Almost identical to the letter sent to Clerk of the Court Frank Johns, we have a Pro Se letter which mimics the one sent in by Katherine Parker, also “a private person”. Both letters begin with “Dear Frank” as if they are personally acquainted with the Clerk. Perhaps it is just their attempt to be personable? Probably not…..
Gavels letter starts out with notifying the Clerk that she believes this to be a fraudulent process, and also mentions the “Fraudulent/Non-existent Court Name and Undefined Status of Respondent”. And, there are the same versions of the name of the District Court, capitalized and not. And, the claim that these names “do not appear to exist in law anywhere”. Plus, there is the “discrepancy/change in the entire style of cause used in the various court documents which created confusion and ambiguity”. There is also a mention of the “common law court” and changing the case into some “undeclared jurisdiction”. Ms. Gavel does not consent to the “change in jurisdiction out of common law court” or “the diminution of private rights”.
Gavel also claims that she “did not receive the invitation in time to attend the conference”; she refers to the Initial Attorneys Conference held on January 26, 2015. Gavel claims she mailed correspondence to the Clerk and Attorneys but they failed to respond to her questions and for clarification as to why the have proceeded in what she believes is a fraudulent process.
There is more nonsense similar to Parker’s letter, so I will not go into it further. You can read the filing by clicking here.