Notice of Status & Authority

This notice is to all parties legally involved in the case 14FA69. i, a man, Thomas Michael
Thering have made a mistake in the very beginning of these proceedings. i, a man, assumed the
liabilities for the legal person THOMAS MICHAEL THERING unknowing that my natural and
common law rights as a man would be neither observed nor acknowledged. As this case progressed,
the bias toward State Bar of Wisconsin licensed Attorney's opinion became very clear. In most
proceedings, according to communications from the woman Theresa Marie Hultine, Robert Kosloske
misrepresented statements and facts made known to him by the woman that now holds my property
interest against my right of will. State Bar of Wisconsin Attorneys have been either only representing
the interests reflected in the statutes (i.e. political establishment) or the financial interests of the woman
determined to keep my share of the property[child] she and i, a man, hold an equal interest therein. i am
not herein accusing any man or woman of corruption but herein I will detail, briefly, examples of
beliefs of men and women in contrast with statements in court by their legal persons amongst other
examples of concerning events.
1) In my one and only interview with Thomas Monogue before the second hearing, at the end of the
interview, he stated to me very specifically that the percentage based 'child support' standard
acts as nothing more than a wealth transfer. To prove this point, my expense sheet wasn't even
considered in setting the 'child support'. This legal child support order was a wealth transfer
or otherwise known as a continuous theft of property. During the second hearing, Thomas
Monogue justifies the support order by citing State of Wisconsin Statutes.
2) The woman, Theresa Marie Hultine, has been duplicitous with her communication to me about her
intention and her statements, or her attorney has truly misrepresented her statements of belief
and fact. She told me she was really nice about me in her interview with Thomas Monogue.
Thomas Monogue proceeds to represent her description of me as a pothead, conspiracy theorist,
drunkard, and a hoarder.
3) Theresa has told me on numerous occasions that she doesn't want to keep our shared property[child]
only to herself, yet in that same hearing as event 2), Robert Kosloske asks Mark Fremgen for
supervised visitation and full custody of the property[child] at issue. Those oral motions do
not reflect a woman who respects the right of a man holding an equal interest in said shared
property.
4) In the following hearing regarding a change in the legal order of 'child support', Robert Kosloske
oral motions for a deviation upward. His reasoning is out of fairness. By his standard,

his motion would be considered ludicrous according to his words. Robert Kosloske sent i,
a man, a letter detailing how he viewed my most recent Notice filed into the case 14FA69
regarding adherence to the legal court order regarding placement. In this letter he assumes that
i, a man, need legal justification for a change in venue for a court proceeding. He
consequently labeled the filed motion ludicrous. He also then proceeded to threaten me in
writing with financial harm if i, a man, filed any further legal motions into the case 14FA69.
5) In the hearing for the change to the legal order for child support, Jane Jacobs assumes in the
court order, that she most generously produced, i, a man, filed the motion for a change in the
legal order for child support as an attorney. I am not an attorney, nor have I ever claimed to
be licensed by the State Bar of Wisconsin to use Acts, Statutes, Codes, or Rules in a practice at
Law.
6) Mark Fremgen stated during the second hearing that he believes that 17% as a standard is not
enough for child support. He stated this in response to my raising the issue of the legal order
for child support seeming to be excessive and a transfer of wealth with no basis on the true
cost of caring for the property[child] in question.
The above examples represent a variety of issues. The most glaring of all the issues is the
conflict of interest presented herein by the work of State Bar of Wisconsin licensed Attorney's using
Acts, Statutes, Codes, and Rules in matters of property that are most easily dealt with using common
law regarding equity of ownership correlating to enjoyment of value. Attorney's versed and licensed in
legalese and terms of art, present an often confused representation of the facts of a controversy in a
case such as this one before us. This is especially true when those men and women have no first person
direct knowledge of unbiased third party witnesses.
These proceedings coupled with my study of law, as a man, have lead me to conclude that the
State Bar of Wisconsin has a monopoly of use, through its license, in the public buildings that would
be the courthouses in the territory known as Wisconsin. State of Wisconsin, which is a legal entity,
provides no remedy for me, a man, to access the local courthouse in seeking a remedy as such. The
only path offered is to act as a legal person in order to petition the legal entity occupying the public
courthouse buildings. To bring forth a claim, i would have to present such as a man, since that is my
true form. Instead, i have to petition, which is a form of begging, to have any claim that i, a man,
would levy against another man or woman be heard within the rooms of a public building.
My point is this, i am a man, Thomas Michael Thering, and i, a man, have a claim to the
property[child] that is the subject matter in this case but the said property is not the jurisdiction of State

Bar of Wisconsin licensed Attorneys opinions in these proceedings. This ownership position i, a man,
have has never been disputed. My goal in this controversy has been to get enjoyment equal to the value
of the ownership i, a man, hold in the property that is the subject matter of this controversy brought into
the view of the public. This value can only be measured in time. Time within the household that i, a
man, lord over and secured in my domestic authority. My ownership interest is presumed to be equal
to that share of the woman, Theresa Marie Hultine and such is 50%.
In closing, this matter is a simple one of interest in property and the right of use and enjoyment
equal to ownership. State Bar of Wisconsin licensed Attorney's have no place in a matter, such as this,
when one of the two principal owners do not speak the legalese of the four licensed Bar Attorneys so
far involved in prolonging and confusing the primary issue of conflict. In addition, on the surface,
there is an appearance of favoring the woman over the man with absolutely no claim, complaint, or
witness to provide substance to the reason for the loss of value suffered by i, the man, at the opinions of
State Bar of Wisconsin licensed Attorneys.
i, a man, Thomas Michael Thering demand that my common law right to my enjoyment of
property[child] equal to my ownership of said property be restored immediately without further delay.
Attorney's with no personal first hand witness of the dispute over said property have no place in these
proceedings. Unless any man or woman come forward with a verifiable claim as to the contrary of my
right herein stated and demanded, then all other legal persons involved beyond the two principal
owners of said property have nothing of substance to offer as an argument in resolving the controversy
that is the subject matter of the case 14FA69 and the court related proceeding.
i, a man, herein proclaim, loudly, that i am not proceeding or appearing in person as a legal
person in presentments at and in the Jefferson county courthouse. i, a man, Thomas Michael Thering
reserve all natural and common law rights of property afforded to me by my creator. i herein, disavow
and dissolve any presumed, assumed, or implied consent to be diminished in my capacity as a man by
any Act, Statute, Code, or Rule that i, a man, do not provide explicit, whether oral or written, consent to
be under or understand. Any agreement signed by my hand, as an agent for the legal person in the case
14FA69 was signed under duress and incompetency with regards to Acts, Statutes, Codes, and Rules, is
hereby rescinded. State of Wisconsin is not my creator and therefor cannot bestow upon me, a man,
any rights and can only trespass upon them without my permission. Any attempt to create joinder
between i, a man, and the legal person THOMAS MICHAEL THERING presumed to be in person at
previous hearings shall be corrected and will be expected to stay so.
No man has the right to tell another man what to believe. In this case, neither State of
Wisconsin nor the State Bar of Wisconsin licensed Attorney has a place in aiding argument for

diminishing the right of one man with regards to property to the benefit of another, unless a contract
between parties involved specifically allowing such diminishing in such controversy or a claim by one
party can be verified permitting such action under natural and common law. In all other cases, the act
of diminishing the right to property equal to value of ownership is a trespass and equitable
compensation is the remedy for lost enjoyment of value. Finally, every man is responsible for any
order he imposes on another man. In such situations, unless slavery be the law of the land,
compensation for all orders, given and fulfilled, is required by natural law.

*The signature above indicates the presence of a man and the natural and common law in this
notice and is type written for convenience and clarity for those who might act on such words in the
diminished capacity of a legal person.
c: Theresa Hultine, woman c/o Robert Kosloske, Attorney
Cc: Thomas Monogue, Attorney
Ccc: Jane Jacobs, Attorney
Cccc: Mark Fremgen, Family Court Commissioner/Attorney
Ccccc: William Hue, Responsible Official/Attorney