at those controllers knew which 'swill' was best for the'lesser' pigs, perhaps not unlike the media and those controlling our government today. In the barnyard of our lives especially in today's

political climate the better than lesser pigs are indeed more equal than other pigs. This is a group of pigs that are living high on the hog (pun intended?) and enjoying much better than common 'swill'........more like oysters Rockerfeller, caviar, steak tartar and on and on. These pigs (those in government and media) are making certain the 'lesser' pigs don't know there are other choices than 'swill.' However, what these pigs fail to take into account is that the fate of pigs, whether fed 'swill' or caviar is the same..........ultimately they become ham and bacon for someone or something else.

We have heard from some of the high on the hog pigs from GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. The kangaroo session we had over a year ago evidently didn't work in their favor, and UCC-1 financing statements placed on them by us for their using our copyrighted property, and that property which we own, are still bothersome to them. They would like to invite us back to

their court with their corporate court rules that are outside the Constitution of the united states of America, as well as the Bill of

Right. This is our response to their invitation.

This is lengthy, and you might just want to take some time to read it. What you will find out is that you don't own anything........not your

house, not your cars, not your businesses, not your land...............none of it. You rent these things from different levels of government by paying taxes.

Stop and ask yourself how else could they take a $100,000 home for non-payment of $2,000 in taxes? It may be time to get your head out of the sand. I'm thankful to many sources for the information for what I've learned and shamelessly incorporated into this affidavit. I'm thankful for the research and efforts of others.

Before you delete this and ignore it, ask yourself one big question: "Would you work as hard as you do if you knew nothing that you

thought you owned belonged to you?"

Lynn

PS An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth after 90 days. All the

affidavits we filed last year have never been rebutted.

Subject: DICOLA GRAND COUNTY 12-2003 AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONSE AND NOTICE

X-pstn-levels: (S:99.8000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:98.5141 C:82.4442 )

X-pstn-settings: 5 (2.0000:8.0000) r p m C

X-pstn-addresses: from forward (user good) [1480/68]

AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONSE AND NOTICETO DEBTORS:

DISTRICT COURT, GRAND COUNTY COLORADO

P. O. BOX 192

HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, CO 80451

970-725-3357

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF

GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT F.

ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

ANTHONY J. DICOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY ATTORNEY

CHRISTINA WHITMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY TREASURER

AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE

MICAH C. BENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF DEPUTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND

DEPUTY TREASURER FOR GRAND COUNTY

FROM AFFIANTS:

Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, owners of PAUL E SCHMALTZ© and PATRICIA LYNN SCHMALTZ©, 11024 Montgomery NE #186, Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111] U.S. Registered Mail #_________________________________

SECTION I–CONTRACTING TO DO BUSINESS

To all DEBTORS listed above:

Your communication with the court date stamp of July 2, 2003 at 10:12 AM, indicates to Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© that you wish to contract to do business with us. We have some unpaid UCC financing statements from some of the parties listed above which we will address later. You are asking us to contract to do ‘business’ with you in the GRAND COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, which you would have us to believe is a constitutional court under the laws and Bill of Rights under the Constitution of the united states of America. As we have stated in other unrebutted and therefore true affidavits, your court is an administrative court conducting commercial business.

Because you wish to engage in commerce with Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© once again we will state what we charge to do business with each and every one of you listed above, individually and collectively:

1. For each use of our copyrighted names there will be a financing statement filed under Article 9 of the UCC for $500,000 per name, per use. As you can see, there has not been a price increase from last year yet. However, that does mean that all parties listed in the July 2, 2003, document have incurred a total of $10,000,000 in contracting to use the copyrighted properties of Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, owners of PAUL E SCHMALTZ© and PATRICIA LYNN SCHMALTZ©.

2. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT F. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ANTHONY J. DICOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY ATTORNEY, CHRISTINA WHITMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY TREASURER AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE, MICAH C. BENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF DEPUTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND DEPUTY TREASURER FOR GRAND COUNTY and any other officials, attorneys or judges of GRAND COUNTY AND/OR STATE OF COLORADO are all paid by the taxpayers of Grand County for your time. Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, however, are independent agents, and therefore contract to you by the hour. We understand that you wish for us to spend time responding to your petition. Therefore, be advised that we charge a total of $40,000 consulting fees up front for each of us, thereby totaling $80,000. We also charge $400 per hour for each of us for our time spent in research and response. We will not be traveling to do business with you in your sham commercial court, as we can conduct business through the Internet, fax, and delivery of documents. If you request our time and effort, we will find it necessary to contact your bonding agencies under the federal GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board).

3. Before we can proceed, there is the matter of outstanding financing statement with some of those listed above totaling many millions of dollars. There are four additional Grand County officials for whom we have not yet filed financing statement under UCC-9 for using our copyrighted property after they were notified what the charges would be. We are willing to settle at this time on those outstanding financing statements for a total of $10,000,000 (ten million dollars). If you do not choose to settle at this time, then we will revert to the original balances on the

Page 1of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

financing statements, complete the additional financing statements, and add to those existing statements in the manner we have stated in Paragraphs 1 and 2.

4. If THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT F. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ANTHONY J. DICOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY ATTORNEY, CHRISTINA WHITMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY TREASURER AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE, MICAH C. BENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF DEPUTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND DEPUTY TREASURER FOR GRAND COUNTY wish to proceed and contract to do business with Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© at the fees we have in SECTION I, we will need the following information from you:

a. The total Gross receipts, for GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, including investments and enterprise ventures.

b. The total “Investments,” of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, All, budgetary, restricted by statute, autonomous.

c. The total “Net Worth,” of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, All, budgetary, restricted by statute, autonomous.

d. The “Growth,” of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, including investments and enterprise ventures, over 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years.

e. The county and/or state licenses that your judges and attorneys work under in GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. We do mean licenses, and not certificates of Bar, as those certificates are issued by a foreign agency. We want the licences. All licensed Bar Attorneys–Attorners in the United States owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the CROWN TEMPLE at the INNS OF COURT located in London, England, but separate from London, England. The signatories and franchises to the INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION are located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. Thus, the COLORADO BAR is a franchise to this CROWN. Also we will need the proof that GRAND COUNTY ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES listed with GRAND COUNTY and STATE OF COLORADO have listed as foreign agents.

f. In Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 17789, The SOCIAL SECURITY (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) Order 1997, makes provision for the modification of the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 and the SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS ACT 1992 so as to give effect to the Supplementary Agreement on social security (which is set out in Schedule 1 to this Order) made between the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN and NORTHERN IRELAND and the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT amends the Agreement on social security set out in Schedule 1 to the SOCIAL SECURITY (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) Order 1984 to take into account changes in UNITED KINGDOM legislation, in particular as related to incapacity benefit. If SOCIAL SECURITY in the UNITED STATES is under control of GREAT BRITAIN, if members of the BAR answer to the CROWN TEMPLE located in London, England. Based on these facts please send us a detailed list including who or what entity owns the assets of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, including investments and enterprise ventures.

g. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT F. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ANTHONY J. DICOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY ATTORNEY, CHRISTINA WHITMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY TREASURER AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE, MICAH C. BENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF DEPUTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND DEPUTY TREASURER FOR GRAND COUNTY and any other officials, attorneys or judges of GRAND COUNTY AND/OR STATE OF COLORADO are all aware that you are held accountable not only in your public, official capacity, but individually. When fraud is involved and orchestration of criminal activity is under color of law, you are each held liable individually. When you are acting outside the law and beyond the scope of your job descriptions, you are personally liable, guilty of misconduct, and subject to forfeiting your jobs, pension and benefits. Please be advised that damages to Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, by any of the above listed parties are subject to RICO and to laws governing fraud through the US Mail.

h. The amount that GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, in any capacity or office, received from the foreclosure of the property of Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©.

Page 2 of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

i. The list of owners of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, and the physical assets. Also, send us a copy of the shareholders’ agreement and the assets.

j. The bond dividend yields for GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.

k. Any funding by GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, of their own bond issuances.

l. A list of assets that have been rolled into debts by GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, which are being paid by the residents of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.

m. The methods by which the CAFR (AFR) of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, has been made public to the residents of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.

n. The list of those who benefit from GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO investments.

o. The fund manager for GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.

p. A copy of the GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, RETIREMENT FUND CAFR (AFR)?

q. A list of the ways in which GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO is an administrative clearing house for revenue (examples would include school districts, golf courses, towns).

r. A list of the ways in which GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, finances its own debt.

s. A list of how GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, publicizes that they use their own investment revenue to fund liabilities for the COUNTY.

t. The ways in which residents of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, have been informed that taxes on homes, land, automobiles, farm and ranch equipment, water rights, etc. actually a form of rent for those items because the Titles conveying ownership are actually held by GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.

u. The documents that are issued by the GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO to prove to residents that they actually do own their homes, land, automobiles, farm and ranch equipment, water rights, etc.

v. List the ways in which GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO now has law for profit..

w. The CAFR of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, which may also be called the

AFR, is an expense item. There is a list of those to whom the CAFR or AFR of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, was sent for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Please send us those lists.

x. Please send copies of the public notices published or public methods used to disseminate the contents of the CAFR (or AFR) of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, to the residents of the GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.

y.. Those who play closest to the ‘public trough of money’ enjoy the best monetary benefits. Please send information regarding the retirement accounts and the present insurance benefits of county employees, including retirees during 2002 and 2003.

SECTION II NOTICE OF TWO SETS OF BOOKS FOR GRAND COUNTY,

STATE OF COLORADO, WHICH INCLUDE THE CAFR (AFR)

1. There are two sets of books for GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO: the one presented to the public, and the one presented to the financial institutions. The one presented to the financial institutions is called the CAFR or the AFR of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. Government at all levels in AMERICA, including GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, hold back the CAFR, which is the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (may also be called the AFR or Annual Financial Report.) This CAFR (AFR) shows the General Purpose Budget, PLUS the decades of Wealth that have amassed, and the annual wealth generated that is not inclusive with the Budget. The NET WORTH and GROSS INCOME are far detached from a specific and selectively created Budget report. Every city, county, state and the federal government openly talks about the ‘budget’ and keeps virtually hidden the SECOND SET OF BOOKS which track the investments and Enterprise ventures worth TRILLIONS of dollars in tangible wealth they have built up and are spending from these virtually hidden portfolios as a result of investing the SKIMMED MONEY for over 50 years in everything from real estate to

Page 3 of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

the stock market with the MOTIVE of building their empires from where the money is spent and invested “Internationally.” This includes GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. Only 1/3 of government annual revenue comes from taxes. 2/3 comes from return on investments and enterprise, and venture projects, to offset taxation. Not $1of that non-tax revenue is tied directly into the annual “budget” that is supported by taxation.

Combined government funds across America, including COUNTIES, STATES, and FEDERAL, held the largest short positions they had ever held on 9-11-2001. These combined funds made over $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) in the thirty days after the 9-11-2001

2. There is a motivation to clear these matters up with the UCC-1 financing statement filed by

Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© against officials in GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, who knowingly contracted with us for the used of our copyrighted property after being informed of the costs they would incur for the use of that property. These outstanding financing statements are affecting the CAFR or GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, which may also be called the AFR.

3. At this time with the outstanding financing statements discussed above, GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, may be subject to less favorable interest rates on bonds and less favorable rates on insurance and investments. These potential expenses to GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO are most likely found in the foot notes of that county’s CAFR (or AFR)..

4. There is a dual set of “rule of Law”. There is one set of “laws” that apply to the people and one set that are used in the courtrooms to act in the interest of the state with statutes to protect officers of the state and money managers and their associate fronts. These statutes are not based on the Constitution of the united States, or the Bill of Rights. Rather they are a set of corporate rules under the world-wide Uniform Commercial Code. “Courts” today are only revenue moving tools for a one hands corporate government, protecting the corporate interest only and a wall of silence for redress or remedy for the people. This includes the DISTRICT COURT, GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.

5. The CAFR of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, which may also be called the AFR, is an expense item. There is a list of those to whom the CAFR or AFR of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, was sent for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.

6. GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, has revenue streams for the building the retirement funds for the employees of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO and for providing benefits to those employees. These revenue streams include charges in different departments of the county. For by example, there could be a charge of $85 for not wearing a seat belt in a vehicle, driving without proof of insurance, annual licenses and registration. There are also revenue streams from social services for removing children from their families (up to $35,000 annual revenue to the STATE/COUNTY), and earnings from imprisoning people (up to $25,000 annual revenue to the STATE/COUNTY). Jail revenue, ticketing of persons by the sheriff and officers, social services seizure of children, property tax assessments, auctions of seized properties are included in the retirement funding for those who work for GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.

7. GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, own the personal property of everyone residing in GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. This is done by keeping all titles to all homes, land, automobiles, farm and ranch equipment, water rights, and issuing Certificates of Title to the county resident. By having only Certificates of Title homes, land, automobiles, farm and ranch equipment, water rights, etc. and by GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO holding the actual titles, foreclosure for non-payment of taxes, fines, and fees for use of the homes, land, automobiles, farm and ranch equipment, water rights, etc., is easily accomplished.. This is how GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, can own a $100,000 home or acreage, for non-payment of, for example, $3000 of annual property tax. In fact the taxes and fees are really rental charges paid to the county for the residents’ use of the homes, land, automobiles, farm and ranch equipment, water rights, etc.

8. These financing statements can only be removed by Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©. At this point we have given power of attorney to no one else. Therefore, it is in the best interest of THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT F. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ANTHONY J. DICOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY ATTORNEY, CHRISTINA WHITMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY TREASURER AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE, MICAH C. BENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF DEPUTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND DEPUTY TREASURER FOR GRAND COUNTY and any other officials, attorneys or judges of GRAND COUNTY AND/OR STATE OF COLORADO, as well as any agents and any principals of aforementioned to pray and hope for our unlimited health and safety, and also the unlimited health and safety of our family.

9. GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO including THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT

Page 4 of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

F. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ANTHONY J. DICOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY ATTORNEY, CHRISTINA WHITMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY TREASURER AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE, MICAH C. BENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF DEPUTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND DEPUTY TREASURER FOR GRAND COUNTY create an appearance of accountability. Much of what you are doing under color of law is unconstitutional and therefore quasi judicial administrative process. You have lied under the original intent of oath of office that you have taken, and that you have even changed these oaths of office so they under quasi judicial administrative process and not constitutional law.

10. The following affidavit was filed in Grand County and with the Secretary of State of Colorado. Bank One never responded. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth after ninety (90) days. Therefore, the information in the following affidavit is true. That means that all parties listed above are operating under color or law and quasi judicial administrative process. That means they are lying. That means they, along with BANK ONE, are attempting to have undue and unjust enrichment from Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©. Check the public records. It was recorded before, under fraudulent procedures, Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© were no longer allowed to file public documents in GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO thereby denying them due process and equal protection under the law..

SECTION III–RECORDED, UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT

AFFIDAVIT

The undersigned Affiants, being duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that the following includes the terms and conditions of the alleged loan regarding the alleged borrower.

Affiants:

We are over 18 years of age and our address is:

Paul Schmaltz Patricia Lynn Schmaltz

13628 County Rd 3 13628 County Rd 3

Parshall, CO 80468 Parshall, CO 80468

Alleged Lender:

Bank One/Homecomings Financial

2711 N. Haskell Ave. Ste 900

Dallas, Texas 75204

Alleged Loan Number: 0432322386

The undersigned Affiants, being duly sworn on oath, depose and say that the following includes the terms and conditions of the alleged loan regarding the alleged borrowers:

1. There was/is fraudulent concealment of material facts in the promissory note.

a. The alleged lender endorsed the Promissory Note and deposited it like a check thereby altering it after it was signed and did not disclose this fact to the alleged borrowers (Affiants).

b. The lender used the endorsed Promissory Note to fund the alleged loan to the

alleged borrowers (Affiants) by drafting out of the deposit account and calling it a loan and charging interest on it.

2. There was no consideration given on the alleged lender’s part for the Promissory Note. For a binding contract to be created, consideration must be legally sufficient. To be legally sufficient consideration for a promise must be legally detrimental to the promisee. In this case the promisee (alleged lender) had no cost and no risk.

3. Bookkeeping entries according to GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) show that the alleged lender deposited the Promissory Note of the alleged borrowers (Affiants) and increased both their assets and their liabilities.

4. There was no explanation of material facts. Therefore, alleged borrowers (Affiants) did not understand the true terms of the note. Therefore there is no agreement. The promise to loan the alleged lenders’ money or other depositors money is illusionary–without consideration- and unenforceable.

5. GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) require that the bank liability created from the promissory note shows that the bank owes the alleged borrowers an amount equal to the debt.

Page 5 of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

6. There has been no validation of this debt sent to us which would comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices and Fair Debt Credit Reporting Acts.

State of Colorado

ss.

County of Summit

_________________________________ _____________________

Paul Schmaltz Date

__________________________________ ______________________

Patricia Lynn Schmaltz Date

Before me, the undersigned officer in and for said county and state, personally appeared Paul Schmaltz and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purposes contained therein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official this _____________day of March, 2002.

_____________________________________________

My Commission expires:_______________________________________

No._____________________________

NON-NEGOTIABLE

SECTION IV: AFFIDAVIT OF SUMMARY OF DAMAGES BY HOME GOLD/HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL/BANK ONE AND GRAND COUNTY OFFICIALS LISTED ON PAGE ONE

1. HOME GOLD/HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL/BANK ONE (hereafter called “the bank”) made the alleged borrowers, Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, depositors by depositing a $478,000 negotiable instrument, which the bank sold or had available to sell for approximately $478,000 in legal tender. The bank did not credit the borrower’s transaction account showing the bank owed the borrower the $478,000. Rather, the bank claimed that the alleged borrowers owed the bank the $478,000, then placed a lien on the borrower’s real property for $478,000 and demanded loan payments or the bank would foreclose.

2. The bank deposited a non-legal tender negotiable instrument and exchanged it for another no-legal tender check, which traded like money, using the deposited negotiable instrument as the money deposited. The bank changed the currency without the borrower’s authorization. First by depositing non legal tender from which to issue a check (which is non-legal tender) and using the negotiable instrument (the borrowers’ mortgage note), to exchange for legal tender, the bank needed to make the check appear to be backed by legal tender. No loan ever took place.

3. The transaction that took place was merely a change of currency (without authorization), a negotiable instrument for a check. The negotiable instrument was the money, which was exchanged for legal tender to make the check good. An exchange is not a loan. The bank exchanged $478,000 for $478,000. There was no need to go to the bank for any money. The borrowers did not receive a loan, the borrowers lost $478,000 in value to the bank, which the bank kept and recorded as a bank asset and never loaned any of the bank’s money.

4. The damages are $478,000 plus interest payments, which the bank demanded by mail The bank illegally placed a lien on the property and then threatened to foreclose, further damaging the alleged borrowers, when the payments were not made.

5. The depositors (Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©) are owed money for the deposit and the alleged borrowers are owed money for the loan the bank never made and yet placed a lien on the real property demanding payment.

6. Damages exist in that the bank refused to loan their money. The bank denies the alleged borrowers equal protection under the law and contract, by merely exchanging one currency for another and refusing repayment in the same type of currency deposited. The bank refused to fulfill the contract by not loaning the money, and by the bank refusing to be repaid in the same currency, which they deposited as an exchange for another currency. A debt tender offered and refused is a debt paid to the extent of the offer. The bank has no authorization to alter the alleged contract and to refuse to perform by not loaning money, by changing the currency and then refusing repayment in what the bank has a written policy to deposit.

Page 6of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

7. The money deposited for the check issued came from the borrower not the bank. The bank has no right to the mortgage note until the bank performs by loaning the money.

8. In the transaction the bank was to loan legal tender to the borrowers, in order for the bank to secure a lien. The bank never made the loan, but kept the mortgage note the alleged borrowers signed. This allowed the bank to obtain the equity in the property (by a lien) and transfer the wealth of the property to the bank without the bank’s investment, loan, or risk of money. Then the bank receives the alleged borrowers’ labor to pay principal and Usury interest. What the borrowers owned or should have owned debt free, the bank obtained ownership in, and for free, in exchange for the borrowers receiving a debt, paying interest to the bank, all because the bank refused to loan money and merely exchanged one currency for another. This placed the borrowers in perpetual slavery to the bank because the bank refuses to perform under the contract. The lien forces payment by threat of foreclosure. The mail is used to extort payment on a contract the bank never fulfilled.

9. The bank refused to perform, so they must return the mortgage note. If the bank had wished to perform, then they must make the loan. The past payments must be returned because the bank had not right to lien the property and extort interest payments.

10. The bank has no right to sell a mortgage note for two reasons. The mortgage note was deposited and the money withdrawn without authorization by using forged signatures and; two, the contract was never fulfilled. The bank acted without authorization and is involved in a fraud thereby damaging the alleged borrowers.

11. The check was written without deducting funds from the Savings Accounts or Certificates of Deposits of the bank, allowing the mortgage note to become the new pool of money owed. The bank sold the mortgage note for federal reserve notes or other assets while still owing the liability for the mortgage note sold and without the bank giving up any federal reserve notes. If the bank had to part with the federal reserve notes, and without the benefit of checks to hide the fraudulent conversion of the mortgage note from which it issues the check, the bank fraud would be exposed. Federal reserve notes are the only money called legal tender. If only federal reserve notes are deposited for credit and if the bank wrote a check for the mortgage note, the check then transfers federal reserve notes and the bank gives the borrower a bank asset. There is no increase in the check book money supply that exists in the loan process. The bank policy is to increase bank liabilities by the mortgage note. If the mortgage note is money, then the bank never gave up a bank asset. The bank simply used fraudulent conversion of ownership of the mortgage note. The bank cannot own the mortgage note until the bank fulfills the contract.

12. The check is not the money, the money is the deposit that makes the check good. In this case, the mortgage note is the money from which the check was issued. Who owned the mortgage note when the mortgage note was deposited? The borrowers owned the mortgage note because the bank never paid money for the mortgage note and never loaned money (bank asset). The bank simply claimed the bank owned the mortgage without paying for it and deposited the mortgage note from which the check was issued. This was fraudulent conversion. The bank risked nothing. Not even one penny was invested. They never took money out of any account, in order to own the mortgage note, as proven by the bookkeeping entries, financial ratios, the balance sheet, and of course the bank’s literature. The bank simply never complied with the contract.

13. If the mortgage note is not money, then the check is check kiting and the bank is insolvent and the bank still never paid. If the mortgage note is money, the bank took the borrowers’ money without showing the deposit, and without paying for it, which is fraudulent conversion. The bank claimed it owned the mortgage note without paying for it, then sold the mortgage note, took the cash and never used the cash to pay the liability it owned for the check the bank issued. The liability means that the bank still owes the money. The bank must return the mortgage note or the cash it received in the sale, in order to pay the liability. Even if the bank did this, the bank still never loaned the borrowers the bank’s money, which is what ‘loan’ means. The check is not the money but merely an order to pay money. If the mortgage note is money then the bank must pay the check by returning the mortgage note. The check issued could only be redeemed in federal reserve notes, which the bank obtained by selling the mortgage note that they paid nothing for. This is fraudulent conversion making the contract, which the bank created with their policy of bookkeeping entries, illegal and the alleged contract null and void. The bank has no right to the mortgage note or to a lien on the property, until the bank performs under the contract.

14. All of the aforementioned officials of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, upheld the fraudulent conversion of the mortgage note and the subsequent foreclosure. All dealt with fraudulent documents by the US Mail. All did not perform in their jobs as per the public trust, and all are liable in their job capacity as well as their individual capacity. Therefore, all their jobs are in jeopardy, all their retirement and benefits are in jeopardy because of damage by racketeering to Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© under RICO and US Mail Fraud.

15. Damages exist in that the bank refused to loan their money to Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn

Page 7of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

Schmaltz©.The bank denies us equal protection under the law and contract, by merely exchanging one currency for another and refusing repayment in the same type of currency deposited. The bank refused to fulfill the contract by not loaning the money, and by the bank refusing to be repaid in the same currency, which they deposited as an exchange for another currency. A debt tender offered and refused is a debt paid to the extent of the offer. The bank has not authorization to alter the alleged contract and to refuse to perform by not loaning money, by changing the currency and then refusing repayment in what the bank has a written policy to deposit.

SECTION V: NOTICE AND DEMAND PERTAINING TO PUBLIC FRAUD, LAW, MONEY

AND COMMERCIAL LIENS

1. Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court Decisions were based upon what is termed: “Public Law” or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. After 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court Decisions are based on “Public Policy” concerning commercial transactions made under the “negotiable Instrument Law,” as a result of the U.S. Bankruptcy Executive as declared by President Roosevelt on March 9, 1933 and codified at 12 U.S.C.A 95a. And by Executive Orders. This bankruptcy caused the change from “Public Law” to “Private Commercial Law” and was recognized by the Supreme Court in Erie v. Tompkins (1938). After that case, all the procedures of Law were officially blended with procedures of Equity.

2. The Negotiable Instruments Law is a branch of the “international Law Merchant,” which is now known as the “Uniform Commercial Code,” (UCC) that was ‘drafted’ and made uniform, and “adopted in whole or substantially by all states.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition- page 1531. Thus the several states were and are bound into commercial agreements to the federal United States under the Uniform Commercial Code.

3. The several (now 50) States accepted the “benefits” of federal grants offered by the Federal United States as the “consideration” of a commercial agreement between themselves. Under the agreement the States (Conference of Governors, March 6, 1933) pledged their full faith and credit and agreed to obey the dictates of Congress, and assume their portion of the national Debt, collected as “your fair share,” as an example, in the nature of the unlawful income tax, wherein the IRS operates and collects such ‘taxers’ under the same UCC.

4. This system of Negotiable paper has bound all corporate entities (cities, municipalities, counties, etc.) Of government together to the process/system of the Commercial Venue of Commercial Law as expressed and exercised within the Commercial Lien Process. This nationwide Commercial “bond” also altered the original (law) status of the Court to nothing more than “administrative tribunals” merely administering the bankruptcy (private policy) of debt collection for the Creditors.

5. By and through the bankruptcy, the UCC, and other acts, Congress in failing to uphold its constitutional duty to provide a lawful medium of exchange (i.e., “money” backed by silver and gold, or minted coin pursuant to Article 1, section 8, clause 5) have by these various “Acts” created an abundance of this new type of money called commercial credit money to circulate within the Legislative democracy called the United States...of which “they” are not bound by Constitutional law and limitation.

6. The Commercial Law Venue, compelled upon the people a forced “benefit” of “limited liability for the payment of debt” by the “use” of federal reserve notes (debt instruments) where “YOUR” debts are only discharged, (not paid) in the form of interest-bearing negotiable instruments(federal reserve notes.). “There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged the debt still exists, though divested of its character as a legal obligation..”Stanek v. White, 215 NWR 781 (1927). Federal reserve notes are only evidence of debt owed to the Federal Reserve Bank and Federal Reserve Notes are a commercial line on the Federal Reserve Bank.

7. Since 1933, by the acts of the Bankruptcy and the UCC, the Law has been tainted, or “colored,” (I.E., color of law) as it were, because the commercial law is operated in conjunction with the Negotiable Instruments Law, wherein the Federal Government by and through the Bankers, can/have declared that a ‘piece of paper’ has and represent value. Albeit that there is no substance (gold or silver)backing the ‘piece of paper,’ which the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in its publication “Modern Money Mechanics,” page 3, has in fact declared the use of these debt instruments (federal reserve notes) a “confidence) game. The substance of the law (property) (I.E. gold, silver, etc.) Has been removed, like the substance that is the basis of U.S.A., by and through the UCC, all contracts, agreements, (implied, or otherwise, etc.), applications, permits, etc. where the “colorable”consideration (federal reserve notes) was passed in those ‘contracts,’ etc., all such contract are then also “colored” and are not genuine, for no lawful consideration (gold or silver)was paid by either party to the contract to, by Law, pass both the “possession and the property” to the lawful Buyer. See - Bouvier’s Dict. Of Law, 1839, “TITLE,” definition #5. “The lawful coin of the United States will pass the property along with the possession.”

Page 8of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

8. Today, all our “courts” (sic) sit as Non-Constitutional-Non Article III-Legislative Tribunals administering the bankruptcy through “their” statutes which are in reality “commercial obligations” for the BENEFIT OR PRIVILEGE OF DISCHARGING YOUR DEBTS WITH THE LIMITED LIABILITY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE MONOPOLY ‘COLORABLE’ MONEY NOTES.

9. Under the current “colorable” legal system, the de-facto (we just do it) legislature has created “colorable” rights called privileges, imposes, duties, lays down rules of conduct, and the legislative tribunals declare the same as “rights.” These privileges are granted and given upon the peoples’ voluntary act of asking “permission,” then upon providing any colorable consideration (payment = discharge) the people then come under the administrative jurisdiction of Commercial Law.

10. Today in AMERICA, everyone, all governments included, are statutory law merchants dealing in negotiable paper (instruments) under the UCC for the limited liability for the discharge of debts, wherein a debt remains (fraud) and nothing else. The so-called “judges” are operating only a commercial tribunal to administer their “corporate” regulations concerning all financial transactions.....both voluntary and those compelled.

11. ALL DEBTS are satisfied by one or both of two ways, a payment, or a promise to pay. Every payment is by substance, and every promise to pay is accomplished by a currency or paper which is technically known as commercial lien. The satisfaction of the debt by providing substance is called “paying the debt.” The satisfaction of the debt by a written or printed promise to pay the debt is called “discharging the debt.” All debts are “paid” by substance. All debts are only “discharged” by CURRENCY, POCKET MONEY NOTES, OR OTHER COMMERCIAL LIENS (Negotiable instrument, i.e., Commercial Lien Security/Asset, i. e., UCC-1 Asset).

12. All paper money consists of NOTES which declare a debt or obligation and which promise or demand payment. All such evidences of debt or obligations are technically known as COMMERCIAL LIENS. Such “notes” include currency, for example, federal reserve notes, checks, drafts, conditional checks, notes of exchange (paper money/instruments between banks).

13. A Federal Reserve note is a commercial lien on the Federal Reserve Bank. A personal check is a commercial lien on the bank account of the maker of the check (cheque). A draft is a check (cheque) with a conditional agreement printed above the place of endorsement on the backside of the draft. A “note” of exchange is a commercial lien between the banks consisting of one bank demanding payment (discharge) from another bank. A personal check (cheque), while passing banks, as a note of exchange is a commercial lien.

14. Bank accounts are backed (supported) either by substance money or by paper money, or by both. The substance money is called collateral. The paper money can be currency (for example, paper money notes), a loan of credit from the bank, or checks or other paper money as such, are commercial liens, received from other sources. Therefore the “property”declared/pledge or claimed to secure the obligation, and damages, is the collateral by and through the Commercial Lien process, which establishes (creates) the credit called commercial credit money.

15. Valid “credit” currency (commercial lien) can be established by making a valid claim of debt (based on a damage or injury) by an affidavit in the form of a ‘private security agreement’ (and other related documents) and by allowing the lien to mature in three (3) months (90 days) into an accounts receivable (under commercial law) by the failure of the lien debtor to contest the ‘agreement/lien’ by answering or rebutting, by his affidavit, on a point for point basis.

16. A lien must contain 1( the names of the party/parties, claimants, and debtors; 2) an affidavit stating the events which created the obligations; 3) a ledger giving a one-to-one correspondence between events and their values; 4)a list of property pledged or claimed to secure the payment (discharge) of the obligations, and 5) any evidence of exhibits in support of the claims made against the debtor.

17. The primary method of establishing a COMMERCIAL LIEN currency/paper/negotiable instrument is to come, 1) a promise to perform; 2) a claim of breach/damage/injury/fraud, etc., and 3) a three month (90 day) default to challenge or rebut the claim/lien on said point for point basis.

18. Commercial Lien/value/currency can be in the form of a bank check (cheque), a draft, a UCC 1 Security, and its partial assignments....that pass, and are accepted, or circulate ‘as’ credit money.

19. The “people,” operating in their private capacity, by and through the remedy provided in the Uniform Commercial Code, pursuant to their collective sovereign capacity, upon injury or damage, may as a matter or right, proceed to utilize the Commercial Law venue against the agents of governments, their creations (corporations) and its officers (accountability = liability) to arrive at the truth and secure damages by the Commercial Lien process (to create and establish the damages in the form of UCC “money,” i.e., a security, an asset, and liability) supported by

Page 9 of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

the full faith and credit of the United States Federal Government under the Commercial Law and the UCC....America’s Federal (and State) Common Law.

20. In the Commercial Venue, TRUTH is sovereign and the sovereign must always tell the TRUTH.

CAVEAT

Upon receipt of this Memorandum of Points and Authorities - Notice and Demand, to the intended party(ies), by Certified Mail, as either a “Public Servant” who by “Oath of Office” or duty as an “Officer” of a government created corporation, municipality, etc., and/or by and through your “superior knowledge of the law,” you have 15 days to review and correct any errors within the Memorandum and respond by Certified U.S. Mail as to any corrections to the enumerated points herein. Failure to do so within the 15 days, allowing up to three days grace for mail delivery, will place you and your office in default, and the presumption will be taken upon the public record that you and your office fully agrees to the points and authorities contained within this Memorandum and that they are true, correct and certain (F.R.C.P.8d).

SECTION VI–NOTICE OF RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

1. This documents serves as notice to the court, and all officers of the court, and all other public servants, and all other people and persons that are working for, or on behalf of any public trust corporation, that we Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, know that we have Rights that we can demand to have protected at all times, both by the court and the police departments who follow its policies. This document serves as notice that we hereby reserve all our rights without prejudice and order all courts and related people and persons to recognize, honor, and protect All Our Rights, both today, and forever, as is in accordance with the Constitutions. Furthermore a Quo Warranto is placed upon all actions that are taken against us that might cause us legal disability, be it now or at any time in the future.

2. This is official notice that we Reserve All Our Rights Without Prejudice. We refuse this or any other court, public servant or person, the Right to take any liberties with our rights. We do not consent in any way to have our rights infringed upon. We do not give permission to construe anything we say or do as permission to Prejudice any of our Rights. Any lack of knowledge of the Law on our part at this time relating to Our Rights shall not be construed as permission to take any liberties with any of our Rights. Before Creator God, we make and proclaim this statement of Our Reservation of Rights as fact and order all public service people and persons to abide by it.

3. Any infringement upon our Rights shall serve as prima facie evidence of Intent to Violate the Law. If any action is taken against us that cause us a disability and it is later determined that said actions, lack thereof, or any part thereof, are based on policy and not Law, this document shall serve as prima facie evidence of intent to willfully violate the Law. Each violation of our Rights shall create a separate claim for damages, which shall be deemed immediately due and payable to the injured party.

4. Administrative laws relevant to rights violation by public servants include simulating legal process. (1) A person commits the crime of simulating legal process if the person knowingly issues or delivers to another person any document that in form and substance falsely simulates civil or criminal process. (a) Civil or criminal process means a document or order, including, but not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading or subpoena, that is issued by a court or that is filed or recorded for the purpose of: (A) Exercising jurisdiction; (B) Representing a claim against a person or property; (C) Directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal; or (D) Directing persons to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. (b) “Person” has the meaning given except that in relation to a defendant, “person” means a human being, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, or a partnership. (3) Simulating legal process: (a) A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct in the first degree if with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another; (a) The public servant knowingly fails to perform a duty imposed upon the public servant by Law or one clearly inherent in the nature of office; or (b) The public servant knowingly performs an act constituting an unauthorized exercise in official duties. (2) Official misconduct–All officers of the court and peace officers, such as the sheriff and deputies and all municipal private peace officers, such as all people hired for that purpose by a public corporation, such as City and State Police, are deemed to have a duty to know and uphold the law and protect the rights of the people around them.

5. The aforementioned: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF

GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT F. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ANTHONY J. DICOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY ATTORNEY, CHRISTINA WHITMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY TREASURER, AND

Page 10 of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

PUBLIC TRUSTEE, MICAH C. BENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF DEPUTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND DEPUTY TREASURER FOR GRAND COUNTY, and other county officials of GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO have simulated legal processes against Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, all based on the fraudulent document and processes of the bank. In so doing they have caused spurious liens to be filed against Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©. They have knowingly performed official misconduct in their official capacities. When it was their duty to know and uphold the law and protect the rights of Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© they issued and delivered documents that in form and substance falsely simulated civil and/or criminal process.

6. Any violation of the Rights of Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, also called Our Rights, or Failure to Stop Another from Violating Them, by a Public Servant Who Has the Legal Duty and Power to Protect Those Rights, Shall Constitute a crime. Such crime shall serve as prima facie evidence that said Public Servants did intend to, and created claims on behalf of the injured parties, Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, as previously listed with the Secretary of State of Colorado on the UCC-1 Financing Statement Filings 2002F077127, 2002F081905, 2002F078849, 2002F081871, 2002F081905, 20022100367, 2002F099976, 2002F095874, 20022133862, 2002F102394, 2002F102433, 2002F105153, 20032029074, 2002F102433, 2002F105153, 20022133862, 200.2029074, and not excluded to these filings. Said Actions Shall Create a Claim for Damages That Can Be Collected by Filing a Suit under the Jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code for Violation of Our Common Law Rights, in Local, Federal, or World Courts. All claims are valid and enforceable simultaneously as allowed by Law. Authorities that have not been overturned: Norton vs. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425. An unconstitutional act is not Law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Owen vs. Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398 Officer of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional Right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the Law. Jackson J., West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette 1943 319 US 624, 638 87L ed 1628, 1638, 63 S Ct 1178, 147 ALR 674 “The Very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. “JONES V. COUNCE, 7 F3d 1359 (8th Cir. 1993) BENITEZ V. WOLFF, 985 F3d 662 (2nd Cir. 1993) Qualified immunity defense fails of public officer violates clearly established right, because a reasonably competent official should know Law governing this conduct.

7. United States vs. Johnson, 76 Federal Register, Supplement 538 Rights are neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his Rights, nor to the one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can only be retained by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by belligerent claimants in person. “Without Prejudice” UCC 1-207.4 “All Rights Reserved: When we use “Without Prejudice” UCC 1-207 in connection with our signatures, we are saying: “We reserve our right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that we did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, we do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.” “The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as “Without Prejudice” (UCC-1-207-.4) or “All Rights Reserved.” “The making of a valid Reservation of Right reserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel.” (UCC 1-207.7)

8. This Document is Law, and Must Be Obeyed by Anyone Who has a Public Servant Job, and in Particular, Any and All Public Servants Who Have Taken an Oath to Uphold the constitutions of the state and the united States but shall not be avoided for lack of an oath. Further, Authorities: Whereas, the exercise of a natural right needs no authority in American other than the Constitution.

9. “...nor shall any law be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution....”. This is the underlying principle of all American law. Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© reserves all rights given them by God and protected by the Constitution for the Republican Union, and the republic of Colorado which places definite and unbridgeable limits upon the law making and enforcement abilities of any government body or corporate entity operating in accordance with and under color of American Law.

10. If the COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO decides to mediate or decide the alleged claim against Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, they reserve and exercise their sovereign power to demand that the STATE OF COLORADO and GRAND COUNTY provide full disclosure of the source of the authority upon which all actions were taken. Full disclosure means: absolute in detail from its source.

11. Under American Law, Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz©, recognize that codes, rules and statutes are only administrative in nature and are not the actual Constitutional Laws with proper enacting

Page 11of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

clauses. Such codes, rules and statutes, as applied as mandatory obligatory conditions to us in which we are placed under a legal disability over our objection, or through fraud and deception, is an act of slavery.

12. We object to, and reserve the Right not to be subjected to slavery and reserve all Lawful Rights of redress for any act of slavery imposed upon our person and/or other properties.

13. Further Notice: COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, operates under some other system of law other than the Constitutional Common Law in which Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© have Rights secure in the Bill of Rights, Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© demand to know the following:

A. Exactly the system of law GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO is operating under.

B. The system of law is being used to limit our Rights

C. The system of law are you attempting to prosecute us for violating, if different from (A)

D. The system of law are you attempting to prosecute us under, if different from (A)

E. How that system of law(s) applies to us, who understand ourselves to be a Man and Woman with all the Rights given to us by God and protected by the Constitutions for the republic of Colorado and the republican union known as the United States.

14. Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© reminds THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT F. ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ANTHONY J. DICOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY ATTORNEY, CHRISTINA WHITMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GRAND COUNTY TREASURER, AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE, MICAH C. BENSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF DEPUTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND DEPUTY TREASURER FOR GRAND COUNTY, that there is no “half-pregnant” in the law, and that to deny us access to the STATE OF COLORADO’S AND GRAND COUNTY’S law and thereby access to a defense, wherein an obligation such as a debt or service obligation is forced upon Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© is, in law, an act and declaration of slavery against us (42 USC, § 1994"...directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.”)

15. Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© further reminds the court that pursuant to law, actors engaged in any form of slavery lose all immunities from criminal prosecution and civil judgments, and any corporation, municipal or otherwise, that condones any act of slavery by any of its agents or employees is subject to civil judgments under the law.

16. Relief demanded: If the court cannot, or will not comply with an American and internationally recognized ‘in Law’ and commercial law mandate for full disclosure, then Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© demand the court to dismiss its claim upon its own motion because GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, thru its representatives, failed to state a claim upon which we are obligated to grant relief and further failed to state a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction to grant obligatory relief.

17. The CORPORATE COUNTY is moving in its own name in a criminal action and not Ex Rel on behalf of the People of Grand County, State of Colorado under and in accordance with the common law.

18. In the mid 1990-s, the STATE OF COLORADO, Inc., entered into a commercial enterprise with all of the other STATE OF COLORADO public corporations, such as the COLORADO STATE POLICE, the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, etc. in which the retirement account/programs known as the PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, (PERS), were combined and invested in the stock market in a for-profit commercial enterprise. As a result: (A) The STATE OF COLORADO is not the State of Colorado, and is no longer operating in its lawfully mandated role as a non-profit public corporation. (B) The STATE OF COLORADO judges and the STATE OF COLORADO District Attorneys, court administrators, clerks, etc., all have an interest in maintaining the same retirement account.

19. Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© further reminds the court that pursuant to law, actors engaged in any form of slavery lose all immunities from criminal prosecution and civil judgments, and any corporation, municipal or otherwise, that condones any act of slavery by any of its agents or employees is subject to civil judgments under the law.

20. Relief demanded: If the court cannot, or will not comply with an American and internationally

Page 12 of 20 Schmaltz Affidavit 12-02-2003

recognized ‘in Law’ and commercial law mandate for full disclosure, then Paul E Schmaltz© and Patricia Lynn Schmaltz© demand the court to dismiss its claim upon its own motion because GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, thru its representatives, failed to state a claim upon which we are obligated to grant relief and further failed to state a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction to grant obligatory relief.

21. The CORPORATE COUNTY is moving in its own name in a criminal action and not Ex Rel on behalf of the People of Grand County, State of Colorado under and in accordance with the common law.

22. In the mid 1990-s, the STATE OF COLORADO, Inc., entered into a commercial enterprise with all of the other STATE OF COLORADO public corporations, such as the COLORADO STATE POLICE, the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, etc. in which the retirement account/programs known as the PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, (PERS), were combined and invested in the stock market in a for-profit commercial enterprise. As a result: (A) The STATE OF COLORADO is not the State of Colorado, and is no longer operating in its lawfully mandated role as a non-profit public corporation. (B) The STATE OF COLORADO judges and the STATE OF COLORADO District Attorneys, court administrators, clerks, etc., all have an interest in maintaining the same retirement account. .

SECTION VII

NOTICE OF PROPERTY TAX FRAUD IN AMERICA, INCLUDING

GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO

1. The true owners of the property called AMERICA and all the cities, counties and states therein

is actually by the Rothschild Vatican cabal operating through various treaties since 1213 AD.

2. In the late 1700's the King of England, a front man for the Vatican cabal, collected a quitrent tax on land in America. This, the eight Proprietors collected and returned a portion to the CROWN, which is the bank in England the King dealt with.

3. All land granted to the Proprietors in AMERICA was recalled by the King of England; therefore, land in America was never owned by the settlers. All of the Proprietors but Lord Granville returned the property.

4. The Revolutionary War commenced and after the feigned win by the American people, Lord Granville’s property was confiscated by America. The land did not belong to Lord Granville, it still belong to the “King” and had to be taken by the newly formed subdivision of the cabal. When North Carolina’s royal governor for the King was placed in the position of Governor of the supposedly free colony of North Carolina, which is not called STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, he immediately eliminated the quitrent tax and installed a worse tax called the ad valorum tax, which we still have today. This tax now put a price on land where the quitrent tax did not.

5. The Revolutionary War, was fought to eliminate the income tax; and another tax, ad valorum, put it its plac