PUBLIC NOTICE: Connecticut is at WAR with the U.S. Constitution

FROM THE DESK OF Andrew-Hamilton:Pritchard, Beneficiary in Equity-Executor

DOCKET NO. FST-CV15-6026844-S : SUPERIOR COURT

DOCKET NO. NWH-CV22-6006923-S

DOCKET NO. FST-CV23-5028567-S

DOCKET NO. FST-CV23-5029576-S

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. : J.D. STAMFORD/NORWALK

LD PROPERTIES LLC; *****, ****** *.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

S01S-CR22-0169490-T; S01S-CR23-0250191-S;

S01S-CR23-0251706-S; S01S-CR23-0251708-S;

S01S-CR23-0251790-S

V. : AT STAMFORD

PRITCHARD, ANDREW H., ET AL : JANUARY 12, 2024

PRITCHARD, BRIDGET R., ET AL

NOTICE

CONNECTICUT IS AT WAR WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The Constitution is harmed by subverting its authority as the foundational law of the land. A domestic enemy is any American who either promotes foreign invasion or attacks the Bill of Rights. The former assaults national stability. The latter assaults individual freedoms.

1982 Connecticut’s Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branch committed “War against the Constitution” (Treason) as an “Enemy” by eliminating the use of a GRAND JURY made up of the people, an inalienable right.

"THE TROJAN HORSE" was a new creation called an INVESTIGATORY GRAND JURY defined by statute as a judge, constitutional state referee, or three-judge panel appointed “to conduct an investigation into the commission of a crime or crimes” (see CGS § 54-47b).

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

“Inalienable Rights”

The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life.

Supreme Court Case Law:

U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187,

The Supreme Court has warned: "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance."

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

Unlimited Power to Connecticut Judges in 1982

CONNECTICUT GRAND JURY LAW Grand Jury Indictment Requirement Repealed: When Connecticut repealed the requirement of a grand jury indictment before a person can be tried for any crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, it substituted a probable cause hearing requirement.

It retained the investigatory grand jury, defined by statute as a judge, constitutional state referee, or three-judge panel appointed “to conduct an investigation into the commission of a crime or crimes” (see CGS § 54-47b).

This Act of “War against the Constitution” gave unlimited rogue power to the Judicial Branch of Connecticut. No longer was there a check on Judicial Power by “We the People”.

The people Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in United States v. Williams, 1992 has been relied on to refer to grand juries as a fourth branch of government.

In that opinion, Scalia wrote: [T]he grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It 'is a constitutional fixture in its own right' [case cites]. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.[10]

CONNECTICUT’S GOVERNMENT IS AT “WAR WITH THE CONSTITUTION”

As a Trojan horse, Connecticut is one of the leaders on the fraudulent construct of Foreclosure Racketeering/property theft, attacking 1st Amendment "Alex Jones" and attacking 2nd Amendment "Sandy Hook/Remington Arms".

This is not a political statement.

It is the obvious and grotesque violations of the rights of the U.S. Constitution, “The Supreme Law of the Land”, with all the authority defined by The Judiciary Act of 1789 during the first session of the First United States Congress [Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts"] developed and demonstrated by weaponized fictional adjudication.

Enemy Foreign or Domestic?

50 U.S. Code § 2204 - Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term “appropriate congressional committees” means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, or, where required by law for certain reporting purposes, the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Select [1] Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives;

(2) the term “enemy” means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;

(3)the term “person” means—

(A) any natural person;

(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and

(C) any organization, association, or group; and

(4) the term “spoils of war” means enemy movable property lawfully captured, seized, confiscated, or found which has become United States property in accordance with the laws of war.

Sheriffs Extinguished in 2000

In the year 2000 Sheriffs were eliminated from the Connecticut Constitution and their power to arrest Judges and the Governor was abdicated, relinquished, returned to us, the people.

We the people have the power of a Connecticut Sheriff. (see CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant)

Notice of People’s Assembly and Notice of Corrective Wisdom from The Supreme Court

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard one of the People (as seen in the 50 state constitutions), Sui

Juris, do present you with this notice that you may provide immediate due care;

Please take notice that the people have assembled and realized that agencies were being

given faux authority to take liberty, property, and rights from the People, without the

constitutionally required due process with courts of record and trials by jury. The People have

come together to put the Supreme Court and Federal Legislature on notice, who in return have

openly spoken about the violation of rights and problems with the unlawful practices that have

been run by attorneys who have not understood the law (please see evidence from Justice

Gorsuch communication in a recent court case below):

Discussion in Case:

SEC v. Jarkesy

Docket Number: 22-859

Date Argued: 11/29/23

JUSTICE GORSUCH: So, Mr. Fletcher, with respect to your argument that

Congress can move something from courts into agencies and the Seventh

Amendment doesn't speak to that because it's not a suit, I think Noel Webster

described a suit as any action or process for the recovery of a right or a claim

before any tribunal, which would seem to be a problem. That's a pretty

contemporaneous definition. And then Justice Brennan in Granfinanciera I

think addressed your argument pretty squarely when he said Congress cannot

eliminate a party's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial merely by

relabeling the cause of action and placing jurisdiction in an administrative

agency. Thoughts?

MR. FLETCHER: Yeah. So I -- I guess I think that's still inconsistent with what

the Court has said in Granfinanciera.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I just quoted from Granfinanciera.

MR. FLETCHER: I -- I'm sorry. I -- I misspoke. I don't think that's what the

Court held in Granfinanciera. It's inconsistent with what the Court said.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Are you saying I misread it, Mr. Fletcher?

MR. FLETCHER: No, Justice Gorsuch. I'm saying --

JUSTICE GORSUCH: You said -- you said that that's a purely taxonomic

change.

MR. FLETCHER: Yes.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: And that that's not enough to render it no longer a suit

for purposes of the Seventh Amendment, right?

MR. FLETCHER: Yes. I think, in context, Granfinanciera is talking about a

proceeding that was in a bankruptcy court in the Article III setting. I think the

Court's subsequent cases, including Oil States, have Heritage Reporting

Corporation said, if you're permissibly in an Article III tribunal, then the

Seventh Amendment doesn't have independent work to do. I apologize for

misidentifying the case I was relying on.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: All right. But it -- it would seem strange. And we don't

usually say the government can avoid a constitutional mandate merely by

relabeling or moving things around. It's -- it's as much a violation to do

something indirectly as it is directly we usually say, right?

Maxim: Maxim of Law 4b. He who does a thing by another is considered as

doing it himself [i.e., the acts of an agent are the acts of the principal.] Broom,

Max. 817, 818, et seq.; A Collection Maxims of Law by Charles A. Weisman

Please take notice that as agency workers, state judges, presiding judges, state legislators,

etc… that you are bound by the Constitutions that you have all sworn to uphold, and from this

time forward please be advised that taking children, cars, houses, weapons, rights, property,

etc.. without a trial by jury in a court of record following the course of the common law is

unlawful. Please also take further notice that attorneys, who don’t have their name on the line,

as they are not in positions of service and contract with the people, presenting you with the idea

that it’s acceptable to trample the people’s rights by device or artifice does not in any way

remove your responsibility for your wrongdoings. Furthermore, there is another element of

wrong being committed when you are working in a federal program and make money outside of

your normal salary for carrying out the functions of that program, leaving one with unclean

hands on top of taking property or rights from the people without right! All past cases that

bypassed the common law are unlawful. Therefore, it is my immediate demand, wish, and order

that you restore all that has been unlawfully taken without constitutionally mandated due

process, and notify all those who were harmed, or you agree that any wrong that is done in this

regard in the future, or that has not been corrected from past trespasses, is done purposely,

with full knowledge, intent and malice, and will be recognized as such by the People, whom you

swore to serve and protect. This notice is sent to you in the peace and love of Jesus Christ, that

you may repent and do works worthy of the same.

Maxim: “Judicial notice is a form of evidence.”

Mann v Mann, 172 P. 2d 369, 375, 76 Cal. App. 2d 32.

Some have used this to call for common law grand juries "to expose fraud and corruption whether it is in the judicial or political realm."

("Cases involving ... deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property constitute a core of cases that ... MUST be resolved by Article III courts—not executive adjudicators dressed up as courts"). Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 (April 14, 2023)

The un-Constitutional, unlimited Rogue Power of the Judicial Branch impacts all facets of life.

Justice is a fiction and irreparable harm is done everywhere.

To keep it simple, a Grand Jury of eighteen people is significantly different than a panel of one to three judges.

To keep it simple, eighteen “WE THE PEOPLE” are harder to Corrupt than one to three judges.

To keep it simple, it is easier to PAYOFF one or three judges to get the result one wants.

To keep it simple, RACKETEERING of any kind becomes the way of doing any business.

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis."

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) "It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) "... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them."

OBVIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

1. NO JURISDICTION
2. NO JURISDICTION FOR REMOTE HEARINGS
3. NO TRIAL BY JURY
4. GROTESQUE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
5. FRAUD
6. FRAUD UPON THE COURT
7. UN-CONSTITUTIONAL CONNECTICUT PRACTICE BOOK, NO DUE PROCESS AND VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT
8. UN-CONSTITUTIONAL STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH, NO GRAND JURIES VIOLATES FIFTH AMENDMENT
9. WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF OATH AND DUTY
10. WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
11. SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
12. FALSE ARREST, KIDNAPPING AND ASSAULT
13. USE OF POLICE IN MILITARY ASSAULT IN CIVIL MATTER
14. USE OF MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS AGAINST AMERICAN PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
15. MISPRISION OF FELONY
16. MISPRISION OF TREASON
17. IRREPARABLE HARM
18. RACKETEERING
19. ENEMY (DOMESTIC)

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REQUIRED

• ARREST COMPLICIT PERSONS.
• Complicit participants must be brought before a unbiased Grand Jury of the People (not an Investigatory Grand Jury made up of one or three biased Judges) to determine that a Trial by Jury must commence for crimes and Treason.

Sec. 54-170. Arrest without warrant. The arrest of a person may be lawfully made also by any peace officer or a private person, without a warrant, upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of a state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but when so arrested the accused shall be taken before such a judge with all practicable speed and complaint shall be made against him under oath setting forth the ground for the arrest as in section 54-169; and thereafter his answer shall be heard as if he had been arrested on a warrant.

Remember: In the year 2000 Sheriffs were eliminated from the Connecticut Constitution and their power was abdicated, relinquished, returned to us, the people.

We the people have the power of a Connecticut Sheriff.

Freedom requires justice.

Unlimited Power always corrupts.

Sui Juris Defendant, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, has filed multiple Writs of Habeas Corpus to arrest and charge over twenty-four Complicit Judges, the Governor, the Attorney General and many Complicit Participants of the Government and the Public. All have been served.

Please note that Public Records such as Tax Records, Judicial Case Dockets, Impersonating State Marshals, Fraudulent Affidavits, Fraudulent Warrants, Excessive Force with Military Grade Weapons, and planned Assaults are used against American Private Individuals.

For example, a “Whistle Blower”, Samuel Magliari Jr., brought forward criminal acts of the Engineering Department of the City of Stamford was kidnapped and incarcerated for 70 days in Maximum Security Mental Health Facility by Complicit Judges that wanted him silenced.

While in Maximum Security Prison he was drugged under protest with a killer cocktail of drugs.

Fortunately for all of us, Sam Magliari Jr. is out and is charging those who tried to kill him.

I pray the State of Connecticut can find its way back to the foundation set by Reverand Hooker with the Fundamental Orders of 1639 which many historians believe to be a key component of the U.S. Constitution, “the Supreme Law of the Land”.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Respectfully,

Andrew Hamilton Pritchard

Beneficiary in Equity-Executor

9 Sylvester Court

Norwalk, Connecticut

Phone: (203)858-7949

Email: apritchard1963@gmail.com DATE: JANUARY 12, 2024