Mail Fraud executed by the Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States
Office of the Clerk
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

RE: Response to Letter from the Supreme Court to Andrew Hamilton Pritchard dated September 8, 2025.

Date: September 12, 2025
To whom it may concern,
Sui Juris Petitioner, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, is writing in response to a letter with attachments dated September 8, 2025, by Clerk Scott S. Harris and signed by Emily Walker (see attached).
To start, my Jurisdiction is the Constitution for the united states of America, the Supreme Law of the Land as defined by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
There are no parchment barriers to a Writ of Habeas Corpus of delivery to a judge or justice.
Please Note: A Petition to Enforce the Writ of Habeas Corpus was delivered August 27, 2025, “Judicial Default”.
Please Note: Writ of Capias-Demand for Arrest of the Supreme Court Justices was delivered August 27, 2025.
Please Note: Writ of Capias-Demand for Arrest of the Supreme Court Clerk Scott S. Harris was delivered September 10, 2025.
The September 8, 2025, response letter from the Supreme Court addresses a Writ of Habeas Corpus regarding Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, as to the theft of a partnership and patent of Petitioner, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, corruption.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus was sent by Certified Mail on July 31, 2025, to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Department of Commerce of the United States, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Delivery was affirmed by all three above on August 4, 2025, as demonstrated by the electronic tracking of the US Postal Service.
The Department of Commerce and Cantor Fitzgerald delivered properly signed and dated August 4, 2025, Certified Mail “Green Cards”; however, the Supreme Court of the United States did NOT.
The Supreme Court committing “Mail Fraud” returns a Certified Mail “Green Card” date stamped and unsigned by the court of August 15, 2025.
Also, the Supreme Court fraudulently stamped the front page of the Writ of Habeas Corpus August 15, 2025.
Remember, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was delivered and signed by the Supreme Court on August 4, 2025.
What happened during the eleven days it was to be in a justice’s hands?
The Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, has authority over the US Post Office and the US Patent Office. Could there be some shenanigans going on?
This is a felony.
I have attached documents that support what is written above.
The Supreme Court of the United States is in Default and more.
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, demand the charges below be executed by the proper Authority of “We the People”, and demand Restitution (Five Bills of Complaint) for “We the People”, “The 658 Cantor Fitzgerald Employees Killed in 9/11”, “We the People of Connecticut”, Samuel A. Magliari, Jr., Joseph Budner Elad, and Andrew Hamilton Pritchard in the amount of $34,624,085,677,545. 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; Title 18 U.S. Code 1509. Obstruction of court orders; 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.

Dates of the Supreme Court Habeas Corpus Petitions (Restitution):
September 13, 2024 – RE: Samuel A. Magliari, Jr., [Bill of Complaint -$1,767,881,784]
September 13, 2024 – RE: Andrew Hamilton Pritchard & “We the People of Connecticut”. [Bill of Complaint - $725,781,907,128]
November 13, 2024 – RE: Joseph B. Elad & “We the People of America” [Bill of Complaint - $140,000,000,000]
December 16, 2024 – RE: “We the People of America” and Andrew Hamilton Pritchard. [Bill of Complaint - $33,755,862,000,000]
July 31, 2025 – RE: “The 658 Cantor Fitzgerald Employees Killed in 9/11” and Partner, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard. [Bill of Complaint - $673,888,633]
Restitution Total: $34,624,085,677,545

Please Note: The Two Writs filed on September 16, 2024 (550+ pages) are lost as per the Clerk’s Office.

Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)
"The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better."

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 - Supreme Court 1923
Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact by the Supreme Court, that writ of habeas corpus--may be invoked if the petitioner is free from bodily restraint and thereby the court is prohibited from dismissing this petition on the grounds the petitioner is not a prisoner or jailed.
As to LIBERTY, “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.”
Wild v. Fregein Construction, 68 P.3rd 855 (2003).
To falsify information is indisputably fraud. “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.., even if it is holding a piece of paper that says it is a chicken”
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford- Empire Co., 322 US 238 (1944).
“[T]ampering with the administration of justice as indisputably shown here involves far more than injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions In which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistent with the good order of society”
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 Writ of Habeas Corpus (“The Great Writ”) is my right and must be heard.
Constitutional violations require adjudication with “Strict Scrutiny”, a fundamental right.
The United States Supreme Court has willfully violated its’ 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

940. 18 U.S.C. Section 1341—Elements ofMail Fraud
"There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme todefraud (or to perform specifi ed fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose ofexecuting, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specifi ed fraudulent acts)."
Schmuck v.United States
, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989);
see also
Pereira v. United States
, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954)("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2)the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & HarveyB. Silikovitz,
Mail and Wire Fraud
, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited).