Private Citizen Fights Back; after years of government Oppression, Tyranny, and Political Interference…

The U.S. Constitution is the framework whereby the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches are the check and balance against Oppression and Tyranny within the government and between the federal and state governments. It is the function of the government to protect the governed… It is not the function of the governed to protect oneself… For the governed to protect oneself from the government would create a state of anarchy and the beginning of another revolution…

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.

On July 21, 2011, this complaint was sent to: U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio), U.S. Senator Rob Portman (Ohio), and U.S. Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (2nd dist. Ohio).

A copy of this complaint was also sent to the following:
Carter M. Stewart (DOJ_US Attorney-Southern District of OH); Christopher H. Schroeder (DOJ_AAG,Office of Legal Policy); Denis J. McInerney (DOJ_CD-Chief,Fraud Section); H. Marshall Jarrett (DOJ_Director,Executive Office U.S. Attorney); Jack Smith (DOJ_CD-Chief,Public Integrity Section); James Cole (DOJ_Deputy Attorney General); Jonathan M. Smith (CRD-SLS) (Special.Litigation@usdoj.gov); Kirsten J. Moncada (DOJ_Director,OPD-Civil Liberties); Lanny A. Breuer (DOJ_AAG,Criminal Division); Mark Kappelhoff (DOJ_CRD-Chief,Criminal Section); Robin C. Ashton (DOJ_Office of Professional Responsibility); Teresa McHenry (DOJ_CD-Chief,Human Rights-SP); Thomas E. Perez (DOJ_AAG,Civil Rights Division); Thomas J. Perrelli (DOJ_Associate Attorney General); USDOJ (AG,Eric H. Holder); USDOJ (Criminal Division); USDOJ (Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section); USDOJ (Office of Inspector General); USDOJ (Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties)

Dear {Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Rob Portman, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt}:

I am filing this complaint in regards to “Deprivation of Unalienable and Legal Rights” by which I am entitled as the natural rights of man, the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Ohio, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Branches, Agencies, Jurisdiction, Authority, and Officers of the of the State of Ohio Government (hereinafter called the “State Government”)

Branches, Agencies, Jurisdiction, Authority, and Officers of the of the United States Government (hereinafter called the “Federal Government”)

For fifteen years I have been deprived of my Natural and Legal Rights by the State and Federal Governments. For fifteen years I have been fighting these governments to concede to my Natural and Legal Rights. Every time I address these governments to uphold my Natural and Legal Rights, I am once again betrayed.

Every time I file a complaint with a government official to address Deprivation of Rights, all I get are excuses, pointing fingers, stalling, passing the buck, and the typical government runaround. Most of the time these government officials don’t even respond at all; they just needlessly leave me hanging with little respect to my concerns and neglecting their responsibilities.

The Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound government that provide balance, stability, and consistency through time. A government based on individuals—who are inconsistent, fallible, and often prone to error—too easily leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other. The founding fathers sought to avoid these extremes and create a balanced government based on constitutional principles.

Checks and Balances:
The founding fathers built a system of checks and balances into the Constitution, whereby the executive, legislative, and judiciary would check and balance each other and state governments would balance the federal while it, in turn, would maintain a check on the states.

The most fundamental of the many checks and balances in our system of government is the power to control oneself. At no time is a commitment to this principle more eloquently expressed than when individual officers raise their hands and solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. May all of us do so with a firm understanding of the principles we have determined to defend and a clear recognition of the people we promise to protect.

Although, supposedly, every one of these individual officers has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity, I have found it quite the opposite. Not one of these officers has conceded to my unalienable and legal rights.

Where are the Checks and Balances?
All I want is the universal unalienable rights, the Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Ohio Constitution Inalienable Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that which I am entitled and all citizens of the United States are entitled.

On January 10, 1997, “I” Stephen R. Lilley (hereinafter as Mr. Lilley), a natural born US Citizen became the sole entitled owner of the original Joint with Survivorship Rights, Certificate of Deposit, known as CD-4591 in the sum of $100,000.

The State Government deprived Mr. Lilley from access to his $100,000 personal property; a due process violation by the State Government of Mr. Lilley’s universal unalienable rights, the Constitution of the United States Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Ohio Constitution § 1.01 Inalienable Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3.

The State Government had acted without respect of Mr. Lilley’s inherent rights of acquiring and possessing property and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. This was a personal attack by the state government on Mr. Lilley’s natural and legal rights.

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” The Ohio Constitution § 1.01 Inalienable Rights (1851), “All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.”

The United States Declaration of Independence had asserted certain natural and legal rights in a statement of human rights “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.”

Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.

The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. To secure these rights, says the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to “protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these unalienable rights” with which they were endowed by their Creator. … U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals confirmed that Mr. Lilley was the entitled owner to CD-4591. This account was a Joint and Survivorship which does not pass though court. Court of Appeals Justice Stephen Powell had questioned on why Mr. Lilley had been deprived of his personal property and illegally in the hand of the State Government.

Joint and survivorship property is property held by two or more persons jointly; each party has equal rights of possession and income. On the death of one joint tenant, his/her interest transfers to the benefit of the survivor or the survivors in equal shares, “without court proceedings”.

Holding on to this property was an infringement on Mr. Lilley’s unalienable rights.

CD-4591 was never returned to Mr. Lilley, the State Government stated that the Probate Court was not a court of competent jurisdiction and that if Mr. Lilley would like to recover his personal property he could do so in a court of competent jurisdiction.

On May 9, 2006, Mr. Lilley followed the instructions of the State Government for restitution of the misappropriated $100,000 Certificate of Deposit that was illicitly obtained and held by the State Government. Due to Oppression, Tyranny, and Political Interference, the state and federal governments has still not conceded to Mr. Lilley’s rights to redress along with other unalienable and legal rights.

For fifteen years the State Government has deprived Mr. Lilley of his Natural and Legal Rights that are protected under the United States Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Ohio Constitution, and the Laws of the United States and the State of Ohio.

I will continue with this complaint in “Deprivation of unalienable and legal rights (part 2)”.

Sincerely,
Stephen R. Lilley

“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” ~Thomas Jefferson