Brunson Oath Case Bullshit.

Brunson Oath Case Denied at the Supreme Court.
It looks like it is all part of the show.
My uncontested US Supreme Court Oath Judicial Notice and Public Notice below:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
March 18, 2025
WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO POST AND SERVE:
[Sui Juris PETITIONER, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, living-breathing American man]
vs.
[SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES (D-U-N-S Number: 161906136), 1 First Street NE, Washington, District of Columbia 20543, THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ANY PERSONNEL REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO ADMINISTER THEIR DUTY; in their individual capacity et al]
Petitioner, Sui Juris, living-breathing American
Andrew Hamilton Pritchard
Beneficiary in Equity-Executor
9 Sylvester Court
Norwalk, Connecticut

FROM THE DESK OF Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, American and Beneficiary in Equity-Executor
PUBLIC NOTICE & JUDICIAL NOTICE:
THE SUPREME COURT AND CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE, GOVERN OR LEGISLATE AS THEY ARE “AT WAR WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION” AND “ENGAGE IN ACTS OF TREASON”. THE SUPREME COURT AND CONGRESS ARE AN “ENEMY” OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXECUTING “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY”, “DOMESTIC TERRORISM”, “RACKETEERING”, AND “TREASON” BY WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THEIR “OATH AND DUTY”.
Maxim of Law: “Judicial notice is a form of evidence.”
The Constitution is harmed by subverting its authority as the Supreme Law of the land. A domestic enemy is any American who either promotes foreign invasion or attacks the Bill of Rights. The former assaults national stability. The latter assaults individual freedoms.
PUBLIC NOTICE & JUDICIAL NOTICE served by Sui Juris PETITIONER, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, living-breathing American man, Beneficiary in Equity/Executor of 9 Sylvester Court, Norwalk, Connecticut to execute my right to “Liberty” as all legal remedies are exhausted; and acts of TREASON command immediate adjudication with “Strict Scrutiny”.
The “ENEMY” (Title 50 US Code 2204) has seized by “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” (Title 18 US Code 2384), and weaponized the US Judicial Branch from top to bottom executing “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” (Title 18 US Code 2331) upon the “We the People” of America through pirated power affirmed by “ENEMY” Courts.
America is lawless.

“LIBERTY”
In Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923),
“While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

As a living-breathing American Man, one of “We the People”, the Owners of Our Government, I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, have the authority to address any felony that I witness firsthand (CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant).
“Inalienable Rights” and Authority:
The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life.
Constitution of the United States Article 3, Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Northwest Ordinance (1787) An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio
Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:
Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and, should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person’s property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And, in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH:
The 101st Congress with the signature of President George H. W. Bush made the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 into Law. This was a subtle and significant War on the Constitution. It was the seizure of the Judicial Branch placing it under the control of Congress; thus, seizing total control of the United States Government. Please note: The Supreme Court has not used its well-established power of “Judicial Review” (Marbury v. Madison, 1803) to defend the Constitution from the “ENEMY” seizure. The Supreme Court’s tacit acquiescence affirms its complicit participation in “engaging in war against the Constitution”.

Everything after the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 is VOID, a NULLITY.

Congress and The Supreme Court have no authority to adjudicate, govern, or legislate.
It is unlawful for the “ENEMY” to do so.

*Question: Friend or Foe?

“SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” & the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990!

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990:

Bill introduced by Senator Joseph Biden.

Made Law by the 101st Congress and signed by President George H. W. Bush.

Why would one need to do anything to the Oath of Justices and Judges?

What is the purpose of SECTION 404?

Is this “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” to control America by the "ENEMY"?

104 STAT. 5124 PUBLIC LAW 101-650—DEC. 1, 1990

SEC. 404. AMENDMENT TO OATH OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES. Section 453 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out "according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to" and inserting "under".

The Legislative Branch seized control of the Judicial Branch by inserting “under” with no response, rebuttal or resistance from anybody, "TREASON"!

The CONSTITUTION is the “Supreme Law of the Land”, not Congress.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)

"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID".

Why is the best-known power of The Supreme Court established by the case Marbury v. Madison (1803), “Judicial Review”, not being enforced?

Is The Supreme Court a complicit participant, an “ENEMY”?

1990--Pub. L. 101–650 substituted "under the Constitution"
for "according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution".

This is a subtle Traitor attack which willfully disregards Article VI of the Constitution.

But there is more...

Don't forget our then Senator, now President Joseph R. Biden.

A final piece of relevant information is the explanation afforded by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-Del.) for offering the 1997 proposal to extend the CJRA's reporting strictures: "This very effective reporting requirement will expire in December unless Congress acts."31 Senator Biden's statement suggests his belief that the commands related to reporting, and perhaps other important aspects of the 1990 Act, namely the requirements imposed by the sections enumerated in section 103(a), would have expired on December 1, 1997 without legislative action. A single senator's observation regarding one provision of a statute nearly seven years after the enactment's passage would ordinarily be considered relatively unauthoritative. The statement, however, assumes considerable significance because Senator Biden, who served as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1990, was the chief proponent of the CJRA and the sponsor of the amendment that became section 2 of the 1997 statute, which extended the CJRA's reporting requirements and addressed section 103(a) of the CJRA.32

*Answer: Foe!

Justice is priceless.
Our, “We the People”, courts are to protect us from harm and deliver remedy.
Instead, the “ENEMY” courts deliver attack after attack against us, “We the People”.
The mutiny under the cloak of Admiralty Law by “ENEMY” officers empowers the limitless plunder of America in all methods of attack.
“We the People” stand in the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, not in some corporate fiction jurisdiction such as Supreme Court, United States, D-U-N-S number: 161906136.
The seizure of property through the weaponized “ENEMY” Foreclosure courts is just one example of the “DOMESTIC TERRORISM”.
The Mortgage Crisis of 2008-2009 had every expert testify before Congress that fraudulent documentation was throughout the entire banking system and the mortgage servicers. It was stated that it would take decades to repair the fraud. Yet, Foreclosures are executed in massive numbers with the complicit participation of judges and attorneys all knowing that there is an unenforceable contract, fraud, and not a chance in hell that there is a clean title (Carpenter v. Logan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872)).
Plus, the “ENEMY” does this without the Constitutionally required Article III Court and without a “Trial by Jury”.
The irreparable harm done is limitless.
People are left homeless, financially ruined, families destroyed, lives ended; and then all of this is passed on to the next victim, the buyer of a seized home.
The next victim is left holding a claim of fiction that the “ENEMY” collects payment from, and it starts over again.
To put it simply, the “ENEMY” has seized our property and destroyed our banking system; thus, destroying our freedom.
The “ENEMY” judges and officers of the court avoid and eliminate the use of a Grand Jury and Trial by Jury of “We the People” to maintain total control of the system with unchecked power.
“ENEMY” use of the judicial weapon destroys people, families, estates, and America from within.
It is the ultimate Trojan Horse.
Personally, I suffer and witness at every level of court the “ENEMY” acts of treason.
I filed four different Writs of Habeas Corpus to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land, to alert and capture the “ENEMY”.
Instead, I was met with a Judicial Blockade. Not one Writ of Habeas Corpus of Treason was delivered to a Justice and/or the President of the United States by Supreme Court Clerk, Scott S. Harris, Supreme Court Case Analyst, Redmond K. Barnes, or any other staff as required.
Fact: On January 19, 2025, Petitioner received a “Return Letter” dated January 3, 2025, from The Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris stating the reason for return was due to prior correspondence. Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris is named as a party in the complaint…NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA – “No one is judge in their own case.” (BLOCKADE)
This is Misprision of Treason and violation of administrative duty.
To add insult to injury, the September Supreme Court delivery is lost or destroyed, a felony; and the enclosed letters with the returned later Writs of Habeas Corpus cited rules that did not apply, and were addressed to Anthony Pritchard, not the Petitioner: Andrew Hamilton Pritchard.
Obviously, little effort was made by the Supreme Court, United States, D-U-N-S number: 161906136, regarding the Writs of Habeas Corpus delivered.
The Writs of Habeas Corpus prove that The Supreme Court of the United States, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States District Court of Connecticut, the State of Connecticut Government, the United States District Court of Delaware, and the State of Delaware Government are the “ENEMY” executing “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” and more.
Please Note: PUBLIC NOTICE of “NO AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE AS THEY ARE “AT WAR WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION” AND “ENGAGES IN ACTS OF TREASON”. THE COMPLICIT COURT IS AN “ENEMY” OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ENGAGED IN “DOMESTIC TERRORISM”, “RACKETEERING”, “TREASON” AND MORE” has been made to ALL courts and government officials of Connecticut, Delaware, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and more with no response or rebuttal to the charges and claims made by the Petitioner. That is tacit acquiescence. Legal Maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
Federal and State Judges have denied their Oath; seized property by Militant police raid using military grade weapons; seized property without service, hearing, claim or compensation; and kidnapped Samuel A. Magliari, Jr., a “whistleblower”, currently jailed at Connecticut’s Cheshire Correctional Institute, a maximum-security prison, for a fraudulent first offense of a Breach of Peace with over $1 million (excessive) in bonds.
Money and power at any cost is what feeds this “ENEMY.”
This Claim is to dismantle injustice and starve the “ENEMY” of what it desires most, unchecked power and plunder.
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, demand the charges below be executed by the proper Authority of “We the People”, and demand Restitution (Bill of Complaint dated 12/16/2025) for “We the People” in the amount of $33,755,862,000,000. See Below.

CHARGES - CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant:
The Complicit Participants named above are in violation of the following: the US Constitution; Title 18 U.S.C Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law; Title 5 Administrative Procedure Act 1946; Title18 U.S. Code 2076 Clerk is to File; Title 18 U.S. Code 2071 : Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, documents filed; Title 50 U.S. Code 2204 Definitions “ENEMY”, “SPOILS OF WAR”, etc.; Title 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious Conspiracy; Title 18 U.S. Code § 1346 - Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”; Title 15 U.S. Code § 1122 - Liability of United States and States, and instrumentalities and officials thereof; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions “Domestic Terrorism”; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason; Title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason.

Please Note: 1998 US Tobacco Settlement $206 Billion, Alex Jones $1.5 Billion (26 families).

Supreme Court Case Law:
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 (April 14, 2023),
"Cases involving ... deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property constitute a core of cases that ... MUST be resolved by Article III courts—not executive adjudicators dressed up as courts".
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977); U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970); Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)
"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately."
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52,
Conspiracy "A conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense." Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997). It is "the common-law principle that, so long as they share a common purpose, conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators." Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 64 (1997). "A conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense, but it suffices that he adopt the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal endeavor."
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice".
Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)
Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis."
Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
"It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)
"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them."
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. JARKESY, JR., 603 U.S. (June 27, 2024)
“I write separately to highlight that other constitutional provisions reinforce the correctness of the Court’s course. The Seventh Amendment’s jury-trial right does not work alone. It operates together with Article III and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to limit how the government may go about depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury. Article III entitles individuals to an independent judge who will preside over that trial. And due process promises any trial will be held in accord with time-honored principles. Taken together, all three provisions vindicate the Constitution’s promise of a “fair trial in a fair tribunal.” In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955).”
That is why the Constitution built “high walls and clear distinctions” to safeguard individual liberty. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211, 239 (1995). Ones that ensure even the least popular among us has an independent judge and a jury of his peers resolve his case under procedures designed to ensure a fair trial in a fair forum. In reaffirming all this today, the Court hardly leaves the SEC without ample powers and recourse. The agency is free to pursue all of its charges against Mr. Jarkesy. And it is free to pursue them exactly as it had always done until 2010: In a court, before a judge, and with a jury. With these observations, I am pleased to concur.

In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992),
The court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that '[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.'"
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeal.
“The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."

JURISDICTION:
By the grace of God almighty, and through the supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI Clause 2 & 3) and the below-listed treaties of supreme law, it is I alone, who shall determine my status, standing, honor and jurisdiction.
I hereby invoke and stand upon all my natural rights, given by my God, which are written in the documents listed below. These, and all others, are universally known as the supreme law of the land:
• The Holy Bible, KJV 1611 GOD's Laws are Superior Law
• 1215 Magna Charta
• 1606 The First Charter of Virginia
• 1620 Mayflower Compact
• 1628 Petition of Rights
• 1639 Fundamental Orders of 1639
• 1641 Grand Remonstrance
• 1689 English bill of rights
• 1765 The Declaration of rights in congress at New York
• 1774 The Declaration of rights in congress at Philadelphia
• 1775 The Declaration of Arms
• 1776 The Virginia Declaration of rights
• 1777 the Articles of Confederation
• 1783 Treaty of Peace
• 1787 Northwest Ordinance
• 1789 The Constitution for the United States of America
• 1791 The Bill of Rights
• 1864, 1929 and 1949 The Geneva Conventions
• 1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• 23 March 1976 The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, Articles 1-27
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, hereby and forever stand firm upon these natural rights listed above, giving the free man of God, one of "We the People".
The Supreme Court said that the "rights of life and personal liberty are the natural rights of man. To secure these rights ... governments are instituted among men" U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto 542, 23 L. Ed. 588.
“Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisions of either, it is so far void." Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840)
The constitution is the law of the land and there can be no statutes or rule making that would abrogate the constitution. The general principal is: anything that is repugnant to or abrogates the constitution is null and void of law.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, (1803) "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law."
"An officer of the court may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'Individual Capacity' , not his official capacity..." see 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity." Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457,293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991). The same rule applies to state officials.
Summary:

Justice Warren E. Burger, (1907-1995) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1969-1986)
"... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice, and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day ... these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession. ... the harsh truth is that ... we may well be on our way to a society, overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated."

The Supreme Law of the United States of America states unambiguously, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” Art 4, Sec 4, U S Constitution.

Constitution of the United States Article 3, Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Definition: GOOD BEHAVIOUR
TheLaw.com Law Dictionary & Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Conduct authorized by law. Surety of good behaviour may be demanded from any person who is justly suspected, upon sufficient grounds, of intending to commit a crime or misdemeanor. Surety for good behaviour is somewhat similar to surety of the peace, but the recognizance is more easily forfeited, and it ought to be demanded with greater caution.
This subtle and significant attack on OUR Constitution has delivered irreparable harm to so many Americans and people of the world.
Personally, my home of twenty-nine years was seized by a planned Police Military raid by over 50+ Complicit Officers without claim or compensation; and I have fraudulent charges for trespassing against me for twenty-five years of jail time.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Respectfully,

Petitioner, Sui Juris, living-breathing American
Andrew Hamilton Pritchard
Beneficiary in Equity-Executor
9 Sylvester Court
Norwalk, Connecticut