Writ of Capias-Demand for Arrest of Supreme Court Clerk Harris.

Writ of Capias – Demand for Arrest: Scott S. Harris, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, (in his individual capacity) in the Petition named above pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 54-170 - Arrest without warrant.

Maxim of Law- The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.

Nothing may block or deny service (the delivery) of a Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus to a Judge or Justice. To block or deny service of a Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus is a violation of our rights as defined in Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta, affirmed by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and demonstrated in Title 28 Chapter 153 -Habeas Corpus Rule 4 - Preliminary Review; Serving the Petition and Order.

The $5 fee established by the Judiciary Act of 1948 to Petition by Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Supreme Court for the united states of America is VOID, a nullity. It violates the Constitution for the united states of America.

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."

A fee of any kind to serve a Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus is lawfully absurd. A kidnapped person held in jail cannot get or deliver a $5 fee to any court. It is nearly impossible for a prisoner to get pen and paper, a notary, certified mail for proof of service, and even mail it. It is even worse when the accused are the jailors (the “ENEMY”, War Crimes).

There are NO “parchment barriers” for the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Even if the Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus was in an improper form, they are still required to accept it, and act upon it, because at common law they have no right to deny their justice as affirmed by Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta which says; “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.” which is affirmed by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Fay v. NOIA 372 US 391 (1963)
concluded the great writ of habeas corpus now indeed extends to ALL constitutional challenges.

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.'"

The Complicit Judges and Clerks across America engage in “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” (Title 18 US Code 2384) as an “ENEMY” (Title 50 U.S. Code 2204) executing “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” (Title 18 U.S. Code 2331) and TREASON (Title 18 U.S. Code 2381) against “the People” of America by weaponizing judicial authority from top to bottom for any objective and/or target.

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.

The $5 fee established by the Judiciary Act of 1948 to Petition by Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Supreme Court for the united states of America captures the “Liberty” of 342,432,952 Americans (Census.gov 9.05.2025, 14:50 UTC) and destroys due process.

Bill of Complaint – Restitution as of September 5, 2025:
342,432,952 Americans X $5.00 unlawful Fee = $1,712,164,760

Legal Maxim: “The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.”

Legal Maxim: “A claim not contested, stands true.”

Legal Maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”

Legal Maxim: “Failure to enforce the law does not change it.”

Legal Maxim: “A claim bought in law that is not contested or rebutted, then stands true. Hence silence to a controversy is considered consent to any judgment.”

Legal Maxim: “An Unrebutted Affidavit is Truth.”

Legal Maxim: “No one is judge in their own case.”

Legal Maxim: “Judicial notice is a form of evidence.”

The United States Constitution requires Due Care in recognizing Legal Maxims.

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.

Constitution of the United States Article I, Section 9, Clause 2:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Summary:

Maxim of Law –
“The main objective of government is the protection and preservation of personal property, private rights, public liberties and upholding the law of God.” All aspects of “government” at all levels must be fully transparent and fully accountable to the people they swore to protect and serve.

The Battle for America is not complicated.

The ENEMY, complicit Judges and Attorneys, are in control of our legal system; and thus, controls our country. They seized control with the backing of Big Money.

TRUTH 1: Constitutional Oath and Duty mean nothing to the ENEMY Judges.
Canon 3228
Public Service
2.The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or public officials by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private superior oaths to their own Guild.

TRUTH 2: The Complicit Attorneys Oath and Duty is to the ENEMY court, not the Client.

Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia, volume 7, section 4:
§ 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S.
“His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the clients, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

TRUTH 3: The Violations.

NO AUTHORITY (POWER):
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect.

TRUTH 4: The Solution.

DUTY OF THE "COMMON LAW" GRAND JURY - If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their peers, from their lands, home, liberties or lawful right, we [the twenty-five] shall straightway restore them. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five Grand Jurors, the sureties of the peace. -- MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15, A.D. 1215, 52.

The obvious and most basic violations of Human and Constitutional Rights result in extraordinary irreparable harm to so many.

To put it simply, a Trial by Jury verdict is law. The “ENEMY” knows this and assaults us with “Opinions”.

Personally, my home of twenty-nine years was seized by a planned Police Military raid by over 50+ Complicit Officers without claim or compensation; I have fraudulent charges of trespassing for twenty-five years of jail time; my Cantor Fitzgerald Partnership and my Patents have been stolen by Howard Lutnick, the United States Secretary of Commerce (in his individual capacity).

The Writ of Habeas Corpus (“The Great Writ”) is my right and must be heard.

The Clerk of the United States Supreme Court has willfully violated his Oath and Duty.

Restraint of liberty is unacceptable.

King James Version (KJV) Galatians 6:7, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

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