15 days ago

All of the nine Supreme Court Justices failed to plead or defend the Writ of Capias - Demand for Arrest received August 27, 2025.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
September 18, 2025
Writ of Mandamus – Default Judgment:

[Sui Juris PETITIONER, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, living-breathing American man]
vs.
[John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, (in his individual capacity); Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, (in his individual capacity); Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, (in his individual capacity); Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, (in her individual capacity); Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, (in her individual capacity); Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, (in his individual capacity); Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, (in his individual capacity); Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, (in her individual capacity); Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, (in her individual capacity); SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES (D-U-N-S Number: 161906136), 1 First Street NE, Washington, District of Columbia 20543.]
Petitioner, Sui Juris, living-breathing American
Andrew Hamilton Pritchard
Beneficiary in Equity-Executor
9 Sylvester Court
Norwalk, Connecticut
Affidavit:
I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, the Sui Juris Petitioner, demands a default judgment be entered by a Clerk of the Court as the Writ of Capias – Demand for Arrest was delivered and received by Certified Mail on August 27, 2025, for John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, (in his individual capacity); Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, (in his individual capacity); Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, (in his individual capacity); Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, (in her individual capacity); Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, (in her individual capacity); Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, (in his individual capacity); Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, (in his individual capacity); Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, (in her individual capacity); Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, (in her individual capacity); pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 54-170 - Arrest without warrant. As of September 18, 2025, all above have failed to plead or otherwise defend (see attached Writ of Capias and proof of service).
The Complicit Judges and Clerks 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.
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.

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 as required. 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 (stated 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: 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."
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”
American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (U.S. Supreme Court - 1950)
It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Rights are a subset of property. property. Government exists to secure and protect rights, NOT to conspire against and trample them. The primary fiduciary duties of oath taker public servants are to protect and secure such rights.

United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806).
In the early days of our Republic, "prosecutor" was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.

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:
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.
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.
The obvious and most basic violations of Human and Constitutional Rights result in extraordinary irreparable harm to so many.
The justices of the United States Supreme Court have willfully violated their 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.