Appellate Lawful Money Misnomer Gibberish (Kempf, Charlotte)

[wserra]

And lurking out there all this time has been a Tenth Circuit case in which the appellant pushed all the magic buttons - sovrunty, misnomer, lawful money, no oath of office, "waiver of tort" and more. Coming out of Colorado, no less. I wonder where she got this stuff from.

Charlotte Kempf was convicted of driving with a suspended license in the traffic court of - wait for it - Colorado Springs. Whom do we know there again? She brings a civil rights action against the state judge in District Court, insisting (among other things) that she is "Charlotte", not "Charlotte Kempf". Dismissed. Judges are almost always immune for official actions. She appeals to the Tenth Circuit. Her opening brief is a simple pro se fill-in-the-blanks type. She nonetheless attaches a withdrawal slip marked "redeemed in lawful money" for no apparent reason. The answer of the State of Colorado asserts the judicial immunity.

But it's Kempf's reply brief that sails off into the ozone, four sheets to the wind.

(1) She is "Charlotte", not "Charlotte Kempf". The court "assign[ed] her fiduciary responsibility over the KEMPF, CHARLOTTE constructive Trust" which "obvious misnomer" is "ground for abatement in pleadings".

(2) The oaths of office of the state court judge, the present and past CO Attorneys General, a bunch of other CO state court judges who had nothing to do with the case - the whole world, by damn - are "invalid". Therefore she goes home.

(3) Various biblical passages say she should go home too. Look at page 7 if you want to know why. I have no idea.

(4) "Bare common law" says she should go home too. Look at page 9 if you want to know why. I have no idea.

(5) "Principles of documented organization" say she should go home too. Look at page 11 if you want to know why. I have no idea.

(6) The fact that Kempf testified "vive voce" rather than "mortmain" says she should go home too. Look at page 13 if you want to know why. I have no idea.

(7) Exhibit B to the brief is Van Pelt's $20M "lien" against the State of Colorado. That seals it; she should have gone home. Not only that, but Charlotte too is due damages "in lawful money".

I'm shocked that the Tenth Circuit didn't agree.

So Charlotte files a motion for a rehearing. Now she's due even more damages "in lawful money". This time she pulls out the big guns: Van Pelt's criminal complaints against each of the three panel judges. Tenth Circuit: "Oh, so you want a new panel? Here you go. Rehearing DENIED."

She actually filed a petition for cert. Denied January 23, 2012.

[LPC]

(1) She is "Charlotte", not "Charlotte Kempf". The court "assign[ed] her fiduciary responsibility over the KEMPF, CHARLOTTE constructive Trust" which "obvious misnomer" is "ground for abatement in pleadings".

Later in the same paragraph:

Furthermore Charlotte consistently redeems lawful money with her paychecks and has been doing so for years, pursuant to Title 12 U.S.c. §411 and §16 of the Federal Reserve Act and it is, and was at the time of trial and the Stop, the express Will and Intent of Charlotte to remain without the Federal Reserve districts and cities.

If that's true, how could she have possibly lost?

The answer is that the court referred to her as "pro se," and she failed to object and insist on being "in propria persona." *THEN* she would have won.

[LPC]

But it's Kempf's reply brief that sails off into the ozone, four sheets to the wind.

The complete response of the 10th Circuit to the arguments in the reply brief:

With respect to the issues Kempf advances in her reply brief, they are not properly before us and we will not address them. See Birmingham v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 633 F.3d 1006, 1020 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Our general practice is to decline to address issues not raised on appeal until the reply brief.”). For Kempf’s benefit, however, we note that an individual’s belief that her status as a “sovereign citizen” puts her beyond the jurisdiction of the courts “has no conceivable validity in American law.” United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990).

[Famspear]

.......For Kempf’s benefit, however, we note that an individual’s belief that her status as a “sovereign citizen” puts her beyond the jurisdiction of the courts “has no conceivable validity in American law.” United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990).

Gee, can't understand why her "belief" didn't work for her. While asserting her belief, maybe she just forget to close her eyes tightly, click her ruby slippers together, and whisper, "There's no place like home.... There's no place like home.... There's no place like home.... There's no place......"

[fortinbras]

I am really grateful for having this case brought to my attention.

For those who are interested, the citations for the decisions in this craziness are:

Charlotte v. Hansen (D. Colo., Feb. 14, 2011) 2011 u.s.dist. LEXIS 19898, 2011 WL 662780
[plaintiff was identified only as Charlotte without a surname]
affirmed Charlotte v. Hansen (10th Cir., Aug. 15, 2011) 433 Fed.Appx 660
[ditto]
certiorari denied Charlotte v. Hansen (US Supm.Ct, Jan. 23, 2012) _US_, 132 S.Ct 1147, 181 L.Ed.2d 1021, 80 USLW 3440

I might add that Charlotte Kempf is no stranger to the courthouse. In 2004 she was suing the city (using her full name for that suit) for removing from her front yard enormous outdoor scuptures constructed by her father.
And starting in 2003 and evidently continuing to 2007 she was filing bogus liens against several people and the state and federal courts had to undo them.

[notorial dissent]

I'll bet the originating case in Colorado Springs was a hoot and a half for whatever poor judge got to deal with it. It doesn't say, but I'll bet this whole thing started as a municipal traffic case, and thanks to him who shall not be named, turned literally into a Federal case, and one more in his unbroken strung of losses, costing her a great deal of money, and leaving her worse off than when she started. I'm still unclear as to why she didn't clog up the Colorado courts, there is no evidence that she went to the dist, appeals, or state supreme court with this first before going Fed, think how much extra money she could have wasted that way.

[AndyK]

I'm astonished that her cases turned out so poorly.

After all, David Merril has a GREAT deal of experience with administrative and legal actions regarding motor vehicle operations and ownership. That's why his primary mode of personal transportation, today, is an electric bicycle.

[notorial dissent]

Although, in all fairness, you can't say her cases turned out any differently than her guru's did, so at least he is consistent, and still batting a consistent 0 for all in the courtroom.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm astonished that her cases turned out so poorly.

After all, David Merril has a GREAT deal of experience with administrative and legal actions regarding motor vehicle operations and ownership. That's why his primary mode of personal transportation, today, is an electric bicycle.

Yeah, but once that $20 million lien pays off, he will be able to afford something better.

[The Observer]

David has only one thread discussing Ms. Kempf's odyssey into the court system where her appeal in the 10th Circuit was denied. Of course, David fixates on a totally irrelevant issue, that of whether judges and public attorneys have properly recorded their sworn oaths of office. His belief is that the 10th ignored Kempf's accusations, despite the appeal ruling stating that she had not properly brought these issues up. I am sure it will shock, I say shock, all of you to learn that David finds this to be conclusive proof that the entire court system from the Supreme Court to those pesky Article I and III courts to be corrupt.

This was back in August, 2012 and David has not made any mention of Kempf since then. I take this to mean that David doesn't really want to discuss the total defeat of his "remedy" once again.