1 John Henry Doe

2 2235 Barrett Street

3 Santa Rita,
4 Republic of California, [89574] N/D
5 Authorized Representative/ProPer
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
9
10 CAPITAL ONE, N.A., SOUTH DAKOTA ) Matter no. SCR-5XXX96
11 )
12 Plaintiff )
13 )
14 Vs. )
15 )
16 )
17 JOHN HENRY DOE )
18 )
19 Defendant )
20
21 John Henry Doe )
22 )
23 Counter Plaintiff )
24 )
25 Vs. ) MOTION TO DISMISS
26 ) Exhibits JD-1 thru JD-5
27 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF, )
28 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
29
30 MOTION TO DISMISS
31
 1 Comes now, John Doe, Sui, Juris, one of the people1 of California, in this court of record2, to
2 MOTION the court to DISMISS the matter SCR-5XXX96 for failure to state a case upon which relief
3 can be granted.
4 FACTS
5 1.On or about May 30th, 2009, I, John Doe was served with a summons to appear in SUPERIOR
6 COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA to answer to the complaint in matter SCR-
7 5XXX96.
8 2. The complaint contains no facts supporting a claim of injury or loss.
9 3. The complaint does not show the plaintiff suffered an injury of loss under the required element of
10 “Standing”3.
11 4. Doe is challenging jurisdiction in this MOTION TO DISMISS and no jurisdiction has been shown
12 to exist by the plaintiff.
13 5. Doe sent the CFO C/O CAPITAL ONE BANK, N.A., SOUTH DAKOTA a DEBT VALIDATION
14 LETTER dated February 16th, 2009 and received by USPS Certified Mail # 7009 8889 0403 3454
15 5589 on February 22nd , 2009.
16 6. Doe did not receive any rebuttal to his DEBT VALIDATION LETTER4 dated February 16th,
17 2009.

11 "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns
2without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....". CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL
3(1793) pp471-472. ;
4“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are
5delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and
6acts.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886) ;
7"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King
8by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37
9C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
10
112 A “court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate
12designated generally to hold it, and preceding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a
13perpetual memorial. Jones v Jones 188 Mo. App. 220, 175 S.W. 227,229: Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. , Mass. , 171, per Shaw, C.J. See,
14also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406,155 N.E. 688, 689 - Blacks 4th pg426
15
163 “The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal
17injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. 454 U.S. at
18GO>472.”,and ” The "case or controversy" requirement of Art. III of the Constitution defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea
19of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded, and the Art. III [468 U.S. 738] doctrine of "standing" has a core
20constitutional component that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct
21and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. The concepts of standing doctrine present questions that must be answered by reference
22to the Art. III notion that federal courts may exercise power only in the last resort and as a necessity, and only when adjudication is
23consistent with a system of separated powers and the dispute is one traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial
24process. Pp. GO>750-752.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) O’Conner Lead op. verified
25
264 See exhibit JD-2
 1 7. Doe sent a NOTICE OF DEFAULT/ESTOPPEL5 to CAPITAL ONE BANK, N.A., SOUTH
2 DAKOTA on March 22nd, 2009 by Proof of Service, USPS Certified Mail # 7009 8889 0403 3454
3 5673.
4
5 II. LAW OF THE CASE
6 I, John Doe decree the law of the case as follows:
7 1. All case law and codes, etc noted in the footnotes.
8 2. To claim a debt6, a party has to have a lawful debt owed to it, evidenced by a lawful contract.
9 3. The elements of a lawful contract7 are:
10 a. a “meeting of the minds” or full disclosure has to be made as to the terms and conditions of the
11 contracts.
12 b. valid lawful consideration8 must be exchanged by both parties.

15 AQUIESCENCE: Acquiescence and laches are cognate but not equivalent terms. The former is a submission to, or resting
2 satisfied with, an existing state of things, while latches implies a neglect to do that which the party ought to do for his own benefit
3 or protection. Hence laches may be evidence of acquiescence. Laches imports a merely passive assent, while acquiescence
4 implies active assent. In re Wilbur’s Estate, 334 Pa. 45, 5 A.2nd 325,331.”Acquiensence” relates to inaction during performance
5 of an act while “laches” relates to delay after act is done. Bay Newfoundland Co. v Wilson & Co., 24Del.Ch.30, 4 A.2d 668,671,
6 673. “acquiescence is a species of estoppel.” Bankers’ Trust Co. v. Rood, 211 Iowa, 289,233 N.W.794, 802, 73 A.L.R. 1421
7 [BlksLaw4thEd.,’68,pg.40]
8LACHES, ESTOPPEL BY: A failure to do something which should be done or to claim or enforce a right at a proper time.
9Hutchinson v. Kenney, C.C.A.N.C., 27 F.2d 254, 256. A neglect to do something which one should do, or to seek to enforce a
10right at proper time. Jett, 171 Ky. 548, 188 S.W. 669,672. A species of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel by matter in pais.” See
11titles “Equitable Estoppel” and “In Pais, Estoppel In”.[BlksLaw,4thEd.,’68, pg 1016]
12
13
146DEBT: A sum of money due by certain and expressed agreement; as by bond for a determinate sum, a bill or note,
15a special bargain, or a rent reserved on a lease, where the amount is fixed and specific, and does not depend upon
16any subsequent valuation t settle it. 3 Bl. Comm. 154: Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701; Neilson v Title
17Guaranty & Surety Co., 101 Or.262,199 P. 948,951; etc. [BlkLaw4thEd.’68,pg 490] ;
18MONEY: In usual and ordinary acceptation it means gold, silver, or paper money used as circulating medium of exchange and
19does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W.2d 74,
2079,81. [Blacks Law 4th Ed. pg 1157] [federal reserve NOTES are not a fiduciary form of money]
21
227 CONTRACT: An agreement between two or more parties, preliminary step in making of which is offer by one and acceptance
23by other, in which minds of parties meet and concur in understanding of terms. Lee v. Travellers’ Ins.Co. of Hartford, Conn., 173
24S.C. 185, 175 S.E. 429
25It is an agreement creating obligation, in which there must be competent parties, subject-matter, legal consideration, mutuality of
26agreement, and mutuality of obligation, and agreement must not be so vague or uncertain that terms are not ascertainable. H.Liebes & Co.
27V. Klengenberg, C. C.A. Cal., 23 F.2nd 611, 612 [BlacksLaw4th-1968,pg394
288 CREDIT: The ability of a business man to borrow money, or obtain goods on time, in consequence of the favorable opinion
29held by the community, or by the particular lender, as to his solvency and reliability. People v Wasservogle, 77 Cal. 173, 19 P.
30270; in re Ford, D.C. Wash., 14 F.2d 848, 849; State ex rel. Globe-Democrat Pub. Co. V Gehner, 316 Mo. 694,294 S.W. 1017,
311018 [pg 440]
32“A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation . .” Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925, 36 CCA 553,
33certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.
34. “A bank may not lend its credit to another, even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support
35of this a list of cases might be cited, which would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat.
36Bank, 144 SE 505, 151 Va 195.
1 c. Two, or more wet-ink signatures under full commercial liability by each party(s) who
2 represents each side must be placed upon the contract indicating “offer and acceptance”.
3 4. The Plaintiff suing must prove jurisdiction by demonstrating “Standing”.
4 5. Money is not credit.
5 6. All items mentioned in California Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452, [among which is
6 included the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].
7
8 I. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
9 The Plaintiff CAPITAL ONE, N.A., SOUTH DAKOTA has filed a frivolous suit, without merit,
10 without facts supporting a claim of “injury or loss” and does so after being lawfully estopped from
11 making any claims against the defendant. One can only conclude that the Plaintiff moves forward
12 committing a fraud upon the court. CAPITAL ONE has made the claim that the defendant received
13 “MONEY” from them, yet under the legal definition of “MONEY”, they have not shown any factual
14 or verified evidence any lawful consideration was given to the Defendant. In conclusion the Plaintiff
15 CAPITAL ONE, N.A., SOUTH DAKOTA and it’s attoryney’s DEWEY CHEATEM & HOWE have
16 not presented a claim upon which relief can be granted.
17 I, John Doe, pray the Just and Honorable Court dismiss this matter SCR-5XXX96 and award me
18 damages as the court deems proper.
19
20 Without prejudice,
21 By:_______________
22 authorized representative of JOHN DOE/ProPer.

1
2