Cause Number:





COMES NOW the Petitioner, Shawn Guymon and hereby respectfully requests Mandatory Judicial Notice:

Non-Lawyer litigants not to be held to same standards as a practicing lawyer:
“Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff…wherein pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicalities… pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir 1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991).”

In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a non-lawyer pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) “The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.”

Defense against dismissal of complaint under Rule 12-B:
There is legal sufficiency to show Plaintiff is entitled to relief under his Complaint. A Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) also Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1832 (1989). Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based on a judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s factual allegations. In applying the Conley standard, the Court will “accept the truth of the well-pleaded factual allegations of the Complaint.”

Furthermore, Petitioner Shawn Guymon, requests the granting of the Writ of Mandamus, because of the actions and/or inactions of Respondents, Chief County Attorney Edward Corrigan, and the County of Flathead Attorney’s Office, having failed to grant Petitioner Shawn Guymon the requested investigation for alleged criminal activity which resluted in great physical and mental harm to Mr. Guymon in the work place while he was employed at High Country Linens, a subsidiary of National Laundry. Petitioner was forced to pursue a Writ of Mandamus through the Montana Supreme Court after receiving “official” notice from the Ninth Judicial District Court and from the Flathead County Attorney’s office that they would NOT provide an investigation of the incident because County Attorney Edward Corrigan has decided to use his “discretionary” authority to ignore the Constitutional rights of Petitioner which grant equal protection under law. No further information was given to Petitioner, no Montana Code was given to prove the legitimacy of that authority, no “equal protection under law” was “granted” by the Court or Flathead County Attorney’s Office, or County Attorney Edward Corrigan- who proudly declared his “Oath of Office” and is now breaching by this denial of a Citizens unbiased protection under law. Furthermore, this is purposeful dicrimination against the Petitioner, because a long history of abuse has transpired between Petitioner and Respondent.

The Oath of office is a quid pro contract (U.S. Const. Art.6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers Surety Corporation. 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.) in which clerks, officials, or officers of the government pledge to perform (support and uphold the united States and state Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract, Conspiracy under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 241, 242. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3, and Intrinsic Fraud as per Auerbach v. Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112, 1114. Alleghany Corp v. Kirby, D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183, and Keeton Packing Co. V. State, 437 S.W. 20, 28.

If Petitioner had any other options before requesting this Writ of Mandamus from the Supreme Court, they have been exhausted: Petitioner has requested help from Judge David Ortley, of the Ninth District Court, who unofficially ordered County Attorney Edward Corrigan to “look into this issue,” to which Mr. Corrigan made no attempt to do so. Because of the denial from the County Attorney for investigation, the Kalispell Police, and the Flathead County Sheriff’s Office refused to act to protect the Constitutional Rights of Petitioner which has resulted in ongoing physical, mental, and financial damages resulting by loss of employment, loss of phyiscal and mental ability of Petitioner, thus reducing and causing to be further reduced as years go by the quality of life once enjoyed by Petitioner. Through the years, while Petitioner has been under medical care, has sought help through several governmental agency that he could contact. Evidence to this effect which proves his person and quality of life were damaged is clearly documented by doctors, specialists, OSHA, StateFund Montana, mental health providors, and Several Affidavits of friends and family members. The ONLY relief offered has been $1600 lost wages as sttled by OSHA and StateFund Montana, an offer which was subsequently rejected by Petitioner as his damages sustained are not limited to merely Worker’s Compensation, but by Criminal and Civil Damages from the resulting criminal negligence and attempted murder by Manager and further perpetuated by Owners of High Country Linen, et al. Ongoing medical and mental health treatment shows yearly downgrade of health.

Therefore, Petitioner sought relief through a request at the Ninth Judicial District Court in Flathead Montana for the Writ of Mandamus filed 9/19/12, Cause # DV-12-1084C, assigned to Judge Stewart Stadler (since retired); Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed 9/19/12, Cause # DV-12-1085D, assigned to Judge David Ortley; Addendum for DV-12-1085D, “Quo Warranto” filed 11/1/12; Motion to Stay of Execution Cause # DV-12-1085D, filed 11/1/12; and after Serving Ed Corrigan through a process server, a response “Order to Dismiss” under Cause # DV-12-912A filed 12/7/13 by Judge Ted O. Lympus stating that Mr. Corrigan was exercising “discretion of office” whether to investigate an attempted homicide or at the least the crime of criminal negligence resulting in great bodily harm to the Petitioner.

It is this Petitioner’s understanding that a Writ of Mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). A writ is not a substitute for an appeal; only if a direct appeal is unavailable will the court determine whether a writ of mandamus will issue. See In Re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 957 (3d Cir. 1997).

  1. STANDING: The lawful right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently be affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan).

In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

It is Petitioner’s understanding that the Respondents have somehow construed the following Montana Statute as authority to NOT provide “equal access to law” to Petitioner:

MCA 39-71-411. Provisions of chapter exclusive remedy — nonliability of insured employer. For all employments covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act or for which an election has been made for coverage under this chapter, the provisions of this chapter are exclusive. Except as provided in part 5 of this chapter for uninsured employers and except as otherwise provided in the Workers’ Compensation Act, an employer is not subject to any liability whatever for the death of or personal injury to an employee covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act or for any claims for contribution or indemnity asserted by a third person from whom damages are sought on account of the injuries or death. The Workers’ Compensation Act binds the employee and, in case of death, binds the employee’s personal representative and all persons having any right or claim to compensation for the employee’s injury or death, as well as the employer and the servants and employees of the employer and those conducting the employer’s business during liquidation, bankruptcy, or insolvency.

Standing is founded “in concern about the proper–and properly limited–role of the courts in a democratic society.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the …courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.


The Petitioner/Protestant is domiciled in the county of Flathead in the state of Montana, which is in the jurisdiction of this court. The subject matter falls within the jurisdiction of this court as it pertains to actions and/or inactions perpetrated by county of Flathead officials and their respective County office.

  1. CLAIMS OF PETITIONER Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992). PETITIONER, claims the right of standing before the court on this issue, since Petitioner has already sustained significant physical and mental trauma directly caused by a workplace injury and has subsequently endured a multiplicity of medical examinations, treatments and limitations resulting in recognized ongoing and worsening physical and mental disability, as well as, permanent damages to quality of life caused by action/inaction of Respondent(s).

In light of the above, having received no relief for the requested investigation into criminal activity, which is alleged to be attempted murder, resulting in physical and mental harm to Petitioner, and having the requisite legal standing to bring this Writ of Mandamus, this Writ should be granted, as confirmed through the weight of the evidence available, the facts, affidavits, vast medical evidence, and current physical limitations of the Petitioner and the Respondent’s lack of attention in investigating this claim, thereby, neglecting the protections afforded by the Constitution of the State of Montana and for the United States Constitutional protections, especially in the General Welfare Clause as follows:

We the People of the united States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united States of America. – [check the inclusion of Montana here??]

Also afforded in Article II, section 16, of the Montana Constitution:

Constitution for Montana — PREAMBLE
We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution. (Emphasis added)

  1. IV. RESULTING DAMAGES TO PETITIONER Also by the action and/or inaction by the Respondent, there has been a violation of Petitioner Due Process Rights as afforded in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Petitioner hereby declares the foregoing and following Rights to have been denied and subsequently been violated by the use of “official discretion” by Respondents and miscinstrueing of the application of the following “Provision” set forth in the following Montana Statute:

MCA 39-71-411. Provisions of chapter exclusive remedy — nonliability of insured employer. For all employments covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act or for which an election has been made for coverage under this chapter, the provisions of this chapter are exclusive. Except as provided in part 5 of this chapter for uninsured employers and except as otherwise provided in the Workers’ Compensation Act, an employer is not subject to any liability whatever for the death of or personal injury to an employee covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act or for any claims for contribution or indemnity asserted by a third person from whom damages are sought on account of the injuries or death. The Workers’ Compensation Act binds the employee and, in case of death, binds the employee’s personal representative and all persons having any right or claim to compensation for the employee’s injury or death, as well as the employer and the servants and employees of the employer and those conducting the employer’s business during liquidation, bankruptcy, or insolvency.

Rights denied and breached, through application and enforcement of the above Montana statute and subsequent “Provisions”:

  1. Article III Section 3: Oath of office. Members of the legislature and all executive, ministerial and judicial officers, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, before they enter upon the duties of their offices: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity (so help me God).” Defendant has violated this oath through action/inaction denying the Due Process rights of Petitioner by not investigating the claim made with regards to the attempted murder, criminal negligence and resulting injury sustained while working for High Country Linen.
  2. Article II Section 3: Unalienable Rights: Petitioner right to clean and healthful environment including the work place. As it directly effects the ability to procure “life’s basic necessity” and his ability to pursue “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” through near asphyxiation and subsequent carbon monoxide poisoning caused by pre-meditated alteration of the exhaust system of the delivery truck. This pre-meditated alteration being the direct and proximate cause that has damaged and eliminated his safety and health, in all lawful ways. Petitioner rights of “enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities” through application of MCA 39-71-411, have been denied and breached.
  3. Section 4: Individual Dignity: also having his “dignity” denied and breached because the ignoring of his request for assistance from the County attorney and the County Attorney’s office and said Office through “official discretion” of Edward Corrigan, denying this request by actions and/or inactions, imperiled Petitioner and subsequently resulted in further damage to health and human dignity, and Human Rights. Having been “denied the equal protection of the laws” it is further evident that by inactivity of Municipal offices, County offices, State offices, etc., especially that of the County attorney, Petitioner has had no recourse and thus no justice. This has resulted in violation directly and indirectly of Petitioner Constitutional, Medical, and Human Rights. Further it is evident that because of perception of Petitioner’s status in society, County attorney has refused equal access to the state of Montana’s Justice System’s protection under the Montana constitution and numerous Unalienable Rights yet to be enumerated.
  4. Section 8: Right of Participation: MCA 39-71-411, bars the door to full participation by its wording and enforcement by all levels of government, State and Federal. Ex Parte communication by client attorney and agency involved, is unethical, unprofessional and prohibited by law. When the agency, in this case Montana State Fund, communicates directly with client or attorney, they can take steps to eliminate the ability to receive insurance benefits simply by “Fiat” under the Workers Compensation Act and MCA 39-71-411, aka WR Grace Protection Act. Summarily dismissing a claim without first investigating the claim or process of rules of civil procedure in accordance with statutory requirements is a direct and unethical violation of the legal mandate to address each claim with objectivity and subjectivity. Thereby resulting in dismissal without Due Process hearing as afforded in both Federal and State constitutions of which Respondents have sworn oaths to support and uphold.
  5. Section 9: Right to know: Under this section, Petitioner has been barred from document examination in support of his claim, by the concealment of said documents and the unconstitutional application of MCA 39-71-411 and its implications by officers and agents and employees of State and Federal offices and agencies at all levels of government. The abrogation of Constitutional Rights, both State and Federal, by the lack of transparency in divulging information with regards to application and enforcement of this provision, as set forth in MCA 39-71-411, which sole purpose is to abrogate these constitutional rights, thus binding, in essence, forcing, employees to submit to a form of slavery without their knowledge or approval, or to force a “charter of labor” (See page 9 thru 12 for examples of “charter of labor” in history of this Writ.) by agencies of the Municipal, County, State, OSHA, County attorney’s office, Worker’s Comp, State Fund, DOJ, other Federal agencies, etc. With respect to the exception clause of Section 9, Petitioner/Protestant has no issue with full disclosure.
  6. Section 16: The administration of Justice: Courts of Justice are either open to every person or they are not, and speedy remedy is afforded or it is not. The United States constitution enumerates in the Bill of Rights Amendment 1, the right to “redress of grievance” and the stated section below of the constitution for the state of Montana sets forth the same. So it would seem the Respondents has violated both Montana and Federal constitutional protections by their inactivity.

The Constitution of the State of Montana, Article II, Declaration of Rights, Section 3. INALIENABLE RIGHTS. “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable

rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of

pursuing life’s basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.”

The violation of the above is evident in the wording of the last paragraph of the MCA 39-71-411: …”The Workers’ Compensation Act binds the employee and, in case of death, binds the employee’s personal representative and all persons having any right or claim to compensation for the employee’s injury or death, as well as the employer and the servants and employees of the employer and those conducting the employer’s business during liquidation, bankruptcy, or insolvency.”

We The People” are guaranteed certain protections that both State and Federal Constitutions (i.e.: 9th and 10th Amendment to The Bill of Rights) enumerates and some un-enumerated rights that the Defendant has refused to investigate or hear in this matter, even though in holding his office he has Sworn an Oath to do so.

The Constitution of the State of Montana, Article II, Declaration of Rights, Section 34. UNENUMERATED RIGHTS. “The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.”

MCA 39-71-411 should never nor should any enacted legislative act ever, abrogate Constitutional protections, this would be to undermine society’s very foundation of peace and safety in this Republic of the United States of America and the State of Montana.

Through this MCA 39-71-411 provision there has been a direct attack on all Rights noted above and following:


IRREVOCABLE PRIVILEGES. NO ex post facto law nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges, franchises, or immunities, shall be passed by the legislature.

The MCA 39-71-411 Provision should not be for the furtherance of harm to others whether sanctioned or not, protected or unprotected all People have the right to “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness”, etc. as stated above. Where is the provision of the “Right and justice shall be administered without sale, or denial, or delay?” Under this section when the Respondent(s) has completely ignored the facts as stated in the complaint and request for inquiry in this case. How is justice served when complaints are ignored on the whim of civil servants such as the Respondents, and ultimately, in their capacity as County Attorney and Office of County attorney, justice withheld by “discretionary” acts BEFORE any investigation is carried out? The fact that so many claims are brought and directly ignored by the Reposndents and their county Office, in neglecting to carrying out, they are duty bound by Oath of office to investigate any actions or allegations brought to their attention that claim a breach of public safety, to ALL People.

  1. Section 17: Due Process of Law: what due process has Petitioner enjoyed with regards to the purposeful dismissal of the claim without so much as a summary inquiry? Deprivation of “Life” is evident in the allegations that Petitioner was directly imperiled by the actions of High Country Linens, ‘Liberty” was blocked by MCA 39-71-411 by the statute barring all workers and binding said workers, from being able to bring a claim to seek help in protecting themselves and others from purposeful injury directly or indirectly by their respective employers, agents or servants, etc. Forcing the employee in this case the Petitioner into “Bond Servant hood” under statute, under color of law and authority, resulting in an abuse of power and violation of Unalienable Rights, Human Rights and Medical Rights to Petitioner and all Montana Workers since the enactment of this unconstitutional statute.
  2. Section 18: States subject to suit: there is no immunity from suit, for injury to a person or property, even with regards to possible exception in this case is not one man’s decision to NOT investigate an allegation of attempted murder let alone purposeful harm by one human being to another.
  3. Section 31: Ex post facto, obligation of contracts, and irrevocable privileges. No ex post facto law nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges, franchise, or immunities, shall be passed by the legislature.
  4. Section 34: Un-enumerated rights. The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.

The Petitioner requests that the Montana Supreme Court determine:

  1. Whether the provisions of MCA 39-71-411 are Constitutional both State and Federal.
  2. Judicial review is warranted in that any law that “Binds” the People, as this MCA 39-71-411 does de facto, and the fact that this request for investigation has been ignored by the Defendant by his failure to investigate when he was notified of the injury sustained by the Petitioner/Protestant, is reason enough for this Honorable Court to issue an order to have the County Attorney Edward Corrigan acting in his official capacity to investigate the claims of Petitioner/Protestant using the full power of said office to protect the constitutional Rights of not only the Petitioner/Protestant but ultimately all Montanans through complete examination of the facts and circumstances as set forth in this petition for writ of mandamus, and supporting facts, and evidences.
  3. Whether “All codes, rules, and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional lacking due process…” Rodrigues v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344 (1985). “We simply conclude that, on the basis of the record before us, Rodrigues’s Due Process contentions appear to be more than mere allegations…’ Sherwood T. Rodrigues v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344 (1985). The case of Rodrigues concludes that MCA 39-71-411 cannot be used to “bind” “We The People” but is to be a contract between State agencies, and prospective businesses and has no legal authority over the “employees” as addressed in Rodrigues v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344 (1985).

These Rights have been violated, in that, Petitioner has sustained real damages because of the criminal activity that culminated in the near- death, near-asphyxiation of Petitioner, Mr. Guymon, while carrying out his scheduled duties as a delivery driver from 2003 thru the end of 2006. After receiving a Lay-off Notice in January 2007, nine working days after his return from the hospital, this was all verbal with nothing in the form of written documentation. Subsequently, the Unalienable, Medical, and Human Rights of Petitioner/Protestant and all Montanans, have been and continue to be violated by the continued deference to the provisions set forth in MCA 39-71-411, as mentioned in the numbered issues above.

MCA 39-71-411 is a “Code” placed in a section of the Workers’ Compensation Act in the mediation requirements to aid the system not the injured workers. It in fact “Binds” the worker and bars the third party seeking to receive compensation for negligent acts by Employers paying into the Montana Statefund Workers Compensation Insurance. This is Pay-To-Play protection monies that are criminal. Furthermore, with the establishment of WorkSafeMT, there is the semblance of conspiracy to cover-up any adverse data that may be used to help the injured or killed worker (through barring of third party or family member advocating relief) by compartmentalizing the oversight.

MCA 39-71-411 is in true contrast to the workers Compensation law that defines both “employer” and “employee” their rights and obligations to one another. See Workers Compensation Rules and Principles. Thus, MCA 39-71-411 overrides these Rules and Principles.

MCA 39-71-411 has resulted in Montana being #1 in Worker Compensation costs in the nation, #1 in workplace deaths of employees, and #2 in workplace injuries in the nation. For the sake of the dead and injured alone, this Provision must be determined either Constitutional or Unconstitutional. The Petitioner and all survivors demand it!

The W.R. Grace Protection Act, aka, MCA 39-71-411 has prevented the Constitutional protections of over 10,000 employees who suffered wrongful death and injury in Montana. The Petitioner has suffered the same travesty of justice, through negligent maintenance/modification to company equipment and lack of management responsibility to protect the employee from harm, because of the protections afforded in this deadly Provision.

MCA 39-71-411 is a protection contract, Pay-To-Play contract with Montana employers to NOT be held liable no matter how serious the workplace injury or death may be. This is a permission slip to treat employees as slaves or worse chattel. We are talking about “free” people not inanimate objects or robots, flesh and blood people treated as cattle on the day of slaughter, 10,000 injuries or deaths attest to this fact.

As set forth in Rodriguez v. United States Labor Secretary, 769 F.2d 1344 (1984), “We simply conclude that, on the basis of the record before us, Rodrigues’s due process contentions appear to be more than mere allegations included in the complaint to create jurisdiction where none would exist otherwise.” Therefore we submit this Writ of Mandamus to address the issues stated above and once again refer to Rodriguez v. United States Labor Secretary, 769 F.2d 1344 (1984), at page 4 and number 16. (See below)

When we consider the agency application and discretionary action/inaction resulting from Legislative language of MCA 39-71-411, the provision itself states unequivocally, the object of “binding” the employee, the over broad inclusion of “what ever” in its meanings, and the lack of legislative right to deny or abridge the constitutional rights of Montanans. There is no getting around the plain language expressed throughout this unconstitutional statute.

  1. Prayer for Relief:

We humbly submit a request, a prayer of remedy, from this honorable Court. We request any and all legal ruling delivering us from the bondage set forth in MCA 39-71-411 and subsequently an investigation into all allegations herein contained. Furthermore, we request damages in accordance with all ordinances, regulations, statutes, and laws- whether administratively, criminal, or civil be granted to Petitioner.


“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” – Magna Carta, Chapter 29, Dated June 15, 1215.

“The king, it is true, may erect new courts of justice; but then they must proceed according to the old established forms of the common law. For which reason it is declared in the statute 16 Car. I. c. 10. upon the dissolution of the court of starchamber, that neither his majesty, nor his privy council, have any jurisdiction, power, or authority by English bill, petition, articles, libel (which were the course of proceeding in the starchamber, borrowed from the civil law) or by any other arbitrary way whatsoever, to examine, or draw into question, determine or dispose of the lands or goods of any subjects of this kingdom; but that the same ought to be tried and determined in the ordinary courts of justice, and by course of law.Sir William Blackstone, William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:137—38, The Founders’ Constitution 1765

MCA 39-71-411 in its enforcement makes void OSHA laws, the Workers Compensation act and policies. It violates the U.S. Constitution and Montana State Constitution, and violates the very system and principles that this nation was founded on- “Liberty and Justice for ALL.”

“What can be wanting, after this, but a weak or wicked man for a judge, to render us the most sordid and forlorn of slaves?—we mean the slaves of a slave of the servants of a minister of state. We cannot help asserting, therefore, that this part of the act will make an essential change in the constitution of juries, and it is directly repugnant to the Great Charter itself; for, by that charter, ‘no amerciament shall be assessed, but by the oath of honest and lawful men of the vicinage;’ and, ‘no freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, or liberties of free customs, nor passed upon, nor condemned, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.'” – John Adams, Instructions of the Town of Braintree to Their Representative, 1765 (The Revolutionary Writings of John Adams- October 14, 1765).

The discretionary, and tyrannical use MCA 39-71-411 has allowed unchecked criminal intent, gross criminal negligence, malfeasance, workplace terrorism, and bullying, attempted murder and often murder and any other violation that these irresponsible, negligent, criminal employers and corporations may desire to carry out because of the protections afforded by MCA 39-71-411. This provision breaches All which the LAW prohibits, that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and Montana Constitution are to protect ALL people from, it destroys any protection afforded by these Constitutions.

When the fate of so many, be in the hands of so few. Can the failure to be accountable ever be forgiven? – Stephen Hawkins (as shared on TV).

“That every Freeman for every Injury done him in his Goods, Lands or Person, by any other Person, ought to have Remedy by the Course of the Law of the Land, and ought to have Justice and Right for the Injury done to him freely without Sale, fully without any Denial, and speedily without Delay, according to the Law of the Land.” Delaware Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules, Sources of Our Liberties, The Founders’ Constitution, September 11, 1776

“The other part of the clause is but an enlargement of the language of magna charta, ‘nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittimus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vet per legem terrae,’ neither will we pass upon him, or condemn him, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. Lord Coke says, that these latter words, per legem terrae (by the law of the land) mean by due process of law, that is, without due presentment or indictment, and being brought in to answer thereto by due process of the common law. So that this clause in effect affirms the right of trial according to the process and proceedings of the common law.Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833.

“[T]he rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, Dred Scott v. John Sandford (1857), U.S. Supreme Court 1857.

“It is contended in justification for the act in question that it was adopted in the interest of the city, to promote its cleanliness and protect its health, and was the legitimate exercise of what is termed the police power of the State. That power undoubtedly extends to all regulations affecting the health, good order, morals, peace, and safety of society, and is exercised on a great variety of subjects, and in almost numberless ways. All sorts of restrictions and burdens are imposed under it, and, when these are not in conflict with any constitutional prohibitions or fundamental principles, they cannot be successfully assailed in a judicial tribunal. With this power of the State and its legitimate exercise I shall not differ from the majority of the court. But under the pretence of prescribing a police regulation, the State cannot be permitted to encroach upon any of the just rights of the citizen, which the Constitution intended to secure against abridgment.Justice Field, Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), U.S. Supreme Court April 14, 1873.

The MCA 39-71-411, provision is ambiguous in its context, just what does “whatever” mean? It conveys all power into the hands of a few to designate “whatever” it wants at the moment. It conveys a dominant rule and offers a “pay to play” “Right” to a State funded program or rather “Pogrom” that will eliminate the Constitutional Rights of Montanans and all true Americans in this decade. This travesty has culminated in 40 plus years of “indentured servitude” and “blind obedience” not to mention binding of free employees, to Pogrom’s that exude Nazism and Fascism in our Great State of Montana.

From the Bible: Proverbs 11

The Lord hates dishonest scales, but he is pleased with honest weights.2 Pride leads only to shame; it is wise to be humble.3 Good people will be guided by honesty; dishonesty will destroy those who are not trustworthy… 5 The goodness of the innocent makes life easier, but the wicked will be destroyed by their wickedness. 6 Doing right brings freedom to honest people, but those who are not trustworthy will be caught by their own desires… 10 When good people succeed, the city is happy… 14 Without leadership a nation falls, but lots of good advice will save it.

Respectfully submitted this the ___ day of October Anno Domini two thousand fourteen.

Bond Servant to Christ,