Section 10 – Exhibit 17 – not filed

          Because of Harris’ unconstitutional positions, Edwards did not use the following Motion in her case.  She will in her next case.  This Motion requires the judge, pursuant to his oath, to make his rulings based in the Constitution, Constitutionally compliant law and case law.  As previously stated, all judges and other public officers are required to swear an oath, and be bound thereby, to support the Constitution. ARTICLE III requires judges to serve in times of “good behavior” and making rulings consistent with the Constitution is serving in good behavior.  The opposite is not.  Judges are also required to be fair, unbiased and impartial. 

All laws created for the American Citizens must be Constitutionally supported by an Article or Amendment, or those laws are null and void, without force or effect, whatsoever.  Any lawful ruling by a judge must be supported by fact and law, or it is frivolous and without merit, therefore, null and void.  Lawful rulings must be based in Constitutionally compliant law or case law.  It is our experience that most judges will dismiss the pro se case or find for the opponent of the pro se litigant on some very minor, inconsequential, non Constitutional basis, and ignore the pro se evidence file and pleadings.  American Citizens must use the federal and state laws and our federal and state Constitutions to require the judges to abide by the law and not continue to commit fraud against the American Citizens.

This Motion requires the judge to abide by his oath to the Constitution and rule based in the Constitution.  To do otherwise is insurrection and sedition to the Constitution and committing treason against the Sovereign American Citizen.  When apprised by a Citizen through such a Motion, an honorable judge will usually hold him/herself to his Constitutional responsibilities.  Such a judge who grants this Motion will most likely rule based in Constitutional provisions, which will protect American Citizens from unjust and unlawful rulings that are so common today in our courts. 

When the opponent realizes that the Citizen will be Constitutionally protected by the court and its rulings will be Constitutionally based, if his case is based in fraud and deception, his unlawful position could be publicly exposed and the corporation damaged.  As with Edwards’ case, Metris’ attorneys withdrew because they knew they lost.  The Motion follows.