thomas Jefferson, and we should not take them lightly. They deserve a close reading. In the world of finance, an endowment is sometimes used to mean receipt of something – usually an inheritance – and that something has tremendous value and worth to the recipient. Well, what could be more valuable than our endowment of fundamental rights and liberties from GOD, THE CREATOR by the very virtue of our CREATION?! We didn’t have to do one thing to earn these rights. They were freely given. They were imparted by virtue of our creation at the time of our creation. They are evidenced, not in anything we said or did, but by the fact of our very existence. So I ask, who is the congress, the court, or the corporation to steal my endowment? I demand a redress. And because these fundamental rights are timeless and the attestation of these rights are timeless based on the words penned in the Declaration of Independence, a document which this Court acknowledged and stamped on my Great Grandfather’s citizenship and naturalization paper, my call for redress has no expiration date on it. It is a permanent fixture on my citizenship as inherited from my Great Grandfather and a permanent and immediate obligation of the Court per Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America. I inherited my certain, unalienable, SACRED rights from my Heavenly Father; the acknowledgement of these certain, unalienable SACRED rights from our Country’s forefathers; and my citizenship and naturalization and identity as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic from my Great Grandfather, my Father, my Mother, and all of my Grandfathers and Grandmothers. My RIGHTS AND ENDOWMENT BY GOD, documented as per the Bill of Rights, were infringed, and I am writing to redress this wrong. I am seeking redress from the government to which I pay taxes to secure these rights. I do this because the sole duty and reason for existence of the Court is to secure these rights. Let us now turn our attention to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme Law of the Land. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Let’s explore a few more uncontested facts, shall we? It has already been noted and is an established fact of law and civics and via American Jurisprudence that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, commonly called the Bill of Rights, are as much a part of the Constitution as the words contained in the Articles themselves. Again, I knew this as far back as the fourth grade at Saint John the Baptist. Therefore, let us consider the Articles and the Amendments together in this section as we explore the Supreme Law of the Land. I shall take them one by one as there are many to explore in relation to this case, the Constitutional Claim, and Redress. The 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America In suits of common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law. This Amendment makes an important provision. It states that no fact tried by a Jury may be re-examined unless by the rules of common law. Since my certain, unalienable SACRED rights are a matter LAW (the Supreme LAW of the Land) and common to all men based on GOD the CREATOR’S LAW which is above both the laws of men and the common law, redress and re-examination seem appropriate, particularly in consideration of color of law which we will explore further on. Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. As the Constitution of the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land, I expect that this law should be applied in the re-examination of the full scope of evidence. In fact, this Supreme Law should be applied to all cases, and that my case did not even receive a reading or “hearing” on this matter does not conform to this Constitutional provision. Further, the statement “laws made in pursuance thereof” means that only laws which are Constitutional are laws. There have been assumptions made that certain “laws” in 2020 and 2021 were valid laws and not color of law, and that events at the time warranted the making of such laws. There was a wrongful assumption of validity, and, as such the Court denied the Constitutional Claim early on before there was time to discover, research, and examine the actual evidence. As such, the Court denied the Constitutional Claim. The claim was denied without so much as a reading or “hearing,” and I am therefore writing to redress this wrong, particularly in consideration of this being a civil rights issue common to all men. It certainly should not have been denied when it applies to rights so fundamental as to be considered part of the person him or herself at the time of his or her CREATION (namely breath, breathing, immunity, internal systems, the respiratory system, the immune system, the face, the conscience, religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief, health, and life itself). You want to talk about CERTAIN. What is more certain than what I possess on the inside of my body as my endowment from GOD, namely the temple of the spirit? You want to talk about UNALIENABLE? What is more unalienable (cannot be separated from) than my own body, my lungs, my respiratory system, and the immune system that permeates every cell of my body. I challenge a surgeon to even attempt to remove them from me. It is impossible. They are so inalienable to me that to remove them would be to dissect me to the point of disintegration. THEY ARE ME! A second grader is capable of grasping this point of fact. And because a second grader can grasp this point of fact, it is SELF-EVIDENT. It requires no explanation. You want to talk about TRUTH? What about GOD’S TRUTH and GOD’S LAW? The design of the human person is divinely planned and implemented, for it is written: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” Jeremiah 1:5. The human form does not need an MRNA injection to be better or more suitable to society or to GOD. The human form does not need a face cover to operate better or to be more suitable to society or to GOD. The human person is perfectly designed and formed because GOD, the CREATOR created man; and because GOD the CREATOR of the entire universe and of all things VISIBLE and INVISIBLE, is OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT, and OMNIPRESENT; and because GOD the CREATOR created man in his own image. Genesis 1:27 Who is the Court to question GOD! Who is the Congress to question GOD! Who is the Corporation (what an utterly ridiculous thought this is) to question GOD! No “emergency” justifies a suppression of my GOD GIVEN right TO MY OWN BODY! MY INTERNAL SYSTEMS! MY HEALTH AS I SEE FIT TO ATTEND TO IT! MY OWN RESPIRATORY SYSTEM! MY OWN IMMUNE SYSTEM! What kind of tyranny will become of the world if man’s emergencies can trump GOD’S ENDOWMENTS at the mere whims of a politician or popular opinion and mob mentality. Even the communists did not go so far. I will here assert as I have asserted many times before that all rights set in writing in the Bill of Rights, which this Court recognizes as preeminent to the Constitution of the United States of America per Bartol Brnjac’s naturalization and citizenship papers and far back as 1914, are outside of the human body with the solitary exception of religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief. Let’s review, shall we? 1st Amendment – speech, press, assembly, petition, redress 2nd Amendment – arms 4th Amendment – houses, papers, effects 6th Amendment – trial, jury, witnesses All of these rights are external things. So why doesn’t the Bill of Rights specifically list things that are internal, such as internal systems, respiratory systems, immune systems, breath, breathing, nose, mouth airway, lungs, face, etc.? Well, besides these being covered by the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, it’s because it’s the TRUTH. It’s because they are CERTAIN. It’s because they are UNALIENABLE. It’s because they are SELF-EVIDENT. It’s because they ARE THE PERSON. It’s because they are ME. It’s because the Founders probably assumed we were not so obtuse, unreasonable, uneducated, and, frankly, stupid as to have to list things so close to a person as to BE the very person to whom they were writing! The Founders would be appalled, so absolutely disgusted to even contemplate that anyone would not think these rights certain, unalienable, and SACRED – that is a man’s right to his very SELF! But here we are. Here we are. And I am in a position to have to write it down. Have we as a society devolved so far down the path from human dignity and recognition of our endowments that I am in a position of having to write to redress such a wrong and assert my right to have the simple courtesy of a Court’s reading or “hearing” of it? I have exhibited the utmost patience with the “process,” and my patience, turned to persistence, has led me to a preponderance of evidence so glaringly unjust that the Court shall and must read or “hear” it. I am quite frankly done being polite. These are my CERTAIN. UNALIENABLE. SACRED. RIGHTS. They are my ENDOWMENT. They are from GOD. They were given to me by my CREATOR at the time of my CREATION. This matter therefore warrants redress. I am, in the words of a rural Missouri politician, “FED up”! My respiratory system is on the inside of my body. It is a preeminent right. Its design is SACRED. It needs no improvement. It is my ENDOWMENT from GOD, my CREATOR who gave me breath and life. And I am ENDOWED by GOD my CREATOR with a certain, unalienable SACRED right to breathe as GOD my CREATOR intended. My immune system is on the inside of my body. It is a preeminent right. Its design is SACRED. It needs no improvement. It is my ENDOWMENT from GOD, my CREATOR. And I was ENDOWED by GOD, my CREATOR with a certain unalienable SACRED right to natural immunity as GOD my CREATOR intended. Who are you to steal my endowment, and who is the corporation to demand it! In this Country, there are laws against stealing, attempted robbery, and trespassing. Is there no law against stealing, attempted robbery, and trespassing as pertains to my certain, unalienable, SACRED endowment and the inside of my own body! Is it excused just because a corporation happens to be an “it”? I don’t think so, because if the corporation tried to steal my purse, my personal papers, my house, my car, or my effects, the Court would prevent it. But where is the law, you say? Well, there is a law against it, and it’s called the Supreme LAW, as a matter of fact, and the corporation has violated that law and every other level of the law. Before we get there, we still have some obvious facts to lay out. It’s absurd I am in a position of stating obvious facts like this, but here we are as a society, so I will do it. The Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen predicted this time in American history very well. He said: It is a characteristic of any decaying civilization that the great masses of the people are unconscious of the tragedy. Humanity in a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because it involves too much self-accusation and principally because they have no standards outside of themselves by which to measure their times. If there is no fixed concept of justice how shall men know it is violated? Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world; the great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on, because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they have fallen. How true his words are. Men have forgotten their origin and their endowments. Men are losing sight of their human dignity. The evidence is all around us. And so, we are losing sight of our Supreme Law as well. GOD’S LAW is no longer in our collective conscience and so our Constitution is losing its impact in our collective conscience as well. The spirit is failing. And what is left? The letter. It is the sign of the times that I am writing this. The Constitution is like a pale shadow of its youthful spirit. Can we revive it? Is it too late? And so, I am writing to redress a wrong because I will not see it further degraded. The Constitution of the United States of America is our best hope to redress what is wrong, not just in respect to this case but in respect to all cases. Since we are at this point in history, there’s something else I’d like to point out even for those who do not believe that their origin is from their CREATOR. There are other certain unalienable rights specific to my body and bodily functions, and not once did a corporation ask me for a note in order to execute my primary biology. I was never asked to provide a note in order to go to the bathroom, eat, drink, bleed, feel pain, rest, throw up, pass out, put on a coat, stretch my back, sit down, sneeze, cough, or any other primary biological function necessary and essential to life and to my SELF as per the manner in which I was originally designed and formed by GOD, and yet the company demanded a note in order to BREATHE and in order to preserve my IMMUNE SYSTEM. It required a note for me to have what is endowed to me by GOD as if it were the custodian of my formation, my creation, my endowment, my rights, my biology, my very SELF, and the temple of my SOUL. For this I demand a redress! You do not own ME. Me and my house serve the LORD, the ALMIGHTY, the ALPHA and the OMEGA! Where has our very concept of human dignity gone? This body of mine is not some random cluster of coincidentals. This body – ME, if you will – I, if you will – houses my SOUL. Who are you to infringe on my TEMPLE?! I demand redress. I especially demand redress as these systems function 24/7/365. My breath is fundamental to my LIFE. My immune system is fundamental to my LIFE. They are more connected to my life than anything else that sustains my TEMPLE. (If you do not know the temple of which I speak, read 1 Corinthians 3: 16-17 and 1 Corinthians 6: 19 again). As the right to LIFE is stated in the Declaration of Independence and affirmed through the Constitution of the United States of America and via all laws made in pursuance thereof, my redress cannot be a “negotiation.” “Settle?” What is settle? Settle is like the sediment at the bottom of the ocean. Death. Decay. Decline. In Shakespeare’s play, “The Merchant of Venice,” Iago demands from Antonio a pound of flesh in exchange for a debt. How is this any different? The corporation wanted to extract a pound of my flesh (my respiratory system and immune system). If put on a scale, they would weigh in totality far more than a single pound. They wanted to declare sovereignty over my body’s operation and function in exchange for money. Well, you may have your pound of flesh, Portia argues, but you may not have one drop of Christian blood. And so it is . . . but you may not have one pound of flesh or blood either. You may not have even one cell of my flesh nor my blood as my flesh and my blood belong to me. They are Christian flesh and blood, and they were directly endowed to me by my CREATOR, my GOD. They are my endowment, and so thou shalt back off! I’d also like to point out the utterly flawed and defective and repugnant thinking that only a person who has a doctor (the company mandated a doctor’s note) or a religion (the company mandated a religious leader’s note) is able to enjoy and participate in the fundamental rights that are certain, unalienable, and SACRED (breath, breathing, airway, face, nose, mouth, immune system, respiratory, etc.) and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. Under the Constitution of the United States of America, even those who do not participate in any religion have a right to his or her very SELF. Those who do not visit a doctor by choice not to mention religion and strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs, have a right to their very SELF. These persons should not be deprived because they cannot obtain a “note” to justify the necessity of their creation and endowment of their primary biology as endowed by GOD, whether they believe in GOD or not or whether they go to the doctor or not. What a terrible concept that only those with religion and a strongly / sincerely held religious belief and those with doctors have access to their certain, unalienable, SACRED rights by GOD. No man should have to have a doctor or a religion. ALL MEN are endowed with certain, unalienable, SACRED rights. They should not have to obtain a note or get permission from HR in order to access them. How flawed, defective, and repugnant to think that Corporate HR is the keeper and arbitrator of a man’s certain, unalienable SACRED rights and liberties and that only those who are sick (ADA) or religious (Title VII, . . . but only if authorized by HR’s definition and decision of what is religious, mind you) are entitled to them! As an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, I directly oppose this injustice. ALL MEN, means ALL MEN. There is no distinction. ALL MEN were created by the CREATOR and ALL MEN are endowed by the CREATOR even if they don’t believe in the CREATOR (much less the doctor!). Therefore, asking for a note to maintain one’s certain, unalienable, SACRED rights (breath, breathing, face, lungs, respiratory system, immune system, nose, mouth, airway) is, in and of itself, discrimination and disparate treatment. This point of truth fact demands a redress, and so I am writing to redress a wrong in our society, and not merely as it pertains to this specific case. Further, asking for a note goes against my ENDOWMENT. It implies that the doctor or the pastor or priest or some other man is the keeper or permitter of my endowment. I directly oppose this utterly flawed, defective, and repugnant thinking. NO MAN should need to seek a note or permission from another man in order to breathe, to have a respiratory system, to have an immune system, to enjoy good natural health. I am no cattle. I may be a mere “resource” to corporate America, but I am HUMAN. GOD made me human and designed me, and that design is SACRED. It is CERTAIN. It is UNALIENABLE. Has it occurred to anyone else that viruses have existed since the dawn of time and that they serve a purpose in nature to GOD’S PLAN AND DESIGN? Viruses have been around for countless millennia. They are not new. Therefore, it seems that the only thing “unprecedented” about these “emergencies” were the utter hysteria and loss of right reason around them. Fear is a powerful tool to control men’s thinking, and in the face of fear men lose reason. Will we as a society ever again regain our senses, our faith, our common sense, our acknowledgement of our dignity, our acknowledgement from the CREATOR GOD? Will we ever regain the spirit of the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution of the United States of America? The Bill of Rights? I am certain that the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen is praying for us to have these restored. I am also praying for US to have them restored because I know from listening to my father and others who have survived communism what happens if we do not have these acknowledged and restored. And even the communists were not so bold as to block or intercept a person’s airway or give them an injection they did not want. Even the communists did not get into the medical. But my employer demanded this of me. You MUST! You MUST! You NEED TO! And so, I am writing to redress this wrong. It is a thorn in my side. Because if the congress, court, or company can continue to think they own my temple just because of an “emergency,” there will always be an “emergency.” That’s how communism works. That’s how tyranny begins. It was the very reason the Constitution of the United States of America was written and implemented to begin with: to secure these rights, even, and perhaps especially, in times of “emergency.” What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights if I am deprived of the right of MY OWN PERSON?! What is the point of “property”? What is the point of “paper”? What is the point of “arms”? What is the point of “effects”? “Speech”? “Assembly”? “Petition”? “Redress”? “Houses”? “Trial”? “Witnesses”? What good are they if I am deprived of my most SACRED right, the right to my own TEMPLE of my SOUL, my ENDOWMENT from my CREATOR by virtue of my very CREATION?! And if a corporation, a congress, or a court can take this first preeminent right that is internal and unalienable to my SELF, they can take any other right or item I possess that is external to my SELF. If man is so dull as to go by the letter of the law instead of the spirit, if I am unable to demand redress based on GOD’S LAW and the Supreme LAW of the Land, then at least it should be at a minimum based on the letter for such things as basic as robbery, attempted robbery, trespassing, suffocation, practicing medicine without a license, and the like that are illegal even under man’s law. We call on the letter when the spirit is dying. That is what I see with all the case law nonsense I am expected to produce in lieu of looking to the highest law, the supreme LAW, and the law on which the supreme LAW is based: GOD’S LAW. Policies issued by the company were unconstitutional ultimatums that would grant the company a certain, unalienable right to the inside of my body (respiratory system and immune system for starters), as well as my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs, health, and conscience, and thus egregiously infringed on my certain, unalienable SACRED right as ENDOWED by GOD my CREATOR to my own internal systems (respiratory system and immune system for starters) as well as my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief, health, and conscience; and the company did this under color of law and at every level of the law as I will prove beyond all reasonable doubt using a preponderance of evidence in addition to that which has already been stated. I am writing to redress this wrong, and I will not rest until I do. “We the People” will not rest until we do. In its denial (Court Doc #33, Page 10, Item 37 filed on 4/13/23), the company stated that my statements above about the CREATOR, my GOD are statements of my religious beliefs and that they do not require response from the company. Well then, why did they and do they continue to harass and challenge them? Why do they request notes? Why does the conversation continue into Court? That is religious persecution, and I am writing to redress this wrong. I will not see my Country fail and fall into something even worse than what my dad lived through during genocide and communism. It is my duty and my obligation as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic not to see it fail and fall, and the redress I seek is to have my certain unalienable SACRED rights acknowledged per the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights. Else why did my dad cross and ocean with no money, jo job, no language skills, and a warrant out for his death in order to come here (A1A-9) (a1a-9.html)? Why did Timothy John Pinner sail as second mate for the Merchant Seaman’s Corps (MSC) under the Department of Defense for over twenty years? Why did he serve his Country in the Navy, in Vietnam, in Desert Storm, in the Persian Gulf War, in Iraq, and then give his life in service to his Country in Afghanistan where he received a traumatic brain injury while serving as a civilian overseas with the Army Corps of Engineers (A1A-10)(a1a-10.html)? Why did my maternal Grandfather leave his wife and family to join the Navy in WWII and risk his life and his family’s future overseas (A1A-11) (a1a-11.html)? Why did my Great Grandfather leave his homeland to come here to be naturalized in 1914 (A1A-12) (a1a-12.html)? Did my family do all of that for nothing? Did they sacrifice only to see their certain, unalienable SACRED rights lost? And lost to what? To color of law?! I don’t even have words for that. What do you even call that? And if this very Courthouse where people are still naturalized today doesn’t consider the Constitution in my claim, then why have a Courthouse at all? I’ve been to the Courthouse on the day when people are being naturalized and receiving their citizenship papers. It’s a beautiful day, and it reminds me of what my Father and Grandfather must have felt when they became citizens. To go there and see the smiles on peoples’ faces when they become citizens is the most remarkable thing. It’s the most beautiful, inspiring image of America I can think of, right out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Should we now tell all of those people that they came here for nothing, that their journey to Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Truth, Equality, and Democracy was totally and utterly pointless? Should we tell them that they only exchanged one tyranny for another? Some of the people in our government think that the most powerful gift we offer the world is weapons and bread. How shortsighted and naïve these people are. Do they not realize that the most powerful gift we give to the world is our CONSTITUTION, our BILL OF RIGHTS, our DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. It is our principles that other countries admire. That is what I have experienced and what I believe as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, daughter of an immigrant, a man who came to this Country with no money, no job, no language skills, and a warrant out for his death. I can’t even talk to my dad about what happened. The thought that he came here to lose certain unalienable SACRED rights that he had even in 1964 under communism hurts his heart, and I can’t stand to see my dad cry. When my dad was 19 he left his homeland and his family to escape the communist system. The Country was beautiful, but the government was tyrannical. You could not own property. There was no freedom of speech. There was no free press. There was no concept of a jury or anything remotely even resembling justice. And there was no freedom of religion. For four years I have been working on this case. I don’t talk about it to my dad. I can’t. It’s too painful to him. It makes him cry. It makes him wonder why he left. At least under communism at that time they had medical freedom and sovereignty over their own bodies. At least the communists were overt in their tyranny. They’d just shoot you so you could see the oppression. But this is more subtle, more insidious, and less obvious because it’s the “letter” of the ”law.” Well, I am writing to redress that wrong, that untruth, because the letter must subscribe to the spirit. If letter does not align to the spirit, then it is not law. If the letter of the law is not aligned to the supreme LAW, then it is no law at all. It is only the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law, the COLOR OF LAW. What happened in America? We used to be a symbol of Freedom and Democracy all over the world. I will tell you what happened. We forgot our Constitution. We killed the spirit in favor of the letter. And watch what comes next, for when the spirit is gone, the vultures will gather (Matthew 24: 28); and they are gathering. A Country with the letter and no spirit will prioritize what is “legal,” and “legal” is a slippery slope. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between what is legal and what is constitutional. Everything the communists did was “legal.” If history proves nothing else, it proves this. My family knows all about it. My dad lived through it. I know too because I heard his story. I wrote about it so that we would not forget. Let us not repeat that sad chapter of history here on this soil. What we don’t remember we are doomed to repeat. Let us revive the spirit before it is too late. More people throughout human history have been tortured and have suffered far worse deaths and in worse ways at the hands of tyranny than have died from all of the single celled viruses on the planet combined. Pick up any history book and educate yourself if you have not yet learned this lesson; for if we do not know the past, we are destined to repeat it. There is another point of fact A1A-5 (a1a-5.html)that is called the American’s Creed. Are you familiar with it? My parents had a beautiful, framed copy of it in our family-owned business on Gravois Road in the Bevo Mill neighborhood where I grew up. I saw it every day. I read those words. I said that Creed. As an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic I said that Creed. I say the Apostles Creed and I say the American’s Creed. They are not mutually exclusive. But as I get older, I am starting to wonder. Am I saying those words and am I going to continue to say those words if the Country no longer looks to GOD’S LAW as being preeminent to man’s laws? If that is the case and there is now only man’s law, then by speaking my American’s Creed, I am swearing an oath to tyranny, and that I cannot do. That I will not do. As the daughter of an immigrant who escaped communism where man’s changing and fickle law was the only law and what was “legal” was subject to the whims and agendas of those with power and money, I cannot and will not say such a Creed. To do so without thought of GOD’S LAW would be to put my faith in government instead of in GOD ALMIGHTY, as if government (and by extension the corporation . . . how ridiculous) were the originator of my rights and liberties. It would be to deny the true origin of these which is GOD, my CREATOR, and that would be a Creed I have a duty and obligation as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic and daughter of an immigrant from communism not to speak. How many people during the past virus looked to government instead of to GOD as their savior and author of their certain unalienable SACRED rights? I cannot answer that question. That is something each person needs to ask, and I cannot read into the hearts and minds of other men. But I tell you that is the pattern, and that pattern is a slippery slope. Once a Nation sails down that river without a course correction, it is a downward trajectory straight into giving up every good and righteous principle on which our Country was founded. It has often been said that a picture is worth a thousand words, so let us point to this picture of how the corporation is usurping the ORDER OF LAW via the COLOR OF LAW, creating an oligarchy of corporate control that seeks to position itself not just above the plain old simple letter of the law, not just above the spirit of the law as expressed through the Supreme LAW of the Land, but above GOD’S LAW as illustrated by A1A-6 (a1a-6.html)and A1A-7 (a1a-7.html). I object to this disruption of the ORDER OF LAW. What kind of flawed and defective and repugnant thinking is this?! I am writing to redress a wrong. “We the People” seek to redress this wrong. How will we redress it? For starters by actually referring to the Supreme LAW of the Land and what is truly intended by the words “Supreme LAW.” THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America states that the Constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the Land. It reads: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. What is meant by “Supreme Law of the Land"? I am a citizen of the State in which I live and a citizen of the United States of America, and, as we explored in American Jurisprudence, the Constitution of the United States of America was created by, for, and of the people. It was written to be read and interpreted by “We the People,” not only attorneys, law students, and members of the “Bar,” so my reading of it is just as valid and natural or perhaps even more accurate than a lawyer’s reading as it is not mired in “case law,” semantics, over-analysis, and theory. The read is based on that of “We the People.” It is what we - who are the first branch of government and who are the originators of government - read it to mean in “plain speak.” Government in the United States of America was created to answer to “We the People” not the other way around, and “We the People” identify the Constitution of the United States of America as the Supreme LAW of the Land. So . . . what does it mean to be “Supreme”? What is “Supreme”? Here is what “We the People” might mean by “Supreme.”
Now when “We the People” say Supreme Law of the Land, what does that mean? It means that we weigh every law and decision against it. If the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, it means that the Constitution of the United States of America IS A LAW. Did you get that? The Supreme Law IS LAW. If something is in the Constitution of the United States of America which IS A LAW, no further law is needed. Where the Constitution speaks clearly on a topic, any further law is just noise. Any further law beyond what is in the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND which is in and of itself a LAW is not only redundant, it's superfluous and “just a bunch of words on a piece of paper,” a degraded duplicate that is weak, limp, vacuous, and lank. Any further law is just a mere shadow, a pale reflection, a dim candle compared to the glory and clarity and substance of the original LAW. Drafting any further words on a subject to which the United States of America has already spoken is gibberish of a rambling and obtuse mind. Such is the reverence “We the People” hold for our Constitution, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme LAW of the Land. Where the Constitution speaks on a topic, it speaks clearly; it speaks definitively; it speaks authoritatively; it speaks for all men; it speaks for all generations; it speaks as the master on the topic which it addresses. It is a matter of law and of history that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution of the United States of America. Not only that, but the Constitution would not exist at all without the Bill of Rights. The only reason the Constitution exists is because of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would be dead bones, an empty vessel, a rotting shell without the substance of the first ten amendments to it. And I would argue that the first ten amendments actually pre-date and have pre-eminence over the rest of the document. How? Because they are referred to in the document that pre-dates the Constitution, the document that first postulated a Constitution, the Great Grandfather to the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence which states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the governed. Now most people think that the order of the following documents is based on the date in which they were published. The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. The Constitution was not signed until September 17, 1786, ten years later. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. This thinking suggests that the order of the documents is: Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights. However, I would argue that the proper order of the documents is: 1.) Bill of Rights, 2.) Declaration of Independence, and then 3.) Constitution of the United States of America. Why is this the case? There are two important reasons for this. First, the Bill of Rights predates the Constitution of 1786 because it is a simple list of some of the RIGHTS which were already asserted in 1776 via the Declaration of Independence. Secondly, the Bill of Rights predates both the Constitution of 1786 and the Declaration of Independence of 1776 because the RIGHTS that are listed in 1776 and secured in 1786 were endowed by GOD THE CREATOR, at the time of the first man’s creation; and the date of the first man and woman’s creation greatly predates any of the three documents later drafted, written, and ratified by man. In other words, because GOD the CREATOR pre-dates man and GOD endowed man with certain unalienable RIGHTS from the moment of man’s creation, the RIGHTS predate every document. Therefore, the proper order of our review and examination should be:
As an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, I, like the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen, firmly believe that GOD (not the congress, the court, or the corporation) is the source of our certain, unalienable SACRED rights and liberties, our ENDOWMENT. Because this endowment comes from GOD, endowment applies to ALL MEN, even those living beyond our Nation’s borders or those who do not recognize GOD as CREATOR and even those who do not value their own certain, unalienable SACRED rights. All men have certain, unalienable SACRED rights endowed by GOD, not man, and so it is GOD and GOD’S ENDOWMENT that saves us from tyranny. The Constitution was merely created, signed, implemented and exercised to secure GOD’S ENDOWMENT, our certain, unalienable SACRED rights. The rights existed long before any document or government was instituted to secure them. Note that the United States District Court of Missouri, Eastern District does not number and date my Great Grandfather’s naturalization and citizenship papers from the date of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Court dates my Great Grandfather’s papers from the date of the Declaration of Independence, and in so doing acknowledges that the RIGHTS and the Declaration have pre-eminence and greater legal force than even the Constitution of the United States of America that created the Court. Perhaps the Court has forgotten this or has tried to erase this truth, but my Great Grandfather is here to remind us of it, and I have the letters and correspondence with the current government office called the “Department of Homeland Security, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Genealogy Program to prove it as A1A-8 (a1a-8.html). I am confident other Americans have similar documents from their Great Grandparents if they can somehow locate them. Hopefully they have not been lost to history. My Great Grandfather, an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, came to this Country seeking to have his certain, unalienable, SACRED rights endowed by GOD acknowledged and secured; and as a reminder to the Court, it is the Supreme LAW of the Land that is supposed to secure them. And whose primary responsibility is it to secure them? As per Article VI, Section 2, “the Judges in every State.” So please tell me. I am trying to understand. Why was my Constitutional Claim denied before it was ever even read or “heard”? This is not in alignment with the Supreme LAW of the Land, the LAW to which the JUDGES in every STATE are BOUND. I am therefore writing to redress this wrong as is my GOD given right to do, secured under the Constitution of the United States of America. My Great Grandfather did not come to this Country for an empty promise of Freedom, Liberty, and Life. My father did not cross and ocean to come here with no money, no job, no language skills and a warrant out for this death to work and labor and pay taxes his entire life for the purpose of securing these rights only to have that same government forfeit its duty and obligation. Timothy John Pinner did not join the Navy as a seventeen year old kid, dedicate his entire life and career in service to his Country, receive two purple hearts and a bronze star and two civilian service metals and then die as the result of a traumatic brain injury in Afghanistan in civilian service for the Army Corps of Engineers just to have the law dismiss its own duty to the Constitution of the United States of America under Article VI, Section 2. How much money have I paid the government in taxes to secure these rights? How much have Americans sacrificed in order to have these rights secured under the Supreme LAW of the Land? I am writing to redress a wrong, and I hope the wrong is redressed by reading. The Court denied the Constitutional Claim, but I’d like to point out that the Constitutional Claim cannot be denied per the Constitution of the United States of America itself, as per Article VI, Section 2. Further, a Title VII Claim demands a Constitutional review. As stated in American Jurisprudence, Constitutional validity of civil rights claims cannot be assumed. A Constitutional Claim must always accompany any civil rights claim. Title VII Claims must be evaluated as Constitutional Claims, especially civil rights claims based on the First Amendment, Religion Clause. In short, it would be unconstitutional to deny my Constitutional Claim, especially before it has ever even received a reading or “hearing”; and I, as well as “We the People” are writing to redress a wrong. If civil rights are trampled underfoot under COLOR OF LAW, it is one’s duty and obligation to write to redress a wrong. That is my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief. There can be no Justice in Law without consideration of the Supreme LAW of the Land, and there can be no Supreme LAW without consideration of GOD’S LAW and GOD’S ENDOWMENT. GOD ENDOWED ALL MEN with the right to breathe as designed and endowed by GOD, the right to have an immune system as designed and endowed by GOD, the right to have a respiratory system as designed and endowed by GOD, the right to have their image and human identity as designed and endowed by GOD, and to have the right to have sovereignty over the TEMPLE OF THE SOUL as designed and endowed by GOD. And if the government does nothing for me to secure my certain unalienable SACRED rights as designed and created by GOD, then what is the point and purpose for taxes, and government, and Courts? Justice deserves a reading or “hearing,” not just for myself, but for all men, even the atheist who doesn’t believe in GOD. They shall not be forced to adopt a religion or strongly / sincerely held religious belief (or a doctor – how ridiculous!) just to have certain, unalienable SACRED rights in this Country. Nor shall anyone be forced to have citizenship to have these rights either. They are HUMAN RIGHTS, ENDOWED BY GOD. GOD ENDOWED ALL MEN with these RIGHTS, and it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their CREATOR with these rights. Certain politicians have sometimes referred to “health insurance” as a right. WHAT?! HOW PREPOSTEROUS! Health insurance is an industry, and now it has moved from industry into bureaucracy. There is no mention in the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence of defending or establishing industry or securing the right of industry or protecting the right of any other “it” for that matter. The only mention of rights is in relation to the INDIVIDUAL. To say health insurance is a right and then to have Congress and the Court ignore the certain unalienable SACRED RIGHT AND ENDOWMENT of breath, breathing, respiration, immunity, airway, lungs, internal systems, face, nose, mouth, etc. as GOD DESIGNED AND ENDOWED THEM is to completely ignore government’s responsibilities and duties to “We the People” as stated in the Bill of Rights, as documented in the Declaration of Independence, and as secured under the Constitution of the United States of America. I will continue to assert my religion and my strongly / sincerely held religious belief as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, and though the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen, respected leader of the Roman Catholic Church may not refer to himself as American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic (again, I think he is Irish), we are of the same mind on GOD’S LAW and government’s duty. He warns in his books and lectures what happens when governments ignore their responsibilities, obligations, and duties. As his book title states: “A Declaration of Dependence: Trusting GOD Amidst Totalitarianism, Paganism, and War.” After four years, having to repeat myself to the employer, and little time to make my case, I do not have the time or energy to instruct the reader on exactly what it means to be an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, but I hope at least to have expressed in part what it means. Being mocked is not easy, but I survived. Will I be mocked now? Perhaps. Regardless, I will continue to assert these truths even if mocked. Why? Because patriots fought and died for these truths. Those patriots’ sacrifices will not be mocked. We would not have a Country at all if not for those brave men and women who served, fought, and died for these truths. An “emergency” does not suspend the Constitution of the United States of America. A war does not suspend the Constitution of the United States of America. And certainly the smallest organism on the planet, capable of permeating any breathable fiber, does not suspend the Constitution of the United States of America. Why? Because there will always be emergencies, not to mention single celled viral organisms, and governments, and corporations, once given that kind of power to abolish the most basic rights of its citizens in the name of “safety” and “security” never give it back once taken. Power corrupts, but absolute power, power over someone else’s internal systems, their respiratory system, their immune system, their conscience, doesn’t just corrupt, it corrupts absolutely. Even the communists didn’t go that far. This is why the Supreme LAW of the Land must be under GOD’S LAW. And what law are we referring to when we say GOD’S LAW? It is written that man questioned GOD and so GOD questioned man, and so here is a little lesson on GOD’S LAW. Read Job 38: 1-41 and Isaiah 40: 12-26. After reading, it should then be obvious to those with discernment whose law is higher. GOD’S LAW must be above man’s law because otherwise man’s law becomes corrupt, based on the will of the majority, the whims of society, the passing and changing signs of the times, and the bending to men’s wills, men who crave ultimate power and control, not just over the material world but over their fellow man. Whoa to the society that bases its laws on man’s law or “case law.” It is a slippery slope right into the hands of one of the many diseased government “isms.” If you still do not comprehend, then watch the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen again. Read his book. Watch his videos. Let those who have eyes see. Let those who have ears hear. Let those who have intelligence and reason read. “For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1). The company ignored and violated GOD’S LAW. The company ignored and violated the Supreme LAW of the Land. It did so under COLOR OF LAW, and so I am writing to redress a wrong. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2-1 Article IV, Section 2-1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Has anyone bothered to read this lately? It states: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens in the several States. This means that if I live in the City of Saint Louis or Saint Louis County, I have the same certain, unalienable, SACRED rights as endowed by GOD and secured by the Supreme LAW of the Land to breathe and have sovereignty over my immune system and have sovereignty over my respiratory system and have recourse to my own conscience regarding my own internal systems as I do in Saint Charles County; and that any official who deprives me of this RIGHT is in violation not just of GOD’S LAW but of the Supreme LAW of the Land. Further, if a “law” is created in one state regarding my certain, unalienable SACRED right to the inside of my body, my immune system, my respiratory system, my health, then I shall be entitled to that same privilege and immunity (ironic that they use the word “immunity”) in my own State. This means that if any “law” was proffered in the City of Saint Louis or Saint Louis County that deprived me of a privilege or immunity I would have otherwise had if I were living in, let’s say Saint Charles County, Kimswick, Jefferson County, Festus, Florida, or South Dakota, that “law” is unconstitutional and therefore null and void as if it had never been written at all. Such a depravation of rights “law” would be merely the color of law, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law; and any corporation that relies on such “law” to support an infringement of rights is working in tandem and with illegal “authority” under color of law toward the depravation of citizen rights in a manner that undermines the Constitution of the United States of America. Further, since all lawyers swear an oath to support (a word I would urge the citizens of Missouri to change to “protect and defend”) the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme LAW of the Land, every lawyer and judge in the State is obligated to know, acknowledge, and practice Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America as they swore an oath to it. So, if an ordinance were enacted anywhere in the State of Missouri that encroached on a RIGHT of the people that they would have otherwise have had if they were living in Florida, where, as we know, no such ordinances were permitted, then such an ordinance is the mere color of law, and any lawyer who presents or defends such an ordinance as valid law is in breach of his oath under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 8.15; and any Mayor or County Executive that postulates such an ordinance as valid law is operating under color of law and is equally in violation of the oath of office as per applicable County or City Charter since they also must align to the Supreme LAW of the Land. That is the Supreme LAW of the Land, and the Supreme LAW is under GOD’S LAW. What is the Eighth Commandment as laid down on tablet for Moses? Thou shalt not lie to “We the People.” And I would say also that if you accept a position in service to your fellow Countrymen, if you deprive them of a privilege and immunity in terms of their GOD given ENDOWMENT that they would have had if they were living in another part of the Country, a certain, unalienable, SACRED right, then you should correct that error with immediate effect and redress the most grievous error, or resign immediately as being undeserving of public office. Men and women died to protect GOD’S ENDOWMENTS, and if you are not taking them seriously, you have no business representing them. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 1 In addition to Article IV, Section 2-1, which we just discussed above, and which basically says that I am entitled to the same rights in my state, town, or subdivision that someone in a different state, town, or subdivision is entitled to, any state or local government that makes a law, much less enforces a law, that abridges the GOD given rights and liberties directly stated in the Bill of Rights or implied by the Bill of Rights is equally in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The amendment states that: All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Citizens of the City of Saint Louis and Saint Louis County, for example, did not stand trial and were not accused of any crime to have their rights systematically and universally infringed; and any government entity that did so was in violation of law, the Supreme LAW of the Land to be exact. Further, any State or local government that deprives citizens of their certain, unalienable, SACRED rights is not creating or enforcing law but instead operating under the COLOR OF LAW, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law, and is operating in a manner that vastly exceeds their authority and position. Any such type of authoritarian rule is unconstitutional and therefore illegal; and any corporation that bases its policy on such law, enforces such policy as law, and states such policy as corporate “law” is operating under color of law. Further, any such corporation that claims that Title VII is null and void simply because of the existence of such color of law is equally basing its statements strictly on color of law and not actual law. If we are truly to live by the Constitution of the United States of America, then all government shall abide by Article IV, Section 2.1 and Article XIV, Section 1. This means that if I would have been given different Jury Instructions in a different federal court that more closely resembled the less stringent standard as merely meeting that under Groff and De Joy, I should have been given those instructions and not the Eighth Model Jury Instructions for the State of Missouri Eastern District. This means that if the State of New York publishes a Pro Se Manual to ensure that Pro Se, Self-Represented parties have protection under the law and the United States District Court for the State of Missouri, Eastern District does not equally publish a Pro Se Manual, then the United States District Court for the State of Missouri Eastern District is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Guess what? The United States District Court of the State of Missouri Eastern District does not publish a Pro Se Manual. If “We the People” are paying federal taxes as well as taxes to the State of Missouri in order to secure our certain, unalienable SACRED rights, then how is it that all men are not given equal access to the law? Is publishing one set of Jury Instructions in one state but not another, or publishing a pro se manual in one state and not another Liberty and Justice for all? The Fourteenth Amendment also states that no State shall deprive any person (much less and entire population) of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. So, if a County Executive or Mayor were to deprive a single constituent – much less all of their constituents – the certain, unalienable, SACRED right to breathe as GOD ALMIGHTY has designed and created and endowed man to breathe, then that Mayor or County Executive is in violation not just of the Constitution of the United States of America, including the Bill of Rights but also of the Fourteenth Amendment, not to mention their Oath of Office to protect and defend it. The greater offense than these is to GOD’S LAW because, in addition to “thou shalt not bear false witness,” GOD’S LAW also states “thou shalt not steal.” The Mayor and County Executive shalt not steal the breath of life which GOD, the CREATOR hast endowed man by virtue of man’s creation. Any such Mayor or County Executive is in violation of the Supreme LAW of the Land and GOD’S LAW, and I am writing to redress a wrong as this is the very definition of color of law, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law. And any corporation that has attorneys in its employ (either external or internal) that swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America as an “officer of the Court” is equally operating under color of law, under the illusion of law in promoting the appearance without the substance of law to oppress the citizen and, by extension, “We the People” under color of such law by writing and approving such policy. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FIFTH AMENDMENT The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that: No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… Well, I was never tried or convicted of any crime and yet my right to breathe and have an immune system as GOD, my CREATOR designed and endowed, were denied via a corporate mandate. I was told “you MUST” violate your religion and strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs under company policy and despite Title VII when that policy (Trial Doc 77414 for example) did nothing but promote and enforce what that company’s internal and external lawyers certainly know not to be a law as law, when both the “law” and the policy were nothing more than color of law. I was not given due process but my certain, unalienable, SACRED rights as endowed by GOD and secured by the Constitution of the United States of America were trampled and deprived by the corporation under color of law, and this is a most egregious infringement as per the Supreme Law of the Land to which the Judges in EVERY STATE are BOUND. In fact, even if I were incarcerated, my certain, unalienable, SACRED rights to my GOD given ENDOWMENT (breathing as designed and endowed by GOD my CREATOR and natural immunity as designed and endowed by GOD my CREATOR) must not be infringed because those were given to me by my GOD, not by man; and man must not take away that which he did not endow or create. GOD says “ . . . I alone, am GOD, and there is no god besides me. It is I who bring both death and life, and I who inflict wounds and heal them, and from my hand there is no rescue.” GOD makes no distinction between the incarcerated and the free. The prisoner has just as much right to GOD’S ENDOWMENT of their internal systems, their respiratory system, their immune system as I do. How? By virtue of their CREATION; and this is true whether they believe in GOD or not. The prisoner is still endowed with human dignity and certain, unalienable, SACRED rights. Yet, even though not convicted or incarcerated, I was put in a position to sacrifice one right for another: “immune system or respiratory system”; and again, I was put in this position: “have your certain, unalienable SACRED rights, or have a job, a career, a livelihood, financial means, benefits, emotional well-being, mental well-being”; and all this was done under color of law. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NINTH AMENDMENT The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. When I was in grade school civics, I was taught that this was one of the most important securities we have as citizens in the United States of America. Why? Because even if a right is not specifically stated in the Constitution (like the right to breathe or the right to have an immune system, or the right to my lungs, airway, nose, mouth, and face as designed and created by GOD ALMIGHTY) we still have it. It’s ours, and it is unalienable, meaning that no government or Court has the right to take it away. Surely they teach this concept and test it in order to receive a law degree, don’t they? Certainly a certified HR professional would have read about the Constitution of the United States of America in a basic law class in order to administer to civil rights and in order to become certified in Human Resources, wouldn’t they? Then why was a company with access to lawyers postulating fake law that denied the certain unalienable SACRED right to breathe, have an immune system, or have sovereignty over the person’s own lungs, airway, nose, mouth, and face as designed and created by GOD ALMIGHTY as law (Trial Exhibit U and witness testimony). Such “law,” being unconstitutional is illegal. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TENTH AMENDMENT The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or TO THE PEOPLE. I was also taught the power of this statement in grade school where I was taught religion and civics. I thank GOD ALMIGHTY for the opportunity to have classes on religion and civics, and I thank my parents for sacrificing beyond their means to ensure I received an education in religion and civics. This statement basically means that any right that is not specifically listed (such as the GOD ENDOWED right to breathe as GOD designed and the GOD ENDOWED right to your own immune system as GOD designed and endowed) is yours. PERIOD. Who is the government to trample on a GOD ENDOWED RIGHT as guaranteed under the Supreme LAW of the Land?! Who is the corporation to trample and trespass on a GOD ENDOWED RIGHT as guaranteed under the Supreme LAW of the Land?! And what is the purpose of the government and taxes if not to SECURE THESE RIGHTS?! I am writing to redress a wrong. And so I again state that: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state of territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” 42 US Code, Section 1983 – Civil Action and Deprivation of Rights The company didn’t just say the law let it do what it did. The company stated UNDER OATH that the law MADE THEM do it (Document #33, page 13, #13 and Responses to Plaintiff Interrogatories 1, 2, 3). It further stated that it makes the law (Exhibit 77507, Paragraph 1, last Sentence). That is the color of law. The company didn’t just operate under color of law, it hitched its wagon to it and rode it all the way home. As such, I am writing to redress a wrong, not just for myself but for “We the People.” THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3 Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America states that: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several States Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. The company knew it was operating under color of law. Its awareness of the matter is asserted in the response to Interrogatory #6 wherein it admits it consulted its attorney on the development of policy. As a reminder to the Court, I questioned the company’s responses to interrogatories and whether they were legally sufficient, and the Court stated that they were (see Document #62 where I objected to the sworn signatures, Document #63 where the company asserted the legal validity of these sworn signatures, and the Court Memorandum and Order attesting to the validity and legal sufficiency of the signatures in Document #64 filed on May 28, 2024). The company admitted under oath to the validity of the illusory law and that it consulted its lawyer on the matter to postulate this illusory “law” as actual law. Any statement that “the law made me do it” is operating under color of law as there was no law. There was only the color of law. Therefore, policies issued by the company were unconstitutional ultimatums that would grant the company and its executives a certain, unalienable right to the inside of my body (my internal systems, my respiratory system, and my immune system as well as my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief, health, and conscience as designed, created, and endowed by GOD, my CREATOR), and thus egregiously infringed on my certain, unalienable, SACRED right to my own internal systems, respiratory system, and immune system as well as my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief, health, and conscience, all of which is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme LAW of the Land, and GOD’S LAW (see Document #15, Paragraph 1). The company claimed in open court and on the record before the Jury that because of the “law” it is not guilty. To the contrary. It is rather because it stated “the law made me do it” when that law is nothing more than the color of law that it is guilty. And it did so under oath as its Directors, Executives, and Attorneys all postulated the “mandates,” “regulations” and “ordinances” as “law” and origin of its policies. Further, the company knew the following statement is a statement of my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic: THE CREATOR – not the corporation, the congress, or the court – endowed the human with the certain, unalienable, SACRED right over the inside of the body (respiratory system and immune system). This right does not end or begin on the doorstep of the office. It is a basic, human right. I, as am all human beings, am endowed with certain, unalienable, SACRED rights by GOD. How did they know this is my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief as an American Tradition Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic? Because they said so in their denial (Document #33, filed on 4/13/23, page 10, #37) where they state “Plaintiff’s allegation concerning ‘THE CREATOR’ is a statement of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs which does not require a response from [the company].” But despite saying this, they did respond. Again and again, they responded. And they denied. Again and again, they denied. And I am writing to redress a wrong, a wrong that has been committed to my finances, my career, my livelihood, my emotional well-being, my mental well-being, and, if I had allowed it, my spiritual well-being, my connection to GOD, my CREATOR as designed and endowed by GOD. For it is written: “Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within?” (1 Corinthians 2:11) I am not a corporate cattle for the corporation to do with what it pleases. I am a human being, endowed by GOD, my CREATOR with certain unalienable SACRED rights and liberties, and our Founders instituted a government to secure these rights. So, my question to the Court is whether it will uphold its duty or not. That is the question I ask. That is the question that “We the People” ask as per the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme LAW of the Land, and the laws (actual Constitutional LAWS) made in pursuance thereof. INDIGENT What is indigent? I never heard that term before. Then I read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, and Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Local Rules, and I came across the word “indigent.” In the dictionary, it basically means someone who is lacking or deficient in some way. In the legal context, it was used to describe a Pro Se, Self-Represented person. Well, I was at first insulted, but now, after four years, I realize full well that I am indigent. I agree with “indigent,” and if I proved only one thing during trial the week of May 5, 2025 it is exactly how indigent I am, despite the fact that I have a Master’s degree, 76 pages of professional certifications, have written and self-published four books, have worked as a Director and Manager in a career that spanned several decades until I was destructively discharged, etc. How am I indigent? I have no recourse to an attorney as I have already stated. I have no idea how to subpoena a witness. I have no idea how to navigate several layers of government. I have no law training or degree. I am not a member of the bench or bar. I have no idea who to contact in local, state, or federal government to try to produce evidence, nor do I have the authority to do such in order to meet the standard of evidence in the Federal Rules of Evidence which use lawyer speak and are not written for the general public, or even for someone with a Master’s degree to read in plain speak. I am indigent in my income which I proved via my W2, 1099, and 1040 forms which were admitted to the record. I am indigent. By all definitions, I need help. Per Missouri Supreme Court Rule 8.15, the law is supposed to “aid the defenseless and oppressed.” In other words, it is supposed to help the indigent. Will the Court come to my aid? I saw a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America looking me in the face at every side bar. Will the Court come to the aid of the Constitution of the United States of America? Will the Court come to the aid of “We the People”? Will the Court satisfy Article VI, Section 2 to which it is BOUND? Indigent as I am, there is one area in which I am not indigent, and that is in fulfilling my duty and obligation as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, my duty and obligation to GOD, my CREATOR, my Country, and my Countrymen. Will the government that was instituted among men to secure these rights perform its duty and obligation? The Court has at its authority and discretion everything it needs to validate a violation of COLOR OF LAW, subpoena witnesses, obtain validations required to meet the standard of evidence, navigate the complex bureaucratic red tape on which I would otherwise choke as a private citizen due to lack of time, money, and resources given my status which the Court itself defines and declares as “indigent.” I need help. Will I receive it? That is something the Court itself can answer and provide at its sole discretion. And even beyond this, can I do anything? I am out of time, money, and resources. I cannot afford another four years pursuing the claim. It will bankrupt me. Yet, all of the aforementioned facts were in the Courtroom on May 5, 2025. All of the aforementioned facts were known to the Court on May 5, 2025. All of the aforementioned facts meet the standard of MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT; that which is known need not be proven; obvious facts need no proof. I did not speak these facts into the record. They were still there, in the Courtroom, staring me in the face during side bar. Why didn’t I speak them? My Constitutional Claim was denied. These uncontested facts did not meet the strict muster and narrow standard of EEOC, Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Title VII, and Federal Rules of Evidence. There was no way for me to lay a foundation and present them before a Jury as my Constitutional Claim was denied over two years before. To introduce them would have taken three weeks, well beyond the timeframe allowed for trial. Nor could I afford to move that much evidence through the security scanners of the Courthouse, much less secure and store it. I tried in February, and that proved disastrous. It took me over two hours to get through security, and I almost missed the start of my trial. The Court rescheduled trial to May 5, 2025 and assigned the case to a different judge, irrespective of the fiasco with security. By May 5, 2025, I was focused on proving Title VII with extremely narrow physical evidence, and the Constitutional Claim ship had long since left the dock as it was denied two years prior. Let’s also consider that the Constitutional Claim was denied March 30, 2023, and until May 5, 2025 I did not have solid proof of color of law. The result is that the Jury never heard these facts, nor did these facts enter into their verdict; all because the Constitutional Claim was denied in March 30, 2023 before it ever received a reading or “hearing.” But again, I did not have what I needed to prove color of law on March 30, 2023. I did not have it beyond all reasonable doubt until the completion of trial. But I have it now. I have it now, and it’s on the record, signed, sealed, and delivered for the Court to issue a verdict as a matter of law and a matter of redress. I am told that the Court speaks to the law and advises the Jury of the law during trial. These laws were never mentioned because the Constitutional Claim was denied on March 30, 2023, two years earlier. The focus was Title VII to the exclusion of the Constitutional Claim, and it is not my impression that a Court of Law favors a Pro Se, Self-Represented party’s statement of the law to a Jury in the presence of the Court, the Judge, and the Attorneys. We all know that such behavior does not go over well, and I have been told repeatedly from friends and others who have walked their own journey that a Court of law does not like any surprises during trial. The result is that the facts were never presented to the Jury so that the Jury was deprived of its right to hear them. They should have entered into the verdict, but they did not. Regardless, after four long years of waiting, I can finally prove color of law, and I will prove it. If I prove it if for no other reason than for the truth, then that is sufficient reason to prove it. At this late phase, I may not be able to change the verdict or address the denial of both claims, but I can at least write to redress a wrong. So let us do that. Let us now turn our attention to proving how the company was operating under the color of law, violating the law at every level of the law to deny me my certain, unalienable SACRED rights, my ENDOWMENT from my CREATOR, my GOD. SECTION 2: THE COLOR OF LAW I AM WRITING TO REDRESS A WRONG It is Wednesday, May 7, 2025. It has been a long week, and I have not had much sleep. I have been waking up at 12:30 AM for the last four days, getting less than three hours of sleep each night. I am doing something I have never done before, something I never imagined myself doing: I am representing myself in Court. I am a Pro Se, Self-Represented party in Federal District Court. My nerves are shot. My brain is barely functioning. It is just before lunch, and the company’s attorney is asking me questions about a document (3068) (3068.html). The document is being admitted per a signed affidavit. The document appears legal. It has some type of legal verification on it. I know nothing about such verifications. The document appears to be a legitimate law. It is entitled “health order.” It is issued by a Mayor. It is authenticated by what appears to be a government administrator. Everything appears to be very legal and proper. The document is admitted as Trial Exhibit U. I did not see the document while I was working for the company. The document and its affidavit appear to be law. Exhibit U looks like law, and so it is admitted. The company then postulates it as law for the Jury. It tries to discuss the document with me under oath as law, and I won’t do it. I am under oath, and it is my duty and obligation to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me GOD.” So that’s what I do. I say that there is some question as to the legality of the document. I say something about the fact that the document may not align to the City and County Charters. I cannot attest to them as law. I tell the truth the best I can at that time. I am not allowed to bring up the Constitution of the United States of America. The Court denied my Constitutional claim on March 30, 2023. I can’t exactly describe what it was like being on that stand Pro Se. My heart was pounding out of my chest, and I could hardly breathe, much less speak. It is not my impression I can start questioning the company’s lawyer about its document. It’s not my place to question about anything from the witness stand. I’m there to answer questions, not to ask them. So, I answer the questions to the best of my ability. It is my impression that the attorney questioning me is BOUND by the Constitution. It is my impression that the Court is BOUND by the Constitution. I am in a Court of Law that was built for the sole purpose of securing rights under the Constitution. But I can’t talk about the Constitution. I am in Court of law with lawyers who are supposed to know whether a law is a law or not. Right? I am not a lawyer. I am a Pro Se person on a witness stand being cross examined. Am I in any position to start questioning anyone about the Constitution? No, I am not. Am I in any position to start questioning a lawyer about the “law”? No, I am not. But they are there, and they are aware of the existence of the Constitution of the United States of America. They know. They are BOUND by it. They are obligated to take Judicial Notice of it whether I ask for Judicial Notice of it or not. So, the questioning continues. A little while later I am pulled to the side bar. “Great. What now?” I am thinking. I approach the bench. The Constitution of the United States of America is staring me in the face. I see it, and I see what is happening. I am told I “MUST” start answering questions, or I will be sanctioned. I am told I could go to jail. I could have to pay a penalty. I am told I have to answer questions. I am confused. I am answering the questions as best I can with no sleep, with no lawyer, with the questions of law and Constitution (which I cannot bring up) running through my mind, with the utter confusion and pressure of never having done anything remotely like this before in my life. I don’t remember much more than that. The only thing I remember is thinking “Well, I am going to keep telling the truth. If I go to jail for telling the truth, then I go to jail. But I cannot lie! So, I will do the right thing, and whatever happens, happens.” By some miracle of GOD, the company changes the line of questions, and I do not go to jail. THANK YOU GOD! But now my heart is racing, and my mind is really confused. All I can think about is my Croatian people. A lot of Croatians went to jail for telling the truth. “Well, if the Court sends me to jail for telling the truth, it’s not the worst thing that can happen to me. The worst thing is if I lie. That is the worst thing. Take me to jail, but I’m not going to lie.” So, what is this document I almost went to jail for? The document is the color of law. It is the illusion of law. It is the form without the substance of law. Nearly having a cardiac arrest that day from the stress I was in, I was in no position to delve into the details of why it is color of law; nor would I have been able to since my Constitutional Claim was denied as a matter of “law” on May 30, 2023. I could not speak of it. I wanted to, but I could not. I was too tired, afraid, weak, and indigent; and I was in no position to do it because I had no Constitutional Claim. I didn’t have the Constitutional Claim for two years. And even now, after the claims were “dismissed with prejudice,” the Title VII was issued a verdict, and the Constitutional Claim was long since denied, I am still afraid I could be punished, fined, or go to jail. Our Croatian people went to jail for challenging what was “legal” under the communist system. I have relatives who went to jail for telling the truth. I have family members who died for telling the truth. In that system where there was no Constitution, where there was no thought of GOD’S LAW, where there was a country ruled only by the laws of man, they were expected to perpetuate a lie. It is my duty and obligation as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic to give an explanation as to why that document is not law as presented to me, the Judge, and the Jury that day, why it is merely the illusion of law, why it is the appearance without the substance of law, why it is the “color of law” as Black’s Law Dictionary defines it. I am writing to redress a wrong. I, an indigent party, will now go through the absurd exercise of explaining the law to the law. I do so at the risk of suffering the consequences of which I and my Croatian people are all too aware. Still, I need to proceed even with the risk of consequences. It is my duty and obligation as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic to do this based on my duty and obligation to my GOD, my Country, and my Constitution. I do so in the hopes that it will move us closer to the principles of Freedom, Justice, Order, Liberty, and Democracy. I do so in the trust and hope that we are still governed under the Constitution of the United States of America. I do so in the hope and trust that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America still protects my rights to redress, speech, and religion. I do so in the trust that we are still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I do so in the trust that the Courts and the officers thereof still stand by their oaths to the Constitution and with consideration for the defenseless and oppressed. I do so in the hopes that our government still upholds the formational obligation under which it was instituted, namely that it still upholds the original principle to secure the certain, unalienable, SACRED rights of the people. Therefore, here is my explanation, and I can only trust that the Court will not destroy me, an unrepresented party who represents the defenseless, the oppressed, and the indigent. The Court itself swore an oath to the Constitution and to protect the defenseless, the oppressed, and the indigent. My hope is that it will stand by that oath. As an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, I too speak a daily oath. My daily oath is to the American’s Creed, and I take that oath in addition to and because of the Apostle’s Creed and per the Catechism of the Holy Roman Catholic Church which was written and published by Saint Pope John Paul II. My two oaths are complimentary, not contradictory; and if the Court or the company cannot understand how I can be an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, I urge them to conduct further research into the matter. An excellent starting point is the Holy Bible, Genesis, Chapter 1. If that is too long, then at least watch the video of the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen. But let us return to the topic at hand. Why is this ordinance the Color of Law? How is it that the company’s policies (Trial Documents Numbered 77312, 77406, 77410, 77414, 77507, and 77531) were issued under color of law? How did the company operate under color of law? Let’s break it up under two sections. First, let’s look at the “laws” in the City of Saint Louis in 2020 and 2021. Then, let’s look at the “laws” in Saint Louis County in 2020 and 2021. First, the City of Saint Louis. THE COLOR OF LAW IN THE CITY OF SAINT LOUIS When I first looked at these documents (3068), they seemed like “laws.” They have a legal looking format. They are published on legal looking letterhead. They have legal looking titles and authorities. They have legal looking signatures. In German, we might say, “alles in ordnung.” (Everything is in order). Aber alles ist nicht in ordnung! Why is that? What’s wrong with them? Let’s start with the lowest level of law and work our way up, shall we? Let’s begin at the ground floor: the policy that the company wrote and to which I was told I “MUST” comply in no uncertain terms and with immediate effect as in next day. Unlike the company policy, this “health order” from the City of Saint Louis did not require me to be in the City of Saint Louis. It did not require me to attend a conference in person. It did not require any company to conduct its meeting in the City of Saint Louis. It did not require a private business to enforce it. It did not require a private business to become an arm of local government. It did not require lanyards to separate people into groups based on medical procedures they have or have not elected to have performed. It did not prevent the company from creating remote work policies or accommodating its employees via Title VII. In other words, the company claiming its policy is based on this health order is mere color of law. There was nothing that required the company to deny one of its employees remote work under Title VII. Any statement to such an effect is color of law. In this case, it would mean using the color of law (an ordinance at the local level in the Order of Law) to excuse an obligation to follow the actual law (Title VII and the Constitution of the United States of America). But this is a minor point compared to what follows, so let us continue. Let’s look at the fact that this “health order” was not attached to the company policy (see Trial Document 77414). What was attached to this company policy was merely a news article link to a news blurb on Fox2Now.com. Note that the actual “health order” was not published or linked to the company’s policy and that the policy, therefore, is color of law. The policy is the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law. Why? Because it links, not to law, but to a news article. Contrary to popular opinion, the news is not the law, nor does it exist in the Order of Law. Rather, in terms of law, the news is considered hearsay, rumor, or opinion. It can even be propaganda (lies appearing as truth), as was the case communist regime my father and many others like him escaped. So again, we have hit on another example of color of law. The company presented the news as law, and, in so doing, operated under color of law. . . . But there’s more . . . Let’s look at this “health order” compared to the document that establishes the City of Saint Louis as a seat of government: The Charter for the City of Saint Louis. The first thing to notice is that the “health order” is called a “health order,” not an “ordinance.” It may seem like a minor point of fact, but it is not. It is significant. Why? Because the word “order” is completely missing from, not only the Charter but from the American concept of ordered Justice in general as per the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws made in pursuance thereof. In the United States of America, there are “ordinances.” “Orders” are nowhere to be found in the Order of Law. As an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, I am aware of a communist system of government that issued “orders.” “Orders” are typically a term used in the military. “Orders” are what were given when the communists committed genocide during the Bleiberg death march. “Orders” were given to the communists who came in and declared eminent domain on our family’s land when they punched out my Grandfather Ivan and took his property by force. “Orders” were given when the communists told my Father what kind of job he was going to take and where he could work. But I have not seen or read “orders” anywhere in the Constitution of the United States of America. What is an “order”? Please point it out to me if you can find that word in the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws made in pursuance thereof. What we have in a Constitutional Republic are “ordinances,” not “orders.” Therefore, the very word “order” versus “ordinance” calls the “order” into question as to whether or not it is a proper legal tool. Article IV, Section 10 of the Charter does document the proper form for an ordinance. Guess what? The “order” fails by that standard as well. Nowhere on the “order” does it say “Be it ordained by the City of Saint Louis as follows:” as per Article IV, Section 10 of the Charter. Did the Mayor even consult the Board of Aldermen in the development of the “order”? Again, the format and approval and wording demonstrate color of law, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law. Next, the “order” falls short based on the process that is supposed to be followed for adoption of a valid ordinance per the Charter of the City of Saint Louis. We know this from Article IV, Sections 16-21 of the Charter. Per the “news” article, the Mayor issued the “orders.” Well, per ordered government, a Mayor does not independently issue “orders.” That is what the dictators under communism do. That is not how American government is supposed to work, at least not based on the civics class I took in the fourth grade at Saint John the Baptist in the City of Saint Louis. The nuns taught us that local government mirrors all government in the United States of America. They taught us that there is an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. They taught us that these branches create a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch gets too much power. If a branch does get too much power, the result is tyranny. That’s what happened to the government in my Dad’s country after WWII. A dictator came in and started issuing “orders.” The people were then subjected to the tyranny system of oppression called communism. So, how is it that in America a Mayor can single handedly issue an “order” for the entire City and all of its people, without the approval of the Board of Aldermen and without following the Charter as written under Article IV, Section 16-21? Did she follow or even read the Charter? Did she even read what her role was in City government? She certainly did not follow it. Based on the news article the company cited in its policy, two councilmen questioned the legitimacy of the “orders” issued by the Mayor and the County Executive; but the Mayor still issued it via the “news,” and the company still based its policy on it. Communicating an “order” that is not governed by the Charter is color of law for the City of Saint Louis. Communicating an “order” that is not governed by the Charter is color of law (aka propaganda) for the “news.” Communicating an “order” that is not governed by the Charter is color of law for the company who tries to base its policies on it and then tries excuse its policy for not adhering to Title VII because of it. The company spread hearsay and based its policy on propaganda, despite having a legal team in its employ and despite the availability of external representation and resources at its disposal. If that is not color of law, what is? What about the Mayor’s “powers and duties”? Do the “power and duties” of the Saint Louis Mayor extend to issuing “orders” for the entire City of Saint Louis? No. As per Article IV, Section 1 of the Charter, there is no such reference. Article IV, Section 17 defines the role of the Mayor as only having “veto” power, similar to the President of the United States of America. So again, this section demonstrates that the Mayor was not following the Charter and that the “order” is unlawful. What we have when we measure the “order” to the Charter is the color of law, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law. But it doesn’t stop there. Oh no. There is more. In conducting independent research on this topic in the normal course of business as a Pro Se, Self-Represented person, it became immediately obvious to me that the “health order” was tainted by the fact that the person issuing the “health order” was not even a practicing registered physician. In fact, there was a court case in this very Courthouse, the United States District Court for the State of Missouri Eastern District where Mr. Fredrick Echols was questioned about this licensure. I will not provide back to the Court that which it already has in its docket and records and what appears in the news on the topic . . . but leave it to say that his credentials as “Acting Director of Health and Hospitals / Health Commissioner” were challenged in a Court of Law and in the court of public opinion. Again, we see the color of law playing out . . . but there is more . . ., and this is the part that’s particularly bothersome to me. This is the part that is the most egregious of all. Why? Because this “health order” is 100% unequivocally unconstitutional by every definition or standard of constitutionality I could ever think of. When given the “sniff test,” this “health order” stinks to high heaven. Shall we explore all of the flaws of this vehicle of civil injustice? I am no constitutional attorney, but it doesn’t take even me, an indigent party, very long to unearth the stinking rotting corpse of injustice.
But to me, the worst offense of all is the violation of GOD’S LAW. That is the most grievous and heinous offense of all. My breath, breathing, image, airway, lungs, nose, mouth, respiratory system were endowed to me by GOD, my CREATOR. Who does the government think it is to deny me my ENDOWMENT FROM GOD?! Who does the corporation think it is to deny me and rob me of my GOD GIVEN ENDOWMENT?! Not to mention my immune system which isn’t even mentioned in the garbage “order”?! Who is any man to take away my breath? My right to my own internal systems? My respiratory system? My immune system? BREATH IS LIFE. Who are you to rob me of even one precious inhale of my LIFE as GOD created and endowed me to breathe?! I am not a corporate cattle to be injected and muzzled . . . not by a communist with a gun but especially not an EMPLOYER with a paycheck! What tyranny is this?! You can have time in exchange for a fair rate of pay but you may not rob me of my LIFE and my GOD GIVEN ENDOWMENT as secured by the Constitution of the United States of America, the supreme LAW of the Land and further reinforced through the Bill of Rights! No “emergency” trumps GOD’S LAW. If it did, the government or the corporation would constantly come up with an “emergency” to justify taking away my certain, unalienable, SACRED ENDOWMENT. If you have not yet understood this, educate yourself. Read my dad’s biography or those of the countless persons who have survived the tyranny system of communism. Watch the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Read his book. Then you will understand, because if you do not, then we will have the unfortunate misfortune of repeating that which we should have already learned from history. If we don’t know, we are doomed to repeat. But I’m not done yet because there is more. Oh, there is much more. The company attested to and promulgated this color of law not just in its policy documents but via sworn affidavit, via its witnesses under oath, and via the presentation of “regulations,” “orders,” and “mandates” in Court and in front of a Jury. It is all on the record, and I do not have time or money to afford to repeat back to the Court its entire record and docket. The Court is fully capable of conducting its own research at its sole discretion if it so chooses. There is no need for me, a private citizen, to repeat back to the Court its own docket and record. I need to work so I can earn money to pay taxes for the docket and the record, not to mention eat and pay my bills. As a single point of fact, there is no word “mandate” or even the equivalent concept of “mandate” in the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, per my grade school civics class, the Constitution of the United States of America was written and ratified to prevent anything even close to a “mandate” from seeping into a Constitutional system of Justice. Any lawyer who now, in the past, or in the future refers to “mandate” as law is promulgating a lie and is directly attacking the fibers of the Constitution of the United States of America and is unraveling the fibers of our Republic. “Mandates” are what dictators issue. “Mandates” are used to justify any manner of atrocity. And if you don’t know this, pick up any book written by a survivor of government “mandates” under communism, and you will quickly learn that there are things far worse to fear in this world than tiny single celled viral organisms that have been on the planet for countless millennia. Any reference to “mandate” or the “order” as a “mandate” is color of law. It’s color of law if the government does it. It’s color of law if the news media does it. And it’s color of law if the corporation does it, especially where it encroaches on civil liberties. (Add to this that I was working remotely at the time, the meeting in question was not in my job description, the company created an immediate substitution, the company admitted it would have granted accommodation based on disability, etc. and you can understand why I filed a Title VII claim along with my Constitutional claim). Let’s look at another self-evident truth. The government in the United States of America cannot usurp a private business to make it an enforcement arm of the government. Certainly the company, with its access to countless attorneys and legal resources realizes this. How can it not? Just pick up a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the only enforcement mentioned is a militia. For State government, this would be State Law Enforcement. For Local government, this would be Local Law Enforcement, Constitutional Sheriffs, Local Militia, or the like. There is no mention of government being able to use a business to enforce its laws. Again, this I learned from my parents as the communists came in and confiscated our private land to build their military industrial complex and factories. The usurpation of private property or of a company’s people to enforce laws is 100% unequivocally unconstitutional. In fact, opposition to this concept is the very reason the Constitution of the United States of America was written to begin with. Such offenses are documented and enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, Great Grandfather to the Constitution of the United States of America, making it as clear as crystal that, even if the government had directly “ordered” the company to execute its “mandate,” the company not only has no legal obligation to execute such an “order mandate” as being unconstitutional and thereby illegal, it has a civic responsibility to resist it as it employs attorneys sworn under oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Certainly, the company with its internal and external Counsel realizes and recognizes in law what Saint John the Baptist school children were taught, not just in civics class but in history class, as well as what I was told by the firsthand reports of those who have lived under communist systems of government. If nothing else, certainly a company would know from a quick read of the Constitution of the United States of America or even more succinctly from the mere ten bullet points in the Bill of Rights that government has no right to usurp private industry. So once again we have the color of law, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law when the company states it was “regulated” or “mandated” via an “order.” And I tried to warn them they were operating under color of law. I warned them about their policies, but they proceeded with the policies nonetheless. I warned them with a Cease and Desist about “mandates,” “regulations,” and “orders”; but they persisted to assert the “order” as law and admitted it under color of law nonetheless. And had I obeyed the “order” (Trial Exhibit U) and ultimatum (Trial Exhibit 5067) under color of law, I would have violated my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief. I did not, and so here we are . . . four years later . . . and the company still postulated an “order” as law, not just to me but to the Court and to the Jury and to the people in the Gallery that day and to the people who will read the Court documents and rely on them as “case law” moving forward and, by extension, to the American people, “We the People.” . . . But there’s more . . . there’s so much more. I’m only getting started. The entire “order” was unconstitutional. To understand the degree to which it fails to meet constitutional standards, reread Section 1 above entitled MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT, and you will quickly realize it fails by every standard of constitutionality as it violated civil rights, those certain, unalienable, SACRED rights endowed by GOD the CREATOR and entrusted to government to secure, and, in so doing, was unconstitutional as well as 100% illegal per the Supreme LAW of the Land. The “emergency” as we already proved, did not rectify or excuse this fatal flaw as we have already proven that no “emergency” overrides a constitution. Therefore, the unconstitutional “order” was, as written in American Jurisprudence (A1A-4, Page 28): no law but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose. Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [it] is as inoperative as if it had never been passed and never existed; that is, it is void ab initio. [It] follows that generally the statute imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office or liabilities, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, is incapable of creating any rights or obligations, does not allow for the granting of any relief, and justifies no acts performed under it. . . . no private citizen or division of the state may take any further action pursuant to its provisions. A contract that rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one [including a company] is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. A law contrary to the United States Constitution may not be enforced. Once a statute has been declared unconstitutional, courts thereafter have no jurisdiction over alleged violations. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. Though the company, employing and consulting lawyers who are BOUND to the Constitution of the United States of America, must have certainly known this “law” to be unconstitutional, and therefore no law at all; but it still incorporated the rumor of this “law” via the propaganda “news” article into its policy and policy enforcement. Still, the company attested to it as law and admitted it in open Court as a trial document before a Judge, Jury, and the American people to the extent of nearly having me, an indigent party, imprisoned. The entire trial, from the point of this defective “order” with its attestation of authenticity and faulty admission, was color of law. The “order” and trial were from that point forward a sham. What else can you call it? By the very posturing and admission of the “order” under color of law, the unconstitutional “order” postured as “law” made any reference to it a shadow of its tainted color. It cast a long dark shadow over the subsequent decisions made by the Jury and the Judge as these were made based on a mere illusion, a fabrication, an unconstitutionality so rife with stench that it polluted every decision and hearing of fact or testimony thereafter. The trial was not a trial at all on the basis of law but was instead a trial on the basis of fabrication and propaganda, an illusion, smoke and mirrors, a trick of hand. It was a 50 foot piñata that looked full of candy but was in actuality nothing more than the skin of a balloon that, if poked, would reveal itself to be completely vacant and void of any substance within. It was a faux book sitting on the shelf of a display home that nobody was allowed to enter or open. I could not poke it or open it. I was too terrified I was going to jail, and my Constitutional Claim was long since denied. Further, I was on the verge of getting my Title VII case kicked out after I had poured so much time into it over the last four years. I was afraid the case was going to get kicked out before a Jury ever even got to hear it. But regardless of all that, the fact is that the July 2021 City of Saint Louis Public Health “Order” that was “mandated” by the Mayor and bypassed the Commissioners wasn’t the only slight of hand trick. There is more. There’s so much more that I was prevented from speaking about under threat of jail and getting my Title VII case kicked out if I even mentioned my Constitutional Claim after having been dismissed in March 2023 without so much as a reading. So much the better because I really didn’t know any of this at the time. In March 2023 or in the subsequent months that followed, I didn’t even know what color of law was, not until I started researching the topic. This all revealed itself after the March 30, 2023 denial of the Constitutional Claim; and what I found out next is beyond anything I could have ever imagined. . . THE COLOR OF LAW IN SAINT LOUIS COUNTY I’m in the third day of the trial, and the company witnesses are bringing up an event that happened over a year earlier than the relevant time period of the case. They are talking about what happened in Saint Louis County in 2020. They are referring to an email from an Education Coordinator as a company policy, and pointing to her statements made about what happened in Saint Louis County in 2020 as “law.” They call it a “mandate,” a “regulation,” an “order.” She admits to hearing this information on the “news,” but this “news” is postured as fact and as law by the company. It is nothing more than rumor and hearsay, but it’s postured as fact and law. They talk about the “emergency” at the time and how severe the “emergency” was. They use the “emergency” as a means to justify such measures. No actual laws are produced; just the testimony of a single witness for what happened over four years ago. They produce not a single policy stating there actually was any law or even policy in effect at the time, only the witness’ memories of what they think happened and what was written in an email from the Coordinator herself (Trial Doc 1086, 77312, 77507, 1030, 1031, 1034, 1196, 1197, 1199, 1035, and 1036 which make no mention of off-site work or any actual ordinances). Let me point out that since there was no law or policy for off-site work at this time, there was no reason for this time period to even be raised. It was “business as usual” so to speak. In the absence of policy and actual law, you just keep calm and carry on. But the company insists there was a “mandate” based on the hearsay of a coordinator. In other words, they base their argument on the color of law, not actual law. They base their argument on supposition of policy, not actual policy. They say there was a “mandate” in 2020. They fail to produce any documentation. They say there was a policy in 2020. They fail to produce any documentation. They say I covered my face in 2020. They fail to produce any evidence. In fact, there is a photo produced that proves the opposite. Why is their evidence so weak? Because there was no “mandate” in Saint Louis County in 2020, nor could there ever be such a “mandate” in Saint Louis County EVER. Any reading of the transcript will demonstrate that the company was operating under color of law, stating to Judge and Jury that there were “mandates” in Saint Louis County in 2020 when there were none. There were none, nor could there ever be one because any such “mandate” that infringes on a citizen’s certain, unalienable SACRED right to their own internal systems, nose, mouth, breath, breathing, airway, respiratory system, immune system, LIFE, etc. is and would be 100% unequivocally unconstitutional (and thereby illegal) and would be as null and void as if it had never been written. Could I say this during the trial? No. Why? Because my Constitutional Claim was denied over two years before, on March 30, 2023. So, all the Jury and the Judge heard the untruth, and there was no way to jump into the Constitutional argument. The Constitutional question went unheard. And the company who has at its disposal legal resources who are BOUND by the Constitution of the United States of America knows this but presented the argument that there were “mandates” in place in Saint Louis County, Missouri in 2020 anyway. Further proof that there was no “mandate” in 2020 and that the company was operating under color of law is that there was no “mandate” in 2021 either. The company published a policy on June 23, 2021 (Trial Doc 77414). It communicates that there is a “mandate” in place in the County starting June 26, 2023. Instead of linking to an actual law, it links to a news article . The company writes a policy that supposedly links to evidence of a law, but the link goes to “news.” Well, that is not how government works. There is no fourth branch of government called “news,” per the Order of Law. Read the Constitution of the United States of America, and there is no “news” listed as an instituted branch of government. Take a fourth-grade course in civics, and you will learn that “news” is not law. Nearly any fourth grader could answer that test question correctly. It is an incontrovertible fact that “news” is not law, and anyone who presents a “news” article as a law is operating under color of law. The company policy was developed in consultation with its internal legal team who had an obligation to research the law. Instead of linking a legitimate law, the company attached a news article to a policy in defense of that policy and then uses the policy and “law” in a Court of law to justify not abiding by another law, namely Title VII. That, my friends, is called color of law. Now let’s take a look at the actual “news” article (3077) (3077.html). If you read it, you will see that two of the Councilmen question the legitimacy of the “mandate” by the Saint Louis County Executive. In the article, the two Councilmen say that the Council may hold a vote on the matter at their next meeting. When was the next meeting? July 27, 2021. July 27, 2021 is the day after the “order” is scheduled to take effect. In other words, the Council is voting AFTER the order is supposedly in place. REALLY? When I realized this during my research, it was a big red flag. I don’t have a law degree, but this warranted further research because Councils vote BEFORE ordinances take effect, not after. Did the “news” bother to conduct any research on this point? Not that I could find. As far as I could tell, they ignored it and did not follow up with any updates. And so, what happens next? Silence. No one actually bothers to follow up on what happens next, not the “news” and not the company. Are there events that happen? Oh yes! There are events, significant events, but there’s not a single word about it. I didn’t know about it until well after my Constitutional Claim was denied. The company apparently didn’t even bother to research it even in its preparation for the trial when they posed it to Judge and Jury under color of law. But there were events, and I shall write about them. I am writing to redress a wrong. Unconstitutionality of a “mandate” aside, there was no “mandate” in 2020 or in 2021 either. How do we know this? Well, because the “mandate” / “order” / “regulation” as the company refers to it was scheduled to take effect on Monday, July 26, 2021. BUT, and this is a very large BUT, a vote was held the very next day on July 27, 2021 in the public forum of the weekly Saint Louis County Council Meeting. I have video (3075) (3075.html)and a Journal (3074) (3074.html)from this meeting, and it clearly shows that the “order” from the County Executive was “rescinded” (i.e. rendered null and void) by the Council members. In short, there was no “order.” Did the “news” bother to follow up and correct the story? No. Did the “news” retract or amend its report? Not that I could find. Did the “news” report on the Council’s vote and decision with the same fervor and zeal that it reported the original story? No. Is the “news” obligated to report on law? Nope. Is the “news” fact and law? Not at all. The “news” is nowhere in the Order of Law. But the question is not what the “news” did. The question is why the company relied on the rumor and hearsay of “news” as fact and law when it knows that “news” is not fact and could only be color of law. Did the company ever research the ACTUAL LAW to verify whether such an “order” had been enacted? No. Did the company ever research the Supreme LAW of the Land to determine if such an “order” ever could be enacted? Apparently not. Because as of the day of the trial, May 5, 2025, which was nearly four years after these events, the company was still presenting its policies, admitting its “law” as evidence, and trying to excuse itself under color of law. The company could have easily researched these matters, but it did not. It did not locate the “order.” It did not communicate an actual “order.” It did not verify the “order” actually happened. It operated under color of law to perpetuate the misinformation that there was (or ever could be) a “mandate” that blocked a person’s certain, unalienable SACRED ENDOWMENT of breath, breathing, airway, lungs, nose, mouth, respiratory system, LIFE, etc. as designed and ENDOWED by GOD, the CREATOR. There was no law in effect on July 29, 2021. There was only color of law. There was only “news” and “news” is not law. But they made their employees, a Jury, and a Judge think there was an actual law. So, this is the lie, and this lie was perpetuated. The lie is that there was or ever could be such a thing as a “mandate” that denies a person the certain, unalienable, SACRED rights, rights protected by the Bill of Rights, rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence, rights endowed by GOD. That they violated man’s law under color of law by saying there was an “order” when there was no “order” is bad enough. That they declared something as law that was never nor could ever be law due to its unconstitutionality and under color of law is equally bad. But that they violated GOD’S LAW, the LAW of the CREATOR of the universe and of all things visible and invisible, GOD’S LAW that designed man in his own image, GOD’S LAW that designed a persons with sovereignty over the inside of their own bodies, their own internal systems, their own immune systems, their own respiratory systems, their own health, their own conscience, all under color of law when there wasn’t even man’s law to excuse it is a sin. That is something to answer for, something that no Court of Law is able to redress. Even the communists didn’t get into the medical and infringement on a person’s right to their own respiratory system and immune system. There is a thing called an advanced health care directive in this Country. Have you heard of it? It’s a legal document. It says that you surrender medical decisions to someone else in the event you become incapacitated to the point of not being able to make decisions for yourself about your own medical care. Only when signed and notarized does someone else get to make decisions about your respiratory system. Only when signed and notarized does someone else get to make decisions about your immune system. Only when signed and notarized does someone else get to make decisions about your internal systems. Only when signed and notarized does someone else get to make decisions about your health and conscience or override your religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief (or lack thereof) as you are no longer able to profess it for yourself. Do lawyers know this? Yes! It is Estate Planning 101. Every lawyer in America knows about it. All hospitals and doctor’s offices and dental offices know about it. They treat patients, and they are obligated by law to know about it. So, how is it that a company with lawyers that know you need to have an advanced health care directive in this Country in order to make medical decisions on someone else’s behalf, able to invent (under color of law no less) policies relating to some else’s internal system, respiratory system, immune system, health, conscience, religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief, and no lawyer ever questioned the legitimacy of even attempting to draft such a policy, much less communicate it, much less enforce it?! That’s not just color of law. That’s downright illegal. During the trial I had a picture of my Mom and my Nona with me. As I said, they are both American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic, just like me. When I was sixteen years old, we found out my Mom had cancer. She died two years later when she was forty-five. During the time of her illness she made her own decisions about her health. She made her own decisions about her lungs. She made her own decisions about her breathing and breath. She made her own decisions about her airway. She made her own decisions about whether to go to the doctor or not. She made her own decisions about whether to get chemo or not. She made her own decisions about whether to get radiation or not. She made her own decisions about whether to get surgery or not. She made her own decisions about whether to take drugs or not. Her doctor did not make these decisions for her. Her family did not make these decisions for her. Her cleric did not make these decisions for her. She was completely competent. GOD ENDOWED my mother with sovereignty over her own body, the temple of her soul, and she did what she knew was right for her own body, health, and soul. So I ask you: WHO IS AN EMPLOYER TO GO ABOUT OVERRIDING AN EMPLOYEE’S CERTAIN UNALIENABLE SACRED RIGHT TO THE INSIDE OF HIS OR HER OWN BODY, HIS OR HER INTERNAL SYSTEMS, HIS OR HER RESPIRATORY SYSTEM, HIS OR HER OWN LUNGS, HIS OR HER OWN FACE, HIS OR HER OWN IMAGE OF GOD, HIS OR HER OWN NOSE, HIS OR HER OWN MOUTH, HIS OR HER OWN AIRWAY, HIS OR HER OWN SOUL, . . . HIS OR HER VERY LIFE?! I did not sign nor would I ever sign an advanced health care directive giving my employer the ability to make such decisions for me even if I were incapacitated at the time, which I was not. Yet still, there is the policy issued in black and white after discussions not just with HR but with a lawyer that deems the employer as some kind of demi god over my health, my life, my respiratory system, my immune system, my lungs, my breathing, my breath, my airway, my internal systems . . . What kind of madness is this?! The company was operating under color of law from day one. It had no legal right to draft such a policy. There was no law to substantiate such policy, nor could there ever be one per the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme LAW of the Land. There was only the color of law, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law. Those policies, those documented infringements on civil and human rights made employees nothing more than corporate cattle, a herd to be “cared for,” despite the company possessing no legal right, no advanced health care directive, no stated surrender of a person’s GOD GIVEN ENDOWMENT OVER THE SOVEREINTY OVER THEIR OWN BODY, MEDICAL, AND HEALTH CARE DECISIONS. Such a policy is not only unconstitutional; it is illegal; and it is illegal even according to man’s law, not just per GOD’S LAW. Have we, as a society, fallen so far down the level of reason and basic morality that we would find it acceptable and even justified that a company – an “IT” – could ever declare ownership over a person’s internal systems, respiratory system, immune system, health, conscience, religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief just by virtue of paying that person in exchange for time and work? I cannot believe a Jury would feel that way if presented these facts, but I could not present these facts because the Constitutional Claim was denied long before the matter ever went to the Jury. In fact, these facts about the County Council, the “orders,” the Advanced Health Care Directive, the Council vote, and the County Charter did not reveal themselves until long after the Constitutional Claim was denied. We haven’t discussed the matter of the County Charter yet. Let’s discuss the County Charter to see just how egregious the color of law actually was in this case. That “mandate” by the Mayor on July 26, 2021? It’s bogus. That “mandate” by the County Executive on July 26, 2021? Equally bogus. We’ve only just scratched the surface of that color of law document’s thin veneer. But first, a little background. On February 22, 2022, I filed to run in the County Executive race on the Republican ticket. On August 2, 2022 I won the Republican primary in the County Executive race. Shortly after, I asked one of the County Councilmen for copies of the County Charters . . . all of them. The Councilman was kind enough to provide copies. Well, long after the Constitutional Claim was denied, I remembered I still had the Charter. I read the Charter that was in effect at the time of the July 23, 2021 “mandate” rumor spread by the “news” that supposedly took effect on July 26, 2021 and that was “rescinded” on July 27, 2021 via the Council vote. Guess what? Per the County’s own Charter, to which the County Executive is BOUND in his capacity as County Executive, there was not nor could there ever be any such “mandate.” Why? Because per the County Charter there has to be a VOTE by the Council BEFORE any such ordinance can take effect. In addition, per Section 2.120 and Section 2.130, the “mandate” was not in the proper format, wording, or timeline to be considered a valid legal document. Per these sections, no ordinance can take effect until 15 days AFTER a vote. Per Section 2.080, the “mandate” did not follow proper procedure to be an ordinance. Per Section 2.110 the “mandate” did not have proper authority to be enacted as all ordinances originate in the Council (the legislative branch of local government) and NOT with the County Executive (the executive branch of local government). Further, per Section 3.050, items 1-12, the span of control of the County Executive only includes County government, not all citizens of the County. The County Executive’s authority only extends to employees of the County government, not to the citizens of the County. In other words, that document was completely bogus in every way. The County Executive can decide who to hire and fire on his own staff so that county services (roads, police, trash, etc.) can function, but he has zero power over the citizens and residents of the County. According to the County Charter which instituted County government to secure these rights, that “order” was no “order,” not even for one day. It may have looked official; it may have had the appearance of being valid; it may have been cloaked with a thin veneer of legality; but if scratched and questioned even slightly, the entire document was no more legal, official, or valid than toilet paper. So it seems that the company lawyers who were consulted in the development of company policy (per Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, and 6) never took the obvious legal step to consult the County Charter and only went so far as the “fake news” and propaganda story that there was or ever could be a “mandate” or “order” or “regulation” that infringed on those certain, unalienable, SACRED rights endowed by GOD and secured under the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme LAW of the Land. If that company policy isn’t color of law, I don’t know what is; namely, taking something published by a journalist and calling it law. What a sham. And these policies and “orders” were presented to the Jury as official documents and law. Another sham. There was no law in 2020 or in 2021 either. There was only the rumor of law spread by the “news,” and if that’s not color of law, I don’t know what is. Taking “news” and presenting it to employees as policy is bad enough but then defending it as law? In a Court of law? But there’s more . . . Not only was there no actual law in 2020, not only was there no actual law on July 23, July 26, or July 27, 2021; there was no law after July 27, 2021 either! In researching this case in the normal course of business as a Pro Se, Self-Represented person, there is a case of Shannon Robinson v. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (30764) (30764.html)which was decided by Summary Judgement on 11/22/21 and upheld under Case #WD85070. Per the County’s own website, this case forced the County to issue an order to rescind a “mandate” (30761) (30761.html)dated September 27, 2021. The County further was forced to rescind another “mandate” (30762) (30762.html)from January 5, 2022. So, there was no “mandate” in 2020. There was no “mandate” in 2021. There was no “mandate” as of at least January 5, 2022. Not for the City. Not for the County. And per the Constitution of the United States of America and GOD’S LAW, not for any city or county anywhere in the United States of America. There was only the COLOR OF LAW, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law, the empty pinata that’s full of gas, the dictator that is overstepping his or her authority, the “order” that is as thin, fragile, and legally binding as toilet tissue. Hence, company policies created and promoted as “law” after consultation with attorneys were created and promoted and enforced under color of law . . . and yet the Constitutional Case was denied and no lawyer in the United States of America would represent the case. I was given policies under color of law. I was coerced to take an injection that violates my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs under color of law. I was coerced to cover my face and inhibit my respiration which violates my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs under color of law. I was given an ultimatum to violate my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief under color of law. I was ordered to perform in person work and denied a remote work policy under color of law. I was harassed with notes and ordered to produce notes that violate my strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs under color of law. I was questioned repeatedly about my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief under color of law. I was nearly put in jail because of a “mandate” that was presented and admitted in a Court of law under color of law. And the company went right on talking and questioning witnesses in the United States District Court of Law on “regulations,” “mandates,” and “orders” as if they were valid, legitimate, legal documents when they were color of law. I could not object. How could I object? The Constitutional Claim was denied two years before. I could not object. BUT I OBJECT NOW. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY OBJECT. How could I even say all of what I have said here from the witness stand, especially in light of the fact that the Constitutional Claim was denied two years prior and I had only eight hours to present the rest of the claim? Those “mandates,” “orders,” and “regulations” fail as law at every level of the law, from local to state to federal, right on up the ORDER OF LAW to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme LAW of the Land; and then they reach even further than that. They are violating GOD’S LAW. MAN'S LAW VERSUS THE ORDER OF LAW If I, as an American citizen, do not have a right to my own body, what do I have? I have NOTHING! The other rights are meaningless without this most fundamental right. GOD did not endow me at creation with “papers,” “property,” “witnesses,” “trials,” “the press,” “petition,” “effects,” “jury,” . . . Those things were acquired later, and some of them I may not even need in order to LIVE. So what good are they if I lack GOD’S ENDOWMENT, if it is stripped from me, not just by a government under color of law, not just by the “news” media under color of law, but by an employer . . . AN EMPLOYER! What good are any other certain, unalienable rights to me listed in the Bill of Rights and secured under the Constitution of the United States of America if GOD’S ENDOWMENT to ME, my own body, my internal systems, my respiratory system, my immune system, my health, my breath, my breathing, my airway, my conscience, my lungs, my white blood cells, my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief, my very DESIGN BY MY CREATOR are not secure?! What the “news” did in promoting a lie is wrong. What the government did in publishing a “mandate” lie is unconstitutional and illegal. But what the company did under color of law is criminal. There are laws in this Country to protect my property. Where is the law to protect and secure my certain, unalienable SACRED right as ENDOWED BY GOD, THE CREATOR? Well, there is one. IT’S CALLED THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. That is the law; and if the Supreme LAW of the land does not address my certain, unalienable, SACRED rights, then what is the purpose of law at all? If the government and the Court of the Land that are BOUND to the Supreme LAW of the Land do not secure these certain, unalienable SACRED rights endowed by GOD, then what is the purpose of government and the Court? If the corporation is not responsible under the LAW for acting under color of law to usurp my certain, unalienable, SACRED ENDOWMENT from GOD, my CREATOR, what is the purpose of government or law? Read the Declaration of Independence. The infringements and complaints which were used to justify the institution of government in this Country were far less egregious than an infringement on the most certain, unalienable, SACRED rights. But I am prevented from discussing the Constitutional Claim in Court. My claim is denied before it is even read or “heard.” We want to take Title VII without the Constitution of the United States of America. Well, what is Title VII based on if not the Constitution of the United States of America?! How can Title VII exist at all as law if it does not reference back to the Supreme LAW of the Land? How can any man be prevented from referring to the Constitution of the United States of America in any Court in the United States of America when the Constitution of the United States of America is what instituted the Court to begin with? The Constitutional Claim should not have been denied. The company should not have promulgated the 2020 / 2021 “mandates,” “regulations,” “orders” as law when they are not law by any definition or standard of law. The Jury should not have been subjected to hearing the color of law in a Court of law. The ORDER OF LAW has now been turned on its head with this verdict. I may be fined, I may be jailed, and I may be otherwise punished. It’s happened before. History proves it has happened before, many, many times before. People in our family disappeared for telling the simple truth. And what is the simple truth? THE CREATOR – not the corporation, the congress, or the court – endowed the human with the certain, unalienable, SACRED right over the inside of the body (respiratory system and immune system). This right does not end or begin on the doorstep of the office. It is a basic human right. I am endowed with certain, unalienable, SACRED rights by GOD. Why did I take up this battle for four years? Because of my two Creeds: the Apostle’s Creed and the American’s Creed. But if government is no longer “under GOD” and if it is no longer “of the people, by the people, for the people” then I am no longer obliged to speak the American’s Creed because all I would be doing is swearing allegiance to man’s law, a law that is changeable, a law that can be violent, a law that can be fundamentally unjust, a law that can turn tyrannical based on public opinion, a law that, throughout history, has committed any number of atrocities. Without the guiding light of GOD’S LAW as expressed through the Constitution of the United States of America, man’s law quickly becomes corrupt as witnessed by the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s book and the biographies of so many people like my dad who have escaped communism, fascism, and whatever other type of disease “ism” suffix you want to add to the end of a word to prove government, much less a corporation, is bypassing GOD’S LAW. Are we still living in the land of the free? Are we still the home of the brave? Did brave men and women sacrifice their lives and fortunes for GOD’S LAW and the Supreme LAW of the Land only to have those certain, unalienable, SACRED rights rendered violate because of unconstitutional illegitimate "mandates.” Are those patriots ignored? Are they forgotten? Are they mocked? I have known many. I believe their sacrifices are not in vain. I remember them. I honor their sacrifices. I had a choice: to publish or not to publish this. I wanted to be safe and not publish, not go against the grain, not expose myself, not expose the lie, not stand up for my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief, not stand up for the true LAW of the Land . . . But what comes next? What happens when the next lie is incorporated and promulgated through whitewashed company policy under the guise of “the law made me do it”? What happens when the next lie is promulgated by the “news” media and promoted as policy? What happens when the corporation directs the employee on how to treat their own cancer? What happens when the company asks the employee to again wear their confidential medical data on a lanyard in exchange for the privilege of being able to breathe? What happens the next time we are asked to surrender our certain, unalienable SACRED rights under color of law? What happens next time? And there will be a next time. There will always be a next time. If history proves anything it proves that any time a government or a corporation gets a little more power or money it always wants more. There will always be a next time. A patriot who died for this Country told me: “if you don’t stand up for yourself, don’t expect anyone else to do it.” Very true. If you don’t stand up for your certain, unalienable SACRED right to the inside of your own body, respiratory system, immune system, conscience, nose, mouth, face, image of GOD, GOD given ENDOWMENTS, religion and strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs, don’t expect anyone else to do it. My name is Katherine Maria Pinner. I am an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic. My parents are American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic. My grandparents are American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic. My great grandparents are American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic. And our ancestors before them? All Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic. I stand for my certain, unalienable SACRED rights and even for the rights of those who don’t belief in their CREATOR. Why? Because all men are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable SACRED rights whether they believe in their CREATOR or not. These rights were not endowed by a doctor, a politician, a human resources administrator, a lawyer, a judge, a jury, a cleric, a surgeon, a president, another employee, or an employer. A man did not endow them and so a man is in no place to take or give that which a man did not endow. GOD ENDOWED man. Without GOD, man has no dignity. Without GOD man has no rights. And without GOD a Nation will succumb to totalitarianism. The proof is in the mandates and the policies. The Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen is right. No matter how long ago he lived he is right, and his words will outlive any lawyer who mocks him in a Court of law. You may ignore him. You may mock him. You may say what the company said, that he lived over 50 years ago and then dismiss his religious authority, but he was right. His words are truth. GOD is the origin of human dignity. GOD is the source of all rights and liberties. Not the congress. Not the court. Not the corporation. Not the WHO. Not the CDC. Not the County Executive. Not the Mayor. And certainly not the company’s human resources administrator. GOD GOD is the ORIGIN: the ALPHA and the OMEGA. And GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY RULES OVER ALL. HE DOES NOT SHARE POWER. Therefore, we hold these TRUTHS to be SELF-EVIDENT, that ALL men are CREATED equal, that they are ENDOWED by their CREATOR with certain, unalienable (and therefore SACRED) RIGHTS, that AMONG THESE are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. You might think your endowment comes from a man but get prepared because what a man gives a man can take away just as easily as he gives, but as far as me, my endowment comes from GOD; for it is written: “The LORD has established His throne in the heavens and His sovereignty rules over all.” (Psalm 103: 19) “As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15) SUMMING IT ALL UP CONNECTING THE DOTS We have come a long way in this color of law discussion, haven’t we? I told you this was going to take a while. We covered a lot of ground, didn’t we? There is a lot of proof, isn’t there? There are a lot of examples, aren’t there? Yes. Great. But how does it all fit together? What does it all mean? Well, let’s take a moment to look at it. It’s really simple actually. But let’s take each point one by one. We will climb this staircase one step at a time, starting at the bottom. First First, there were no laws about face coverings in injections in Saint Louis County or the City of Saint Louis in 2020 / 2021, nor could there ever be. We know this because of:
Second Second, because there was nor could there ever be any actual law, the company’s excuse “the law made us do it” does not hold any water whatsoever. It is, as we say in the Show-Me State, full of bologna. The statement itself, the witness testimony, Exhibit U that was admitted during trial, the sworn responses to interrogatory questions, are all just color of law. Whatever happened on the case after color of law was introduced cannot be considered law. Third Third, during trial, the Jury, the Judge, and the General Public heard color of law. They did not hear actual law. The verdict is questionable at best. It was not based on law. It was based on color of law. Fourth Because of color of law, the company violated every level of the law. For starters, it clearly violated federal statute 42 US Code, Section 1983. It violated Title 28, Section 1343a3. Its policies violated GOD’S LAW. It violated the SUPREME Law of the Land, particularly Amendments I, II, IV, V, VI, IX, and X. It violated Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the Declaration of Independence, Grandfather to the Constitution of the United States of America, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, per the United States District Court, Eastern Division of Missouri as written on Bartol Brnjac’s citizenship and naturalization paper. It violated the Constitution of the United States of America, particularly Article IV, Section 2-1 and Amendment XIV, Section 1 to the Constitution of the United States of America. It violated the Missouri State Constitution which, via its inheritance, includes the Supreme LAW of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America and which talks about freedom of religion in the State of Missouri. The company’s illegal policy went well beyond even the requirements of the City of Saint Louis "order" which: 1.) made no mention whatsoever about mandatory injections in exchange for work, 2.) allowed for remote work and did not require any in person presence in the City of Saint Louis, 3.) did not require employers to host events in the City of Saint Louis, 4.) did not require external identification such as lanyards to visually segregate those who received an injections from those who did not. It went beyond the Saint Louis County Charter not to mention the County Council’s vote which rendered even the color of law “orders” ineffectual. It begs the question if the company at any point in time actually was following the actual law in 2020 and 2021. SUMMING IT ALL UP If I had the Constitutional Claim on the table during Summary Judgement (where the Court rules strictly based on the law), and if I submitted these along with my outline, and if the company had already submitted the testimony that the company submitted during trial on the record that “the law made us do it,” and if I had all of the evidence I just presented available to submit during Summary Judgement in order to overcome the company’s affirmative defense excuse that “the law made us do it,” would the verdict for the Constitutional Claim and Title VII Claim have been different? 100%. Unfortunately, we can’t go back in time. Those ships sailed long ago. The Constitutional Claim was denied on March 30, 2023. The Summary Judgement deadline was June 28, 2024. The company did not introduce “laws” on the record until the week of May 5, 2025. The Court entered a judgement on the Title VII Claim on May 9, 2025. The entire action is now closed as of May 9, 2025. Yet all the evidence I just presented was technically in that Courtroom on May 5, 2025 per the doctrine of MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT when the company was arguing extensively that there were “laws” that required them to create their policies and that there were “laws” that required me to wear a face covering or receive an injection. All the evidence was right there . . . but could I bring it up? No. Why? Because the Constitutional Claim left the tracks long before we ever entered the Courtroom, and I was terrified I was going to jail! Well, I still am terrified I am going to jail . . . but as my mother always taught me, “honesty is the best policy.” Those company policies sure were not honest. They were built on the color of law, the illusion of law, the appearance without the substance of law. They presented a color of law and looked like law while simultaneously violating every law in the Order of Law. I hope we at least learned something here. If we did, then it was worth every single second of my time working on this case Pro Se, getting up every day the last four years at 3:00 AM to work on this case and leaving for work at 7:00 AM to put in eight plus hours at my job while suffering a loss of finances, livelihood, career, mental well-being, and emotional well-being. I learned a lot, and I hope whoever reads this learned a lot too. If we learned, then we won’t have to repeat our same mistakes. We can take a lesson from history and do better in the future. WHAT NOW? As far as my request for redress:
Maybe I didn’t “win,” and maybe I even “lost” in the eyes of the Court and according to the law, but I still won. I did what GOD said do, how GOD said do it, when GOD said do it. In that I won. In that I could not lose. No matter what man’s law says, I won. If I accomplished nothing else in the last four years as this case dragged on via every manner of lawyer game, I still won. If I accomplished nothing else over the last four years, I at least accomplished this: at least I tried. At least I have fulfilled my duty and obligations as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic to protect and defend my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs, the Supreme LAW of the Land, and, most importantly, GOD’S LAW. At least I have fulfilled my duty and obligations as an American Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholic to tell the truth no matter how scary the consequences of standing up to the law might be. "Finally, draw your strength from the LORD and from his mighty power. Put on the armor of GOD so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Therefore, put on the armor of GOD, that you may resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of GOD. With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit. To that end, be watchful with all perseverance and supplication." Ephesians 6: 10-18 It is hard to stand up; it is hard to tell the truth in the face of such a lie; it is hard to research the law and the color of law when you are not a lawyer; it’s easier to “stay calm and carry on” and thus perpetuate the lie; but perpetuating a lie is what happened in my dad’s homeland. The lie is how communism was able to spread. People perpetuated that lie. People were persecuted for standing up to that lie. People were afraid to tell the truth. When that happened, there was no way to overcome the propaganda, the lie, and the fear. It’s a terrible way to live, under an iron curtain that uses propaganda to instill lies and induce fear. That’s the iron curtain as they call it. It’s living in the lie and the fear externally. But the real iron curtain is the one imposed on you by your own mind. It takes a strong mind to resist the propaganda, to go against the lie, and to replace fear with faith. What is operating under color of law? It is operating under a lie. A lie that was used to deny my claim. A lie that was used to harass me about notes and permissions. A lie that was used to issue ultimatums. A lie that was used to issue policies. A lie that was used as an excuse to sidestep the actual law. A lie that was used to violate the Supreme LAW of the Land. A lie that was used to justify disparate treatment ( “orders” over Title VII and ADA over the First Amendment). A lie that was used to coerce me to violate my religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief. A lie that was used when asking for notes from men so that the company could endow me with rights over my own body when such rights are ENDOWED BY GOD. So now what? What does this all mean? It means that even though all of this evidence was technical in the Courtroom and known to the Court via the doctrine of MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT, “obvious facts need to proof,” “that which is known need not be proven,” the Jury was not allowed to hear any of it per the Constitutional Claim getting tossed two years earlier on March 30, 2023 so that all the Jury actually heard was a bunch of color of law. It means that the actions of Title VII and the Constitutional Claim that were originally raised have now been unjustly ruled on with prejudice at a time when I have no time, no money, no resources, no lawyer, and no knowledge of the appeals process as being an indigent person. We have the Supreme LAW of the Land which includes the First Amendment Redress Clause; FRCP 15b1 & 2; FRCP 60 a & b; 42 US Code, Section 1983; US Code, Title 28, Section 1343a3 on the one hand. We have a closed case on the other hand. I don’t know how to navigate any of these on a closed case. I don’t know what the Court can do about any of this. I don’t know what the overall consequences are. No lawyer will talk to me. The lawyers, I was told by the members of the “Bar” will settle the case despite needing to have the question of actual law addressed in light of the Constitution of the United States of America, the question of basic human and civil rights clarified, not to mention the question of religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief acknowledged. I am told there is no “case law” where a company has been held accountable for operating under “color of law.” I find that hard to believe, but I have no access to case law to prove or disprove that theory. I have more than demonstrated myself as indigent on man’s law as I now have but a mere four days of unsuccessful trial experience under my belt. I don’t have access to case law and have proven less than capable of applying it to the development of even remotely intelligible jury instructions. I don’t have any means to navigate the law at the various levels of government. I don’t have authority over government officials to obtain witness testimony and similar matters of procedure as pertains to the various bureaucratic layers of local, state, and federal government. I have no knowledge on the government and the attainment of subpoenas and the proper function of affidavits. I am told the case does not follow a “standard fact pattern,” despite the fact that all civil rights violations have a direct “fact pattern” called the Constitution of the United States of America. I have no idea what my options are. Well, isn’t that just duckie. The Court is sworn to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Is there some vehicle the Court can apply under its own discretion for the benefit of Judge and Jury and the American people to execute its oath under Article VI, Section 2 of the United States of America and Missouri Supreme Court Rule 8.15, some rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures to take up, as a matter of law, that which involves color of law? Does the Court not have at its disposal every law, every lawyer, and every Court? Is it not BOUND to the Supreme LAW of the Land? Can the Court redress a Constitutional violation by a corporation that infringes on, not just civil rights, but basic human rights, rights that, in the words of American Jurisprudence, “include fundamental liberties so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed”? Can a Court redress an action that dates all the way back to March 30, 2023 when a Constitutional Claim was separated from the Title VII claim because the facts for the “color of law” as pertains to the Constitutional Claim were unknown at that time? Can a Court research and settle a question of color of law by applying the Order of Law? Can the Court rule on the “laws” herein to validate the degree to which such “laws” are unconstitutional and thereby illegal as per color of law? I do not have the answers to those questions. I am not a lawyer. I am a Pro Se, Self-Represented person writing to redress a wrong. I do not hold the keys to open the door to what the Court can or cannot do. If the Court can, then by all means, please do! Therefore, the question of moving forward is not in my hands, novice indigent hands which have done everything in their power to hold this case together for four long years as I have attempted to traverse the many legal landmines and sink holes of complex Federal Rules, Procedures, and Deadlines, under threat of paying the company’s legal fees if unsuccessful and while my path toward the Supreme LAW of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America has been unequivocally blocked. It is now in the hands of the Court and whether it will stand behind the Declaration of Independence which it documented and recognized on my Great Grandfather’s naturalization and citizenship papers as far back as 1914 and the words that instituted our government, that: “all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED by their CREATOR with certain unalienable (and therefore SACRED) rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” RELIEF When I started the case, I was asking for relief from the damages I suffered. There were categories (actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and front pay). Those categories were denied on the Jury’s verdict form. But I pursued other relief from the Court too. I requested the Court read or “hear” the Constitutional claim. The Court did not. It closed the case. I requested to have the Court clarify and acknowledge that there are certain, unalienable, SACRED rights. The Court did not. It closed the case. I requested that the Court acknowledge religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief. The Court did not. It closed the case. Okay Jury. Okay Court. Well, at least I have now asserted my certain unalienable SACRED rights and my religion and my strongly and sincerely held religious belief under the First Amendment Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Right to Redress Clauses. There is some sense of relief in that. I needed to write to redress a wrong. There is some sense of relief in that. I have exposed color of law so men can understand the difference between color of law and actual law. There is some relief in that. At least I have not perpetuated a lie that my rights and liberties are created by an EMPLOYER! At least I have not perpetuated a lie that my human dignity is based on the decisions of a human resources administrator. At least I have not perpetuated the lie that man’s law and case law can ever represent justice without consideration for GOD’S LAW and the Supreme LAW of the Land. At this point, the case is closed. It seems we are at an impasse. We are well past the deadline for Summary Judgement and Court rulings. I have no resources, money, time, education, experience, etc. to walk a case through appellate Court. In addition to MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT, “that which is known need not be proven,” “obvious facts need no proof,” had I had the color of law facts at the summary judgement phase, access to case law (which even now I do not have), knowledge of legal jargon and “lawyer speak” (which even now I do not have), knowledge of how to properly format and logically flow such a document (which even now I do not have), the ability to counter the company’s affirmative defenses for summary judgement (which I did not have until they presented and articulated them the day of trial), access to a lawyer who would not “settle” in exchange for not having the most critical matter of having these certain, unalienable, SACRED rights acknowledged and clarified, access to a lawyer who would not “settle” in exchange for having religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief acknowledged, access to a lawyer who knows and will defend the Order of Law and not just case law, things might be different. But they are not different. This is where we are. I did not have them, nor do I have them now; and now, because it has been four years, I am in no position of being able to pursue the matter in the Court of Appeals where I will certainly be met with even more procedure, lawyer speak, jargon, unfamiliar formats, affirmative defenses, etc., etc., etc. and possibly four more years of dragging this out with no clear path or outcome. The trial itself more than proves the “color of law” for the Constitutional Claim; the color of law policies, “orders,” and testimony submitted by the company during trial along with the MANIFESTA PROBATIONE, NON-INDIGENT evidence presented here completely demolish the company’s affirmative defense that “the law made us do it”; my outline which I was trying to use during trial would have been perfect for Summary Judgement (but unbeknownst to indigent me was extremely counter-productive for trial) more than proves the Title VII claim but could not be submitted for Summary Judgment as the company still had its affirmative defenses that “the law made us do it" and I didn’t have the evidence to counter it then. I have it now, but none of it matters now. It is all moot. Why? Because the Constitutional Claim was long since denied, and now, four years later, I am in no position to pursue an appeal. There is nowhere for me to go. Well, isn’t that just duckie. And the real clincher, the sheer irony of it all is that this probably would have helped the company too! Had all of this been addressed, the company would not have to struggle with policies in the future because it would have also received direction from the Court that INDIVIDUAL’S certain, unalienable SACRED rights are secured by the Constitution of the United States of America, and, by extension, are secured by the Courts that exist to secure these rights. The company would have received direction from the Court that the Constitution of the United States of America trumps Title VII, ADA, and company policy. It would have received direction from the Court that an employee’s religion and strongly / sincerely held religious belief is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. But that didn’t happen. So now what happens? Some lawyer somewhere is going to look at this case and think the company was right and perpetuate the lies and the color of law as he looks to man’s law and case law for direction instead of looking to the Supreme LAW of the Land and GOD’S LAW. That is my other reason for requesting redress. That’s why I am writing to redress a wrong. I want this as a permanent reminder to any lawyer or judge reviewing this case in the future to know the truth because where there is no truth, there is no Justice. Where there is no truth, there is no Freedom. Where there is no truth, there is no Liberty. Where there is no truth, there can be no Happiness. When the color of law is postured as truth, we lose Justice, we lose Freedom, we lose Liberty, and we cannot have any Happiness. When the Order of Law is flipped on its head, there is no Justice, Freedom, Liberty, or Happiness. It happened in my dad’s homeland, and it can happen here. The lie permeated man’s law. Man’s law overshadowed GOD’S LAW. And when GOD’S LAW is overshadowed, men end up with totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is the injustice of man trying to be his own light and make his own laws. Without consideration for GOD the CREATOR, a nation moves into the inevitable consequence of man standing in his own shadow. That’s why GOD’S LAW in the Order of Law must light the path for all other laws. AFTERWARD: A LESSON FROM CROATIAN HISTORY I was given an ultimatum. Many people in the United States were given ultimatums: “CONVERT OR DIE.” “You must! You need to!” “Forget your religion! Forget your strongly / sincerely held religious beliefs! Do what we tell you! Cover your face! Inject this into your body! Do you want to eat? Do you want to pay bills? Do you want to live? Then do what we tell you! We are the keeper of your body! We are the keeper of your soul!” And what they were really saying is that they were above GOD. This happened before. Long ago, our ancestors faced a similar battle. The invaders entered our homeland. For hundreds of years, they ravaged the land and our Croatian people. We did not go to them. They came to us. They came on horseback. They would hold their scimitar to the throat of the Croatian. “CONVERT OR DIE!” Many Croatians converted. Many more died. Their stories will never be told. They are lost to history. Somehow our family survived. We held firm and steadfast in our faith. We did not convert. We did not die. We stood up. We all stood up together. We did not just stand up for ourselves. We stood up for our Families. We stood up for our Country. We stood up for our Countrymen. We stood up as Traditional Christian, Croatian Roman Catholics. And most importantly, we stood up for GOD’S LAW. CENTRAL QUESTION TO ASK YOURSELF The central question now is if the Court will stand up. The Constitutional Claim was prematurely denied. The company has admitted an unconstitutional law in a Court of law under color of law. Now that company thinks what it did was right, that the “law” it presented was actual law. Now it thinks the law will justify its actions in the future. Now the company will certainly use future “laws” to justify its policy. Does the Court have jurisdiction to determine what is and what is not law? Will the Court do anything to address color of law violations? Will the Court apply full consideration of the Order of Law with consideration of GOD’S LAW? These are not questions I can answer. The company turned the Order of Law on its head. The actions by the company that usurped GOD’S ENDOWMENT and a person’s certain, unalienable, SACRED rights violated the Supreme LAW of the Land and GOD’S LAW. The company used color of law to overshadow the Order of Law and GOD’S LAW. Justice can only exist where the path of all law follows the light of GOD’S LAW. GOD'S LAW God, please help us correct this injustice before it happens again. God, please help us correct the Order of Law in this Country so that GOD’S LAW lights the path for all other laws. God, please help us. Comments are closed.
|
Author
Archives
June 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed