Make your own free website on

Quite a few people are not aware of their rights, at the T.L.R.C. we are only here to inform you that there is more to the First Amendment then you have been led to believe: 

The first amendment of the uNITED States constitution says in part:

“Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people to... petition the government for a redress of grievance.”

The supreme Court of the uNITED STATES agree:

"The ability to place a lien upon a man’s property, such as to temporarily deprive him of its beneficial use, without any judicial determination of probable cause dates back not only to medieval England but also to Roman times." United States Supreme Court, 1968, Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 349

Supported by the California Supreme Court, 1971, Randone v. Appellate Department, 5 C3d 536, 96 Cal Rptr 709 and 488 P2d


State of Idaho v. Horiuchi

... towards the gen- eral government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. Page 3. ...

Highlights ours




Request to terminate UCC




Reconsideration attempt


Jury Trial Demand


Letter to opposition attorney


Motion to Disqualification Judge


Change of venue request


Scanned Documents




(To get more useful info visit the following sites: legal-


As of December 21, 2006 we averaged 1138 visit to our site we appreciate all of your interest. 1138 and we do not advertise. 

In April of 2007 we will relocate to the world wide web and we will advertise. E-Mail us and ask how you can either help or join our team 

     Attach this to subject section of e-mail "T.L.R.C. INQUIRE"

As of April 15, 2007 (TAX DAY) we will be assisting those who need help registering LIEN’S with the credit bureaus, to do just that.

     T.L.R.C. Att: Jones  P.O. Box 343; Sch’dy, NY., 12301 

We will also provide a service to stop creditors from harassing Citizens...  As the process continues more updates will follow in FEB 2006 please be patient......)  A lot of new information added 04-15-07!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


More information is to come.




This motion was never sent to the court, it was unnecessary as it was the court who was aware of the circumstances, this would have been redundant


Brent Jones

P.O. BOX 343

Schenectady, New York, 12301


                        In the uNITED States District Court

                        In and for the State of California


Brett Randoff Toriano Keeffe Henry Kana-Shaphel Hithrappes Jones-Theophilus, aka Brent Jones aka Brent O. Jones aka Brett Jones Theophilius, Brett Jones-Theophilius, aka Keeffe T. Branch, Keefe T. Branch, aka Keith Branch, aka K.T. Branch, aka B.J. UCC 1-207











Case No.: CV-06-2725-TJH


1ST , 5Th, 6Th, 7th, 8Th, 9Th,

& 10th Amendment Demand



Affidavit Of TRUTH

Good faith request for reconsideration

to correct Gate-Keeping issue(s)


Presented to the Presiding Judge



                 It is incumbent upon myself to bring to the attention of this court, that the assign judge to this case (Terry J. Hatter Jr.) has a criminal complaint that has been filed against him with the court on or about


January 01, 2006 (that this same Judge pretended not to receive (EXHIBIT C )). And despite having knowledge of this fact the same judge (Terry J. Hatter Jr.) has continued to make rulings in decisions in this matter (EXHIBIT A), violating both ethic and code of conduct. I remind this court the deprivation of rights under color of law, is a crime punishable under the U.S. criminal code title eighteen section 4, 242.


1.                            I request a change of venue, because I’ve been accused of violating the law, accused of illegal acts, I’ve been accused of acting criminally. That could only mean one thing, the transference of this case to criminal court division.

2.                            Terry J. Hatter Jr. Susie (Susan) Coane, Sherri R. Carter, Ralph Zarefsky, Terrie (Terry) Baker, Judie (Judy) Mathews, Estrella Tamayo, Denise Johnson are each and all individuals have been formally accused of interfering with this respondents rights, in the past and now continues in an on-going conspiracy. 


                        We hold these truths to be self evident “That all men are created equal”, the so called founding fathers didn’t make those words up, for at acts 10:34, 35 “Jehovah is not partial... in every nation the man…is acceptable to him”. It is uniquely nice to know that our founding fathers recognized the sovereignty of every man, and as a sovereign citizen of the uNITED States, the constitution makes it against the law, a criminal


act to harm a sovereign citizen.


                    This is a matter of commerce, failure to act, breach of contract, failure to perform, failure to fulfill obligation, failure to provide, failure to negotiate, failure of good faith, violation of constitutionally secure rights, of (the first, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth, and tenth amendment), as well as title eighteen of the criminal code of the united states constitutional amendments (U.S.C.A.), and other Federal and state laws that are cognizable by every other state in the union.


                    Please keep in mind that the uniform commercial code is recognized by every government throughout the world who engage in any means of commerce among and between other nations. It is under these rules that the U.N. is able to sanction commerce between nations subscribed to it. 


                 However it is the first amendment right of every citizen “to petition the government for a redress of grievances”, that is the most secure

of all rights and can never be denied “Congress shall make no law”. No judge, no horse, no tree, no building, no book, no man, no law exists that can take away this right.


                        For years I’ve tried to get the plaintiff’s to acknowledge their role in depriving me of the ability to enjoy life among other constitutional rights, only to be ignored. And because of one small piece of paper for which they were forewarned now they seem to be paying attention. Who would’ve thought that one small piece of paper could cause so much understanding?


                  By the way the plaintiffs have filed with the government their petition for redress of GRIEVENCE (a civil lawsuit) asking the government to correct the wrongs they allege having been done them. If the court allows the suit to proceed they can not under law of due process and

equal protection invalidate in any form, fashion, or way the respondents petitioning of the government through uniform commercial code his redress of grievance.


                  The seated judge in this matter Terry Hatcher has sent several hand written documents which are not eligible (EXHIBIT A), and a copy that is of poor quality. I’ve requested several times that this particular judged not send handwritten documents as they cannot be easily read, however she persist.


                  I’ve had several documents return to me stamped receive but not filed, the latest set of documents showing received but not filed because a motion for default has been received by the court. Now the clerk’s of the court and this judge are fully aware that once a document is received by the court and stamped by the court whether it is filed or not is considered received and a response. When a party is requested by the courts (to change or amend certain documents, that continues the response time, begins anew limitation deadline), and no default judgment maybe entered for lack of



                  To prove bias I have Exhibit B which includes a copy of the first page of each returned document Those document were processed after the other documents were sent to the court, they were filed and stamped received. However the court requested that all documents be signed with my hand signature, when rules only require that the original be signed with an original signature. This matter has already been decided upon by the U.S. district court of the state of Arizona within the city of Phoenix. Petitions filed by myself to that court, and my understanding of the rules of court were the same as the presiding judge of that court-That only the original requires a signature.


                  Returning documents to myself because the copies don’t contain an original signature is an impediment to my right to access to courts. Instead of arguing with the court’s I sent them (the attachment Exhibit A, B, & C).

                  You cannot ask for correction of documents, and not allow for response to such a request, that’s a violation of due process.


                  Attached as exhibit D is a copy of the proof of service, showing that a day after receiving the documents back from the court they were returned to the court. Timely this is not an issue here, Gate-Keeping


                  Having documents repeatedly sent back to myself, constantly

signed rejected (EXHIBIT B) without legal right or authority is abuse of


discretion, eventually it will be sent to the ninth circuit court of appeals, and then they will send it right back to this court. At that point they will rule ‘that once the criminal complaint was filed against judged Hatter that she should’ve recused herself, and sent it through the process of having another judge assigned. But no someone had to try to pay somebody back, and seek revenge, and make themselves look incompetent.


                  My counterclaim has been repeatedly returned without filing (EXHIBIT B), to some people that would be upsetting, even disappointing. But I know when Gate-Keeping is taking place so I document such things so then I can complete the process of another day. The first amendment of the united states constitution allows for every citizen ‘the right to petition the government for redress of GRIEVENCE.


                  My documents conform to rules of court and was submitted timely, so I submit this request to have this matter reheard by the presiding judge of this court. Due process requires that this case be given a fair hearing. The documents that were filed and accepted by the court that has the stamped date of August 15, 2006 and was received after the counterclaim was submitted, which was not filed even though it contained the original signature on the original document that document must be processed. We have a problem, that problem is abuse of discretion, Gate-Keeping, deprivation of due process rights under color and authority of law, mispersion of felony, all violations of secured constitutional rights, but the one and foremost deprivation is the right to petition my government for redress of GRIEVENCE has been blocked, and or denied my self, the first amendment says Congress “shall make no law prohibiting”, so if this is my legal right why are you people interfering with it?

                      Certificate of mailing                                                                         

                         The aforementioned is true and correct and a copy of

the aforementioned has been mailed via U.S. postal service to:


uNITED States Federal District Court

312 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012



30242 Esperanza Suite 150

P.O. Box 80034

Rancho Sta. Margarita, Ca 92668


                 The aforementioned is true and correct and submitted by the CLAIMANT

                               Signed: ________________________ Dated:  09/14/06

                                       Brent Jones





Visit our other sites