|
July 4, 2026
To the United States District Court Eastern Division of Missouri CASE NAME: Katherine Maria Pinner, Plaintiff Vs. American Association of Orthodontists, Defendant REGARDING CASE NUMBER 4:22-CV-00870-KDP/SRC BASED ON THE 2ND CLAUSE OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Dear United States District Court Eastern Division of Missouri, I am addressing the following facts in the form of a letter under the 2nd clause of the 1st Amendment, the freedom of speech clause. It is my obligation to speak the truth. It is my obligation to present these facts. After careful consideration of possible consequences and adverse actions that could be taken up by the court in retaliation against me in the presentation of these facts, I am submitting the following as a letter because, if the first time the court considered the case it dismissed the Constitution, I have no confidence it will consider it now. If the court ignored the first rule of its own procedure which is the fair, timely, and inexpensive administration of justice the first time, it will certainly violate it every time. If the first battle I endured lasted four years, compromising my finances, health, and emotional well-being, the court will have no remorse in dragging out the procedure five to ten more years, putting me on a skewer until my finances, health, and well-being are decimated. These tactics on the part of the court are calculated, brutal, and devastating. To think I could survive another ten years of being picked apart, threatened, and choked by the very system created to preserve my civil rights would be foolish and naïve. The court will certainly repeat the injustice. I have better things to do than to be choked on a bureaucracy that was originally founded to preserve these rights. Though I do not intend to repeat the torture, I will address the truth, and there are many truths that warrant consideration. Let us start at the beginning. In the beginning, GOD created man, for it is written: “The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.” (Genesis 1:7) Our form was envisioned, designed, and created by GOD. He is the designer, the architect, the engineer, and the creator of it. As GOD is the origin of our form, our breath, our life; it follows that our form, our breath, and our life belong to him. Therefore, no man has a right to modify, impair, or prohibit that which does not belong to him, that over which he has no jurisdiction. To cut off another man’s breath is a violation of GOD’s LAW. To disrupt a man’s form and pattern is a violation of GOD’s LAW. To intercept or reprogram another man’s immune system is a violation of GOD’s LAW. Anywhere a man trespasses on another man’s being, he is trespassing on that which does not belong to him. He is trespassing on what belongs to GOD. The Supreme Law of every land is not the constitution; for a constitution is but a construct of man’s thought. The Supreme Law of every land is GOD’s LAW, a law which declares that we are all his children. It makes no difference whether one is a believer or an unbeliever, and it is a gross violation of GOD’s LAW to force a man to adopt a religion or religious belief in order to warrant GOD’s love and protection under his law. I must bring to the court’s attention the degree to which the court itself overlooked the law, beginning with GOD’s LAW. On August 22, 2022, I filed my claim in the court. I walked through the security gates as I was required to do. As the court is aware, there is only one set of gates through which a man may enter the building. In violation of GOD’s LAW, the guards at the check point were required to have their breathing obstructed and to violate their certain unalienable sacred right to breathe in exchange for a paycheck. They mistook me for a lawyer or a judge. As such, they allowed me to pass through the gate and walk into the building without adhering to the policy to which they themselves were subjected. At that time, I was so focused on submitting the claim that it did not occur to me that the very court from which I requested fair and equal treatment under the law was itself practicing a caste system wherein one category of man is allowed their sacred and natural rights while another category of man is denied. I did not have the presence of mind at that time to object to the court. I object to the court now. I object to the court for declaring jurisdiction over a man in body and in spirit when a man’s body and spirit belongs to the Creator. I object to the court for forcing men to beg and pray to it for natural rights that were not created by it, but which were freely granted by Almighty GOD. I object to the court now for forcing the unbeliever to adopt a religion so as to obtain a religious objection in order to have the ability to breathe when the right of breathing does not originate in the court but rather through the endowment of the CREATOR for all men, including the unbeliever. I object to this unfair and partial treatment, this discriminatory policy, this injustice and indifference on the part of the court in basing its law and policy on something as discriminatory as title, rank, wealth, image, and job description. It is hard to image I was so naïve as to expect justice from a system when the system itself committed the exact violation of GOD’S LAW as the employer against whom I registered my complaint! There may be a judicial system in the court, but that doesn’t mean there is justice in the house; for where GOD’s LAW is absent, there can be no justice. I must also bring to the court’s attention that I have a family relic that shows another egregious oversight on the part of the court. My great grandfather’s citizenship and naturalization papers dated April 4, 1914, prove beyond any and all reasonable doubt that this court recognizes the Declaration of Independence as a legal and binding document. As stated on the document, the United States District Court Eastern Division of Missouri dates my great grandfather’s papers from July 4, 1776. There can be no doubt that the court recognizes the following words to which it makes reference on the legal document it issued to my great grandfather: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed BY THEIRCREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The court must certainly recognize its obligation under that document, first in recognizing that man’s human rights are endowed by GOD, and secondly that it is the responsibility of government to secure the rights that GOD endowed. As the bill of rights enumerates but does not exclude certain unalienable rights, it should be self-evident to the court after a brief review of the bill of rights that a man’s “clay” and “breath” as mentioned in the first book of Genesis are protected rights, not only under GOD’s LAW but also under man’s law. The first words of the Constitution of the United States of America are “We the People,” a clause which precedes the establishment of the court. I am a person, and as part of “We the People,” I must point out a fact to the court which the court will recognize from its own docket. The court will note that it is obliged to take judicial notice of this fact. In March of 2023, the court threw out the constitutional claim attached to the Title VII claim without so much as a hearing. The very law the court is obligated by contract and oath to support, it denied. The court will further note that it has within its law library on the 22nd floor of its building an extensive volume called American Jurisprudence. The sections on constitutional law point to the unconstitutionality of the court’s ruling in dismissing a constitutional claim prior to a hearing as well as its action in dissociating a civil rights claim from a constitutional claim (American Jurisprudence, 2d, [2009, Second Edition, Law Library Reference #KF154.A43], Volume 16A, “Constitutional Law,” by George Blum, J.D., James Buchwalter, J.D, Paul M. Coltoff, J.D., Jefferson James Davis, J.D., Laura Hunter Dietz, J.D., Romualdo P. Eclavea, J.D., Tracy Farrell, J.D., J.S., Richard Link, J.D., Lucas Martin, J.D, Thomas Muskas, J.D., Jeffrey J. Shampo, J.D., Eric C. Surette, J.D., Susan L. Thomas, and Eleanor L Grossman, J.D., Glenda K Harnad, and Anne E. Melley, J.D., LL.M. of the staff of the National Legal Research Group, Inc., Section 166, “Limitations on general principle,” Para. 1, pages 25-26). The court knows it cannot deny a constitutional claim without a hearing. It knows it must take judicial notice of the constitution in reviewing a case. So, this begs a question: What exactly is the point of the court, the judge, the lawyer, the law library, and the building if there is no constitution, the very document by which the court was established? I will allow the court the courtesy to answer that question on its own, but from my point of view as a member of “We the People,” everything that happened to the case from the moment the judge’s pen denied that claim was itself unconstitutional and by definition color of law, an empty vessel of procedure that felt legitimate and legal with no legitimate legal basis whatsoever; for, without the Supreme Law of the Land to act as a beacon of truth and a measuring stick for justice, law becomes nothing more than opinion. When the court stripped the case of the Constitution, it removed its bones, it removed its foundation, it extracted its structure. To appeal to a court for justice and truth when it doesn’t recognize the basis of law is futile and absurd. There can be no truth or justice in this country when there is no Constitution in its court. There is no need for further words on this point. The court proved the injustice through its own actions, and those actions speak louder than words: Constitutional claim denied. Further, as a member of “We the People,” one expects that when entering a court of law, a judge and a lawyer will know what is and what is not law. As evidenced by the court’s own docket, the court admitted Exhibit U into evidence. Exhibit U required face coverings and thereby violated the law at every level of the law. It was entered into record despite it violating the very Constitution under which the court was created. The “mandate” was entered into record despite my objection. Not only did the court threaten to throw me, a self-represented party, into jail for my objection, not only did the court enter it into record under the false pretense of it being law; the court hasn’t bothered to correct the record since. Exhibit U is not law, and the court should know it. The court should know full well it was issued by a man who did not have the authority to write it as he was not a practicing physician at the time. The court should know this because there was a case against this man that was tried in its own courthouse. The court should know full well that something referred to as a “mandate” is not law. The court should know this because the Constitution under which the court itself was created makes no mention of “mandate” or “order” anywhere in its text. The court should know the instrument of tyranny and civil oppression is not law as it violates not only GOD’s LAW but the 1st amendment, freedom of religion clause. The court should know this because all of the later “orders” amend this fatal flaw and the document itself mentions ADA but not religion. The court denied me the right to speak this truth to power because I was prohibited from registering those other “orders” as the other attorney argued they were outside of the date range for the complaint. Thus, the court logged a lie into its permanent record in the form of Exhibit U, and that article of untruth and illegality remains as a testament, the crack in a bureaucratic civil procedure that allows color of law to spill into and infiltrate the court’s dockets. This was compounded by even more color of law as the 2020 “mandates” went unchallenged. The lawyer referred to the “mandate” but offered no proof to the court of its existence. Why is there no proof of actual law? Because not only were those “mandates” mere rumor and speculation, but even if they did exist the “mandates” would be deemed unconstitutional and illegal according to every level of the law. The jury was deprived of hearing man’s law much less GOD’s LAW, law which declares that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable sacred rights: the right to breathe as GOD designed, created, and endowed; the right to have an immune system as GOD designed, created, and endowed. That truth was missing from the courtroom, and where there is no truth, there can be no justice. The treatment I received from the court was at the very least bureaucratic. It was at best treatment from a cold, calculated, deliberate machine that grinds you down; and the fact that I survived four years of that torture is unfathomable. I will not recount every injustice that I suffered along the four-year path, but there is one injustice I cannot excuse. The court should be aware of it. There were three motions against the case during the week of trial. They were permitted and registered even though the case survived summary judgement. These motions that would take me months to write were submitted in a matter of hours, drafted over lunch, and ready in less time than it takes the courthouse cafeteria to grill cheese. How is this possible? It can only be possible because of “AI.” I only became aware recently that lawyers are using “AI” to draft these motions. It is a technology I didn’t even know existed at the time; but not only was I not aware of its existence, it turns out that lawyers are not using normal “AI.” They have a special “AI,” an “artificial intelligence” that is specifically developed for and used by lawyers, “AI” that only the bar can access, “AI” that bars me from ever receiving any semblance of justice as a pro se self-represented party, a human being, and a member of “We the People” without the ability to discover, afford, or access such tools. Beyond these “AI” tools, I found out later, months after the case, that were my case tried in the state of New York, I’d be referred to “Representing Yourself at Trial: A Manual for Pro Se Litigants Appearing before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.” The manual would have guided me step by step through the trial procedure. But whereas the Federal Rules of Procedure pertain to the entire country, the pro se manual does not, once again barring me from receiving the equal treatment and equal access to justice that my case deserves. I find out later, months after the case, that were my case tried in the Western District of Missouri, I’d have access to “A Guide to Pro Se or Self Representation” for the Western District of Missouri. But whereas the court’s federal rules pertain to the entire country, the pro se guide does not, once again barring me from receiving the equal treatment and equal access to justice that my case deserves. I mentioned earlier the bureaucratic machine grinding me for four consecutive years, the manner in which the system dragged out the case in a bureaucratic quagmire perhaps in the hope that I would turn away from my basic constitutional, fundamental, natural, and God-given rights. Whether deliberate or not, the court did everything in its power to block my effort toward the constitution, and it did it despite the court’s obligation to support it. I look back on the wasted years when no new evidence was procured, when we exchanged superfluous documents that brought us no closer to the truth, the threats and intimidation techniques to try to force me to quit either through intimidation and fear or through sheer exhaustion and bankruptcy, the uphill battle I fought just for the pleasure of placing a single foot in the courtroom we pay for whose sole purpose is to secure our certain, unalienable, sacred rights endowed by GOD. I will not recount every injustice, but I must mention a few:
I also need to point out to the court that the demographic of the jury pool is suspicious at best. Of the 40 plus prospective jurors attending, there was a single black juror; and men seated for selection outnumbered women by at least two to one. Those demographics do not equate to the statistics of the general population. In light of the constitutional question, the composition of the jury pool combined with the questions asked of the jury pool, did not ensure justice; but since the first issue was dismissing the constitution at the outset, the jury question is a point of lesser consideration. Now then, after all of this in combination, there are those who would say that I should have appealed, that I should have made a second attempt. It sounds reasonable except for one fact: the court is educated on the law. The court is aware of GOD’s LAW. It is aware of the Declaration, the Constitution, the law library, the color of law, and the rest of it. Was what happened technically legal? I don’t know. I am not a lawyer. It probably was technically legal or at least could be argued as being legal by those who value the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. “Technically legal” is not obvious to me. What is obvious to me is that it would be foolish and naïve to appeal to such a system considering that in order to do so I would need to proceed without a manual, without a reference guide, without the foundation of a constitutional claim, without the ability to challenge color of law, without the “AI” tools, without the Supreme Law of the Land, without GOD’S LAW. Without those, what are we left with? A farce? A contrived performance? A waste of time? I will not request an encore, filing paperwork that opposes every fiber of my being, subjecting myself to the same process that the court can now drag out to waste five to ten more years of my life to enrich the grinding system while treating me as though I am a mouse that the cat can toy with before finally terminating at the hour of his choosing. These oversights were not mere slights, and, viewed in combination, they demonstrate a pattern that speaks to a deliberate action to keep me from my rights. The court cannot deny it was created for the purpose of securing rights, but as demonstrated by its actions the real effect of such a bureaucracy is deprivation of rights. What the court practiced was not law but color of law; for, without GOD’S LAW and the Supreme Law of the Land, there can be no law; there can be only color of law and opinion. This explains why the justices in higher courts have formed the annoying habit of publishing opinions to support their rulings instead of quoting the document and contract under which they were established. I cannot repair a system by perpetuating it. Until the court recognizes that every decision must be measured according to the Supreme Law of the Land, until its members measure every word and action according to the Supreme Law, there is no justice. There may be a system, but there is a vast chasm between a judicial system and actual justice. I felt the full force of the system, the process, the torture, the intimidation, the bureaucracy, the mind games that dragged on for four years. I did not experience justice, none whatsoever. I am not apt to repeat the process knowing that the court can now subject me to new tortures, new threats, new bureaucracies, and new sets of games for five to ten more years. The temptation is to go back, to double down, to increase the effort; but that is foolishness. Expecting justice from what I now know to be an unfair, unjust, unreasonable system will only bring about the same treatment if not worse. The spirit warns of this imminent danger. The court denied me a reference guide, a manual, a constitutional claim, a voice, a hearing of the Supreme Law. The court blatantly ignored GOD’S LAW. That is no mere slight. That is gross negligence, a glaring error in bureaucratic procedure that only the court can fix. It may sound like I deny the court’s legitimacy, but my approval or denial is inconsequential. The truth is it is the court itself that negates its own legitimacy by denying GOD’s LAW along with its own contract: the Constitution. There is an old saying in the language of my people. It says that you pay for every lesson. Well, I paid a steep price for this lesson. I paid four years of my life to learn the truth and to see the court as it really is. It is a lesson I could learn no other way. Even law school could not teach this lesson so well, being nothing more than indoctrination into the system and the process. To understand it, to truly learn about the court, you must see it from the outside. Only when viewed in that light are the cracks and tarnish obvious. Only then can a man comprehend the sheer magnitude of the dysfunction and disrepair. The truth is that no amount of formal education could have taught me so well what the court really is so much as the life lesson I just received. For that I am grateful. The government should be of the people, by the people, for the people. It is clearly not. Love my country? Yes. Love my countrymen? Yes. Love my government? Only when it deserves it. For what is government but a system, and, like all systems, if not improved over time, the system will evolve into entropy, obsolescence, bureaucracy, or tyranny, particularly when that system no longer serves the original intended purpose for which it was created. In this case, that purpose is to secure our certain unalienable sacred rights as endowed by the CREATOR. The court’s current failure in this area is both disappointing and noticeable. But, as strange as it may seem, I want to thank the court for it. In shattering my confidence in government, it has strengthened my faith in GOD. In proving that our certain unalienable sacred rights exist despite the court’s mutable opinions, procedural errors, prejudicial rulings, and unconstitutional edicts, it has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that our rights and liberties do not originate with government but rather are a permanent endowment of the CREATOR. In creating a sham of a trial that was nothing more than a masquerade of injustice, the court demonstrated the truth that GOD’S LAW is the only law that can bring about true justice. By practicing color of law, the court has bolstered GOD’S LAW as the only true path to justice. Our rights do not come from government (USA, Inc.) or the corporation (AAO, Inc.). They come from GOD. If the court overlooks its duty to preserve them, it does not nullify the rights, nor do the court’s actions nullify the Supreme Law of the Land. Rather, by overlooking its duty and the law the court is sworn to support, the court nullifies its own legitimacy. If the court itself violates and ignores its first rule of procedure, it sets a clear example that its rules are nothing more than whimsy, that they carry no greater weight and authority than that of a subjective voluntary opinion; for if the court itself does not set the example of law by following the rules, it is hypocrisy and injustice to expect others to follow them. If the court’s volume of procedure is mandatory while the pro se guide is optional, it is the court’s own actions that demonstrate we are not a government of the people, by the people, for the people. I am grateful for these lessons for they expose the truth, and the truth is the first step on the path to justice. I am grateful to the court for teaching me about color of law. I am grateful to the court for teaching me the Supreme Law. I am grateful to the court for demonstrating the inevitable tyranny that occurs when the court fails to tether itself to anything stronger than man’s subjective opinions and fickle preferences. I am grateful to the court for teaching me the importance of the order of law. I am grateful most of all to the court for making it clear, self-evident, and undeniable that my certain unalienable sacred rights come from GOD and not government. My right to breathe, to have an immune system, and to be in permanent possession of the sovereign right to my own internal systems, is not the court’s to grant or deny. The court has shown the fragility of its own law and rules by ignoring the law it is obligated to follow. In the administration of its random and untethered judgements, the court has caused me to acknowledge the self-evident truth that a court’s rulings whether favorable or unfavorable, are nothing more than opinion, bringing me to discover the unmovable truth that the source of my rights and liberties can only originate in something higher than the court. I am grateful for this revelation, and I thank the court for the priceless lesson that no amount of money could possibly produce. The four-year journey was not wasted. It led me to a continent I had not hereto discovered; for it brought me to the origin of our rights, liberties, and to the root of unfailing justice. It brought me to GOD’S LAW. I still have hope for the court, that its present defects may be healed, that it may be revived by the spirit of the law under which it was first envisioned and established, that it will put the Constitution back in the courtroom, that it will fix the docket in light of the Supreme Law of the Land which the court unconstitutionally banned from its courtroom early on and prior to summary judgement, that the court will look into the true law, that it will declare those county and city ordinances unconstitutional thus permitting truth to enter the courthouse, that the court’s judges and lawyers will practice the spirit instead of just the letters, that the court will fix the deficit of requiring rules that are not accompanied equally by instructions, and most of all that the court turn the ship back to GOD; for, America, your greatness is in your return to GOD. And when you remember that your rights and liberties do not come from the court, the congress, the corporation, or the arbitrary opinions of men, then you will truly be free. It is only through an admission that our rights and liberties come from GOD that true justice may prevail. I am not a lawyer. I do not live for the law. I live by the spirit. I cannot spend nine to fourteen years of my life trying to apply the law to the law to correct the law so that the law recognizes and follows the Supreme Law of the Land. I cannot wait nine to fourteen years of my life for the courtesy of a simple hearing. If these words and actions I have spent the last four years are not enough, no amount of words and actions on my part will suffice. I did not cause the court to drift from its dock; I did not untether it from its original port; I did not man the ship and drive it out of its harbor; I did not set it to float amidst the treacherous waves of the great and mighty expanse to be at the mercy of fate with no spirit to fuel it and no Constitution to steady it. Thus, I must hope that those who untethered it, caused the drift, and drove it away will bring it back, that they will have a reconning with the law of the CREATOR and a reconciliation with the GOD of their understanding. There are things I wish I had done differently during the trial. I will not deny that as I look back, every mistake I made has become glaringly obvious. I see them all with the clarity that only experience can bring. Hindsight is 20/20 as the saying goes, and I didn’t know what I didn’t know. I am not excusing my failures, too numerous to inventory and all of which originated in inexperience. But my greatest failure was in granting a system so much power over my life. My greatest failure was holding the fickle and changeable laws of men in so great esteem. My greatest failure was in taking my eyes off the Supreme Law and GOD’S LAW. My greatest failure was in being too cowardly to stand up for GOD’S LAW and the Supreme Law of the Land when the trial came and the day of my own reconning and judgement came, that I retracted my words because of a threat, that I failed to proclaim from the mountain tops the true origin of my rights and liberties during my oral testimony, no matter the cost or the punishment, that I was so weak and afraid that I tried to lean on case law, procedure, and technicality as I had been pressured and disciplined by the court to do for four years instead of being firm and steadfast in truth and faith to uphold GOD’S LAW and the Supreme Law of the Land. That is my own failure, and I have had my own reconning with GOD; for he knows my failures; he is aware of my many shortcomings; he sees my every weakness; and yet he loves me just the same. Saint Paul the Apostle who was himself a lawyer and a persecutor of many Christians before his conversion said: “For through the law I died to the law that I might live for God.” (Galatians 3:19). I have no faith in men. I have no faith in science. I have no faith in government. I have no faith in man’s fickle and changing color of law that masquerades as true law. I am grateful for the lesson and the loss; for what I have lost is nothing more than a casing and the routine and fickle constructs of men. What I have gained is a far greater treasure. The loss has strengthened my faith in GOD. The torment of the four-year journey has brought me closer to GOD. For that I am grateful. The court will do as the court will do. “As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15) Appeal is pointless, but the truth is the truth. The truth is that you men have less right to steal a man’s breath and DNA than you do their property. I object to the court for its own duplicitous laws and policies; but though a serious redress is in order, I do not have more time to waste trying to get the court and the corporation to adhere to the Supreme Law of the Land. If the words I have expended hereto have had no effect in moving the hearts and minds of men, I am not convinced that any amount of words will have an effect. If the hearts and minds of men have grown so cold, immovable, and thick as to believe that one man has a right to disrupt and deprive another man’s breathing, function, life, immunity, and communication to GOD; if they are so arrogant as to believe a man breathes, functions, lives, has immunity, and connects with GOD because of a permission slip written by an HR clerk; if they are so deluded as to truly believe some men have their natural rights because of a position, title, job description, pay rate, or social influence while others may be deprived, then the truth that was once penned into the Declaration, written on the hearts of Americans, and poured into the foundation of our nation is forgotten. The truth is that all men are created equal. The truth is that all men are endowed with certain, unalienable rights. The truth is that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The truth is that these are the words upon which the Supreme Law of the Land was written. The truth is that the Supreme Law of the Land is the basis of all true law. If there is no place for the truth in the court, then there is no place for me in the court; for without the truth there can be no justice. Because I seek justice, I do not belong in a court of untruth. Therefore, I make my appeal, not under the fickle, changeable, and untethered laws of men but before the true judge of all, the Father who created all of his children equal and who equally endowed them with breath and life and immunity and purpose and function, who bestowed on man his natural immunity and breath, and who created man to live and breathe and function in his image. To spar with a court that is too dull to hold these truths to be self-evident is a waste of good time. To expect recognition of law from a court of law that practices color of law in its own policy and docket is a waste of time. To educate a court on law when it registers color of law in its own docket is a waste of time. I do not have good time to waste time on a ship that exists for no other purpose than to sail a sea of bureaucracy. I have choked on the bureaucracy long enough. I do not pray to the court. I pray to GOD. I take my refuge in GOD, Lord of all, in he who created all of mankind to breathe and live and have their being. In him alone do I rejoice, and to him will I continue to pray that our nation will find its way back to him, that he will guide man back to the truth, that he will bring them to realize that the dignity of man does not arise from man’s strength, education, wealth, status, achievement, constructs, or physical ability but from the dignity that comes from the origin of his being. I pray that the court will come to recognize that man has a right to breathe for no other reason than because he is a man, one who is designed and created by the CREATOR with certain unalienable sacred rights. Until the court does this, I have no time for it. All the court represents to me until that time is a waste of time, and I have too much living to do to throw more good time on a flawed system, a system intent on using its machinations for no greater purpose than to give men money and grind good men down instead of securing their rights as the CREATOR, the Founders, the Declaration, and the Constitution intended. Signed: Katherine Maria Pinner Date: July 4, 2026 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I SENT A TRUE COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY OF RECORD ON JULY 4, 2026, VIA EMAIL. Signed: Katherine Maria Pinner Dated: July 4, 2026 PLAINTIFF Katherine Maria Pinner On File DEFENDANT American Association of Orthodontists / 401 North Lindbergh Boulevard / Saint Louis, Missouri 63141 Counsel to the Defendant Fox Smith, LLC One South Memorial Drive, 12th Floor Saint Louis, Missouri 63102 Attention: Thomas J. Smith / Margaret D. Gentzen / Jessica M. Reis 314-588-7000 tsmithfoxsmithlaw.com [email protected] [email protected] www.foxsmithlaw.com Comments are closed.
|
Author
Archives
July 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed