Complaint Review: Kentucky State Attorney General - Frankfort Kentucky

Al, Statements like that are the exact reason why nobody takes people like you, or the original reporter seriously. First, I presented legal analyses of the reporter's claims. I DID NOT support the position of the state. The reporter made assertions with bases in the law; I pointed out that his understading of the law was flawed. Whether or not that law itself is also flawed, and I certainly believe that it is in many respects, is a subject for another day. But rather than refute the reasoned underpinnings of my rebuttal, you choose to call me names? What kind of a brainless fool are you? Do you really think that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills is going to be swayed by your response? And you could have refuted my assertions rather easily. But since you are too mentally lazy to do so, I'll do it for you: First: The reporter claimed that his constitutional right to the free exercise of his religion was violated by the state's requiring him to use a driver's license containing a bar code. I pointed out that the Supreme Court has already confronted a very similar issue (whether a muslim woman could be forced to remove her veil for an I.D. picture) and decided that the free exercise clause does not prevent a state from requiring that ALL people meet stated requirements for driver's licensing, even where a religious objection is claimed. YOU could have argued that this issue should be decided differently under the law either because the factula basis is different or becuase privacy concerns are implicated as well, or both. Or you could have argued that the opinion I spoke of was wrongly decided for a number of reasons. But instead you chose name-calling. Second: The reporter complained that his access to the internet at public librairies and universities was being continually challenged. I argued that the reporter had "no constitutional right to unfettered access to any service the government wishes to provide." YOU could have argued that the reporter was not seeking unfettered access, but only a reasonable degree of access so as to carry out his legitimate, information seeking objectives. You could have coupled this with an argument that the equipment, in many cases, is dedicated to public use and, therefore, the authorities should accomodate his needs to the extent feasible even if they exceed stated guidelines. But what did you do instead? Oh yeah, you implied that I was Hitler. Third: The reporter claimed that his property was damaged by the state, but failed to mention whether he sought the proper means of legal recourse. I thus asked whether he had pursued these avenues. I guess that here you could have argued that . . . well, I don't actually know how you could argue that one, as it's pretty much common sense: if your property is damaged, seek recourse. I guess it's that attitude that makes me a n**i. Fourth: The reporter claimed something about how signing a document in all capital letters has some kind of constitution-implicating effect via U.C.C. Section 1-207. Take a look at what the reporter cited this code section for, and then consider that the U.C.C. is not actually law in the first place, that it most certainly is not common law, and that it only applies to commercial transactions and has NO BEARING on non-commercial government functions. Again, I'm not sure how you would argue the points I made here, but you could have at least tried! Next time, try harder. You'll need more than a few derogatory remarks, however.

Javol Mein Herr Tim! Heil Hitler! Or rather should it be, Da, Commrade Tim, Valpariso, Indiana.

Craig, let me express the highest admiration for your conviction. I would like to give a little legal analysis (not legal advice or an expert opinion) on a few of your points. 1) The bar code on the IDs. I couldn't agree with you more on the threat to privacy rights posed by these bar codes. I don't have much faith in your free exercise claim, however. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Muslim women can be forced to remove their veils when being photgraphed for state IDs, and they would probably find similarly in regards to your complaint. First, it is questionable whether these bar codes violate your religious principles in the first place, or whether your distaste for these barcodes stems from a dislike of government. At any rate, a court would likely find that the State's interest in creating an efficient record retreival system outwieghs your right to not have a bar code on you driver's license. I could all but guaruntee you that this is how the Supreme Court would find if presented with this question, and as the Supreme Court has the inherent power to determine the reach of the First Amendment, you cannot claim that your civil rights have been violated. 2) Internet access on public library computers. There is no requirement that a state provide this service, and if decides to do so, it may place reasonable limits on said use. You have no constitutional right to unfettered access to any service the government wishes to provide. At universities, even public universities, computers are provided for the use of the students, and are usually a limited resource. Just because a public agency uses public funds to provide a service does not mean they have to make that service available to anyone who chooses to use it and for whatever purpose conceivable. You wouldn't walk into an elementary school and demand use of their computers would you? 3) The damage to your property. Have you pursued civil litigation, or filed a claim with the city's insurance carrier? If they damaged your property, they need to pay for it. You have a right to be angry about the damage, but merely complaining about it will get you nowhere. You will need to take legal action on your own to recover the lost value of your property, the attorney general is not your lawyer. 4) The U.C.C.: U.C.C. stands for Uniform Commercial Code. It is not common law, in fact, it is virtually the antithesis of common law. Nor is it actually "law" in the first place. States are free to pick and choose which provisions of the U.C.C. they will adopt, and when they do, those provisions become state law, but they are not laws absent legislative adoption. Granted, every state has adopted the U.C.C. pretty much in its entirety. That is irrelevant, however, because the purpose for which you are citing to the U.C.C. confuses what the U.C.C. is in the first place. For example, the section you cite to, 1-207, says nothing about forfeitting any rights by signing in capital letters. Nor does it pertain even in the slightest degree to any sort of civil rights. Its SOLE function is to state that when a party to a contract performs in a manner demanded by the other party, such performance does not result in a forfeiture of contract rights so long as such rights are expressly reserved. This section ONLY pertains to contracts for goods or services, not to airing grievances with the government. Best of luck to you Craig. My advice would be stop sounding so conspiratorial. People will take you more seriosly that way.

Craig, let me express the highest admiration for your conviction. I would like to give a little legal analysis (not legal advice or an expert opinion) on a few of your points. 1) The bar code on the IDs. I couldn't agree with you more on the threat to privacy rights posed by these bar codes. I don't have much faith in your free exercise claim, however. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Muslim women can be forced to remove their veils when being photgraphed for state IDs, and they would probably find similarly in regards to your complaint. First, it is questionable whether these bar codes violate your religious principles in the first place, or whether your distaste for these barcodes stems from a dislike of government. At any rate, a court would likely find that the State's interest in creating an efficient record retreival system outwieghs your right to not have a bar code on you driver's license. I could all but guaruntee you that this is how the Supreme Court would find if presented with this question, and as the Supreme Court has the inherent power to determine the reach of the First Amendment, you cannot claim that your civil rights have been violated. 2) Internet access on public library computers. There is no requirement that a state provide this service, and if decides to do so, it may place reasonable limits on said use. You have no constitutional right to unfettered access to any service the government wishes to provide. At universities, even public universities, computers are provided for the use of the students, and are usually a limited resource. Just because a public agency uses public funds to provide a service does not mean they have to make that service available to anyone who chooses to use it and for whatever purpose conceivable. You wouldn't walk into an elementary school and demand use of their computers would you? 3) The damage to your property. Have you pursued civil litigation, or filed a claim with the city's insurance carrier? If they damaged your property, they need to pay for it. You have a right to be angry about the damage, but merely complaining about it will get you nowhere. You will need to take legal action on your own to recover the lost value of your property, the attorney general is not your lawyer. 4) The U.C.C.: U.C.C. stands for Uniform Commercial Code. It is not common law, in fact, it is virtually the antithesis of common law. Nor is it actually "law" in the first place. States are free to pick and choose which provisions of the U.C.C. they will adopt, and when they do, those provisions become state law, but they are not laws absent legislative adoption. Granted, every state has adopted the U.C.C. pretty much in its entirety. That is irrelevant, however, because the purpose for which you are citing to the U.C.C. confuses what the U.C.C. is in the first place. For example, the section you cite to, 1-207, says nothing about forfeitting any rights by signing in capital letters. Nor does it pertain even in the slightest degree to any sort of civil rights. Its SOLE function is to state that when a party to a contract performs in a manner demanded by the other party, such performance does not result in a forfeiture of contract rights so long as such rights are expressly reserved. This section ONLY pertains to contracts for goods or services, not to airing grievances with the government. Best of luck to you Craig. My advice would be stop sounding so conspiratorial. People will take you more seriosly that way.

Craig, let me express the highest admiration for your conviction. I would like to give a little legal analysis (not legal advice or an expert opinion) on a few of your points. 1) The bar code on the IDs. I couldn't agree with you more on the threat to privacy rights posed by these bar codes. I don't have much faith in your free exercise claim, however. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Muslim women can be forced to remove their veils when being photgraphed for state IDs, and they would probably find similarly in regards to your complaint. First, it is questionable whether these bar codes violate your religious principles in the first place, or whether your distaste for these barcodes stems from a dislike of government. At any rate, a court would likely find that the State's interest in creating an efficient record retreival system outwieghs your right to not have a bar code on you driver's license. I could all but guaruntee you that this is how the Supreme Court would find if presented with this question, and as the Supreme Court has the inherent power to determine the reach of the First Amendment, you cannot claim that your civil rights have been violated. 2) Internet access on public library computers. There is no requirement that a state provide this service, and if decides to do so, it may place reasonable limits on said use. You have no constitutional right to unfettered access to any service the government wishes to provide. At universities, even public universities, computers are provided for the use of the students, and are usually a limited resource. Just because a public agency uses public funds to provide a service does not mean they have to make that service available to anyone who chooses to use it and for whatever purpose conceivable. You wouldn't walk into an elementary school and demand use of their computers would you? 3) The damage to your property. Have you pursued civil litigation, or filed a claim with the city's insurance carrier? If they damaged your property, they need to pay for it. You have a right to be angry about the damage, but merely complaining about it will get you nowhere. You will need to take legal action on your own to recover the lost value of your property, the attorney general is not your lawyer. 4) The U.C.C.: U.C.C. stands for Uniform Commercial Code. It is not common law, in fact, it is virtually the antithesis of common law. Nor is it actually "law" in the first place. States are free to pick and choose which provisions of the U.C.C. they will adopt, and when they do, those provisions become state law, but they are not laws absent legislative adoption. Granted, every state has adopted the U.C.C. pretty much in its entirety. That is irrelevant, however, because the purpose for which you are citing to the U.C.C. confuses what the U.C.C. is in the first place. For example, the section you cite to, 1-207, says nothing about forfeitting any rights by signing in capital letters. Nor does it pertain even in the slightest degree to any sort of civil rights. Its SOLE function is to state that when a party to a contract performs in a manner demanded by the other party, such performance does not result in a forfeiture of contract rights so long as such rights are expressly reserved. This section ONLY pertains to contracts for goods or services, not to airing grievances with the government. Best of luck to you Craig. My advice would be stop sounding so conspiratorial. People will take you more seriosly that way.

Craig, let me express the highest admiration for your conviction. I would like to give a little legal analysis (not legal advice or an expert opinion) on a few of your points. 1) The bar code on the IDs. I couldn't agree with you more on the threat to privacy rights posed by these bar codes. I don't have much faith in your free exercise claim, however. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Muslim women can be forced to remove their veils when being photgraphed for state IDs, and they would probably find similarly in regards to your complaint. First, it is questionable whether these bar codes violate your religious principles in the first place, or whether your distaste for these barcodes stems from a dislike of government. At any rate, a court would likely find that the State's interest in creating an efficient record retreival system outwieghs your right to not have a bar code on you driver's license. I could all but guaruntee you that this is how the Supreme Court would find if presented with this question, and as the Supreme Court has the inherent power to determine the reach of the First Amendment, you cannot claim that your civil rights have been violated. 2) Internet access on public library computers. There is no requirement that a state provide this service, and if decides to do so, it may place reasonable limits on said use. You have no constitutional right to unfettered access to any service the government wishes to provide. At universities, even public universities, computers are provided for the use of the students, and are usually a limited resource. Just because a public agency uses public funds to provide a service does not mean they have to make that service available to anyone who chooses to use it and for whatever purpose conceivable. You wouldn't walk into an elementary school and demand use of their computers would you? 3) The damage to your property. Have you pursued civil litigation, or filed a claim with the city's insurance carrier? If they damaged your property, they need to pay for it. You have a right to be angry about the damage, but merely complaining about it will get you nowhere. You will need to take legal action on your own to recover the lost value of your property, the attorney general is not your lawyer. 4) The U.C.C.: U.C.C. stands for Uniform Commercial Code. It is not common law, in fact, it is virtually the antithesis of common law. Nor is it actually "law" in the first place. States are free to pick and choose which provisions of the U.C.C. they will adopt, and when they do, those provisions become state law, but they are not laws absent legislative adoption. Granted, every state has adopted the U.C.C. pretty much in its entirety. That is irrelevant, however, because the purpose for which you are citing to the U.C.C. confuses what the U.C.C. is in the first place. For example, the section you cite to, 1-207, says nothing about forfeitting any rights by signing in capital letters. Nor does it pertain even in the slightest degree to any sort of civil rights. Its SOLE function is to state that when a party to a contract performs in a manner demanded by the other party, such performance does not result in a forfeiture of contract rights so long as such rights are expressly reserved. This section ONLY pertains to contracts for goods or services, not to airing grievances with the government. Best of luck to you Craig. My advice would be stop sounding so conspiratorial. People will take you more seriosly that way.

delivery confirmation # 03022940000225468348 October 27, 2004 Gregory Stumbo State Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State Capital, Suite 118 700 Capital Avenue Frankfort, Kentucky [40601] Dear Sir, I am resubmitting my initial unanswered complaint of June 17, 2003 and again of October 17, 2003 (certified mail #70022030000435344313) to a brand new Kentucky State Attorney General. Also at this time I wish to file a complaint against the last Kentucky State Attorney General for willfully conspiring to violate his oath of office to uphold the constitution and to protect my rights. I wish to state I no longer believe in, nor submit/join myself to this "defacto government", comprising of such a corrupt, fraudulent, "legal and monetary system" which I have now discovered that I live in. This is after reviewing on the internet : http://www.911forthetruth.com/united_ states_district_court.htm http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm http://www.theawaregroup.com/lawyersecretoath.htm I am informing you that at some point in time I will be posting this information on the internet for the public to review. I am seeking damages for what has been occurring to me. 1). On April 29, 2003 I filed a complaint with the Director of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division of Driver Licensing, 501 High Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40602 and Attn: Driver Licenses, Nancy Botts, Court Clerk, Court House, P.O. Box 1359, Glasgow, Kentucky 42141-2463. I filed a complaint that the newly formatted driver license constitutes a violation of my first amendment constitutional rights. I based this upon my personal religious belief of Revelation 14:9-13. I stated that I have willyfully chosen not to receive a "bar code" mark as now indicated on the newly formatted driver licenses and to provide me with a timely lawful remedy. I claim the Director of Transportation and the Barren county clerk have violated their oath to uphold the constitution. Specifically violating my first amendment rights: to block the free exercise of my religious rights by requiring me to "take a mark/branding" in the form of a "bar code"; which I can neither read nor understand what information it may contain now or in the future. I am notifying the state attorney general's office that I am asserting my rights to freely convey myself without the use of any state mandated license to do so and therefore no longer "drive" using a "driver license" that violates my constitutional rights. This is the direct result of public servants not upholding their oath to the constitution; the supreme law of the land. I will no longer submit myself to a tyrannical system of despots who willfully ignore peoples' formal complaints concerning constituional rights violations. 2). I claim my first amendment freedom of speech rights have been violated by the local library and a branch of the public University. I am not allowed access to the internet nor am I allowed to download "2002 Kentucky Financial Annual Report" website: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/finance/manuals/tax/caft.htm. If I am allowed on the internet I am constantly harrassed by library staff. I questioned the former Govenor's statement that not enough money was available to feed and house prisoners so an early release for them. I was not allowed to download and study this information of state's financial report and not allowed to upload to other people/organizations. I have been harassed by library staff on numerous occasions by inappropriate verbal responses. Example, required to search computer diskettes. On June 03, 2003 took twenty-five minutes to search diskette when only allowed thirty minutes on computer at a time. Complained to staff and was ordered to leave. Said I was creating a disturbance; which I was not. Jim Hyatt, Head librarian, Mary Wood Weldon Memorial Libary, 107 West College, Glasgow, Kentucky (270) 651-2824. Went to local branch of public University to attempt to gain access. On May 21, 2003 at approximately 1:50 p.m. I was refused access to internet computers stating that only paying students and faculty are granted access. I asked Recource Coordinator and Director if they utilize public funding at the University. They stated yes to me. I informed them they then have to grant me access to a public computer that was online. I asked them to provide me with written information denying me access. They asked me for my name and I told them I don't have to provide them with that information and to provide me with written denial to access. They said they had called the police. I said thas fine. I think my rights have just been violated and still need written denial to internet computers at public University. Finally given written denial (see http://stech.wku.edu/labpolices.html. Public University address: Juanita Bayless, Director, Western Kentucky University, Glasgow Regional Center, 500 Hilltopper Way, Glasgow, Kentucky, (270) 659-6933, [email protected]; James B. McCaslin, Resource Coordinator, (270) 659-6924, [email protected]. I have complained to the Kentucky Library Association in Frankfort, Kentucky and have postal delivery conformations from them (delivery confirmation # 03022940000225472017). However, I have never received a response to my complaints either; just like the office of the state attorney general. Also, at approximately 6:35 p.m. on March 24, 2004 I was again harrassed by the Glasgow Mary Wood Weldon Memorial Library staff. I presented a computer diskette to be scanned as required to use this public facility. The staff refused to take the disk from me and scan it in order so I could not do any work. When I requested to file a complaint the staff handed me a blank piece of paper. After seeing that no formal complaint forms were available I stated I don't think anything will be done for me here. I am informing you of this continued abuse of my rights and that it is still occuring and demand your office put a stop to this practice in Kentucky; especially in this public library! 3). I claim my constitutional rights have been violated when the city of Glasgow, Kentucky provides constitutional protection for certain others within the community by providing barriers but does not provide it to my family. We asked the public works department and the state transportation department to install barriers in order to keep large trucks from striking the historic building we are in. This was before the fire hydrant was moved and placed five feet from our building around the corner. It was under the questionable heavy machinery building practices which we claim has destroyed the mortar in our wall. We know of no study that was done to make sure our building would not be harmed. The fire hydrant, before it was moved, had previously acted as a barrier. Also, in some states it is illegal to place a fire hydrant five feet from a building just because of this kind of damage it causes. The fire hydrant, when it is flushed, is washing out the mortar from our historic wall causing further damage. The wall was "built in 1816" and part of the foundation in 1807 while Thomas Jefferson was president. On September 15, 2003 a Averitt truck and trailer struck the wall and left the scene. There were witnesses. We were in the process of selling the building but needed a structural engineer to confirm that the building was not going to collapse now because of this refusal to guarantee our constitutional rights. Though this recent damage was not in the tens of thousands of dollars it was in tens of hundreds of dollars. However, we would not be in this position had the city and the state been upholding our constitutional rights of equal protection under the law as it seems to do for only "certain other people". 4). I claim the city of Glasgow, Kentucky had a free public access parking structure built using grant money. Approximately ten years later (after records are not required to be kept as I was told) the city confiscated the "actual parking structure" and made it into a two hundred dollar a year fee parking space facilty. I believe this is known as "conversion". I demand for those be held responsible and either all the parking tickets fees, that were given out for that period of time the parking structure was confiscated, be refunded or that now free parking be implimented around the Glasgow Square for the same amount of time the structure was confiscated for private use. 5). I wish to also file a complaint about the street sweeping truck in Glasgow, Kentucky. I claim that it expels fine aerosolized dust particles into the air which it has picked up off the street and spreads it all over everything for people to come into contact with. This includes the air, vehicle door handles, downtown building doorways, and door knobs. I claim that this dust is composed of animal fecal and urine material along with asbestos brake dust fibers (both being known human health hazards). They "sweep the street" on a regular basis; between three and four times a week. Far to frequent for such a small town. I claim this to be a "method" of making people sick by the city and state in order to generate income. If you choose not to do anything, especially against the last state attorney general, I will claim this to be a ongoing conspiracy against the rights of people such as myself and treasonous against your oath of office and subject to the same penalties. I am still seeking reparations from this fraudulent system in order to make me whole again because I know now there hasn't been any constitutional rights for anyone long before even I was born. Please note: I spell my name using only upper and lower case letters and therefore reserve my common law rights not to partake in this legal fraud under U.C.C. 1-207. NOT the all UPPER CASE 1933 administrative bankruptcy court fraud sequence as appears on, for example, driver licenses. I can not and will not sign documents in all UPPER CASE. Respectfully, Craig without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207 cc to: Judicial Watch, P.O. Box 44444, Washington, D.C. [20026]

State Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State Capital, Suite 118 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 certified mail #70022030000435344313 October 17, 2003 Dear Sir, I am again resubmitting my initial unanswered complaint of June 17, 2003(delivery confirmation # 03022940000225471997; see enclosure). However, this time I am resubmitting it with four additional complaints; and this time via certified return receipt mail. I don't know how high this conspiracy to deny me my rights is but I am now going forward to expose this farse to the public no matter how high it goes. 1). On April 29, 2003 I filed a complaint with the Director of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division of Driver Licensing, 501 High Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40602 and Attn: Driver Licenses, Nancy Botts, Court Clerk, Court House, P.O. Box 1359, Glasgow, Kentucky 42141-2463. I filed a complaint that the newly formatted driver license constitutes a violation of my first amendment constitutional rights. I based this upon my personal religious belief of Revelation 14:9-13. I stated that I have willyfully chosen not to receive a "bar code" mark as now indicated on the newly formatted driver licenses and to provide me with a timely lawful remedy. I claim the Director of Transportation and the Barren county clerk have violated their oath to uphold the constitution. Specifically violating my first amendment rights: to block the free exercise of my religious rights by now requiring me to "take a mark/branding" in the form of a "bar code"; which I can neither read nor understand what information it may contain now or in the future (see reference http://members.tripod.com/CosmicRose/666.html). I wish to state to the attorney general's office that I am now asserting my rights to convey myself freely without the use of a license and I no longer "drive" with a "driver license"; which is the result of public servants not upholding their oath to the constitution; the supreme law of the land. I will no longer submit myself to a tyrannical system of despots who do not recognize peoples complaints concerning constituional rights violations. 2). I claim my first amendment freedom of speech rights have been violated by the local library and a branch of the public University. I am not allowed access to the internet nor am I allowed to download "2002 Kentucky Financial Annual Report" website: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/finance/manuals/tax/caft.htm. I questioned the Govenor's statement that not enough money was available to feed and house prisoners so early release for them. I was not allowed to download and study this information of state's financial report and not allowed to upload to other people/organizations. I have been harassed by library staff on numerous occasions by inappropriate verbal responses. Example, required to search computer diskettes. On June 03, 2003 took twenty-five minutes to search diskette when only allowed thirty minutes on computer at a time. Complained to staff and was ordered to leave. Said I was creating a disturbance; which I was not. Jim Hyatt, Head librarian, Mary Wood Weldon Memorial Libary, 107 West College, Glasgow, Kentucky (270) 651-2824. Went to local branch of public University to attempt to gain access. On May 21, 2003 at approximately 1:50 p.m. I was refused access to internet computers stating that only paying students and faculty are granted access. I asked Resource Coordinator and Director if they utilize public funding at the University. They stated yes to me. I informed them they then have to grant me access to a public computer that was online. I asked them to provide me with written information denying me access. They asked me for my name and I told them I don't have to provide them with that information and to provide me with written denial to access. They said they had called the police. I said thas fine. I think my rights have just been violated and still need written denial to internet computers at public University. Finally given written denial (see http://stech.wku.edu/labpolices.html. Public University address: Juanita Bayless, Director, Western Kentucky University, Glasgow Regional Center, 500 Hilltopper Way, Glasgow, Kentucky, (270) 659-6933, [email protected]; James B. McCaslin, Resource Coordinator, (270) 659-6924, [email protected]. I have complained to the Kentucky Library Association in Frankfort, Kentucky and have postal delivery conformations for them (delivery confirmation # 03022940000225472017; see enclosure). However, I have never received a response to my complaints either; just like your office the state attorney general. 3). I claim my constitutional rights have been violated when the city of Glasgow, Kentucky provides constitutional protection for certain others within the community but does not provide it to my family. We asked the public works department and the state transportation department to install barriers in order to keep large trucks from striking the historic building we are in. This was before the fire hydrant was moved and placed five feet from our building around the corner. It was under the questionable heavy machinery building practices which we claim has destroyed the mortar in our wall (see enclosed pictures). We know of no study that was done to make sure our building would not be harmed. The fire hydrant, before it was moved, had previously acted as a barrier. Also, in some states it is illegal to place a fire hydrant five feet from a building just because of this kind of damage it causes. The fire hydrant, when it is flushed, is washing out the mortar from our historic wall causing further damage. The wall was "built in 1816" and part of the foundation in 1807 while Thomas Jefferson was president. On September 15, 2003 a Averitt truck and trailer struck the wall and left the scene (see enclosed pictures). There were witnesses. We were in the process of selling the building but needed a structural engineer to confirm that the building was not going to collapse now because of this refusal to guarantee our constitutional rights. Though this recent damage was not in the tens of thousands of dollars it was in tens of hundreds of dollars. However, we would not be in this position had the city and the state been upholding our constitutional rights of equal protection under the law as it seems to do for only "certain other people" (see enclosed pictures). 4). I claim the city of Glasgow, Kentucky had a free public access parking structure built using grant money. Approximately ten years later (after records are not required to be kept as I was told) the city confiscated the "actual parking structure" and made it into a two hundred dollar a year fee parking space facilty (see enclosed picture). I believe this is known as "conversion". I demand for those be held responsible and either all the parking tickets fees, that were given out for that period of time the parking structure was confiscated, be refunded or that now free parking be implimented around the Glasgow Square for the same amount of time the structure was confiscated for private use. 5). I wish to also file a complaint about the street sweeping truck in Glasgow, Kentucky (see enclosed picture). I claim that it expels fine aerosolized dust particles into the air which it has picked up off the street and spreads it all over everything for people to come into contact with. This includes the air, vehicle door handles, downtown building doorways, and door knobs. I claim that this dust is composed of animal fecal and urine material along with asbestos brake dust fibers (both being known human health hazards). They "sweep the street" on a regular basis; between three and four times a week. Far to frequent for such a small town. Please note: I spell my name using only upper and lower case letters and therefore reserve my common law rights under U.C.C. 1-207. NOT the all UPPER CASE fraud sequence as appears on driver licenses. I can not and will not sign documents in all UPPER CASE. Respectfully, Craig without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207 Glasgow, Kentucky (pictures enclosed)