Findings re: The Sumter County, Georgia courthouse "owner" and relevancy to our instant matter

During the month of April 2013 I had an email correspondence with Mr. William NeSmith...the attorney representing Sumter County, Georgia. One of the topics of this conversation dealt with the ownership of the actual Sumter County courthouse. Confusion as to who or what owned the courthouse occurred when tax records revealed that the Purchaser and Grantee were indicated as both being, "SUMTER COUNTY COURTHOUSE ". Allegedly, this was a clerical error and a longstanding one at that. An email response dated April 17th, 2013 9:28 AM from Mr. NeSmith indicated, "The Sumter County Tax Assessors Office corrected its records on April 12, 2013, which now reflect that the real estate where the Sumter County Courthouse is located is owned by "Sumter County." Mr. NeSmith further clarified, "As for your question, is the real estate being held in trust for we the people the short answer is yes, it is held in trust for we the people of Sumter County ...". Observations: My family and I are beneficiaries of the public trust document styled as, "The Constitution of Georgia" and we are part of that body politic,"the people", described therein and: The Constitution of Georgia expresses: Section II: Origin and Structure of Government, Paragraph 1: All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Public officers are the trustees and servants of the people and are at all times amenable to them. Section II. Object of government. Paragraph III:The people of this state have the inherent right of regulating their internal government. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and at all times they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. If the Sumter County, Georgia courthouse is held in trust for the benefit of the people, as is required by the Constitution of Georgia (Section II) , then the trustees(Judges, et alia) are also constrained by the Constitution as they adjudicate within that court within that house. As has been evidenced, Alicia (Lisa) Coogle Rambo has not taken an Article VI Oath of fidelity to the Constitution yet calls her entitlement, "Judge". Article VI, clause II at the Constitution for the United States of America(AD 1789-1791) is understood to be the "Supremacy" clause which specifically expresses, "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,..."The express language at Article VI, clause II articulates the Supreme Law of the Land as "binding" on all "Judges" whether they take an Oath or not. To conclude, Mrs. Rambo was obligated to support the Constitution by virtue of the fact that : 1. she was operating within a public courthouse(held in Trust) for the benefit of the people and 2. she asserted(as did many others) to be a Judge thereby making operative and binding Article VI, clause II which specifically requires her to be bound by the Constitution. However, Mrs. Rambo's instead chose to make war against the constitution at all times during our instant matter*.

Page 1 of 2

* Should there ever be an attempt to assert that my family consented to the abuse suffered at the hands of Alicia Coogle Rambo, audio evidence and transcripts inclusive of every single interaction(inperson and telephone) with DFCS, Alicia Rambo, CASA, immunization class, parenting class, et alia can and will be made available. All interactions with the pretend government agents were recorded and were preceded with words to the following, "We do not participate of our own free will. We cooperate under duress as we have been threatened by Mrs. Rambo else our son will be taken from us." Duress voids any presumption of consent as it is agreement had by coercion. In our matter, we cooperated to keep our son(s) from being taken from us by force of arms (vi et armis). Two direct threats were made by Alicia Coogle Rambo which we certainly believed would be carried out if we failed to "cooperate" firstly, as per the 72 PROTECTIVE ORDER: "Any deviation will result in the child being taken into emergency protective custody, and the no-complying parent will be subject to civil contempt."

Secondly, as per Mrs. Rambo's own verbal threat in court on December 10th, 2012, "I will enter a protective order with these provisions, If you don't follow the protective order they will ask for custody of him and they will ask for custody anytime of the day or night because I am always available. It will happen just like it happened this time. Yes they have to make their best efforts to put your child with a relative but most often there is not a home assessment completed and they end up with a stranger and that is not what you want. I cannot imagine how scary this was for yall. Now you are informed. 90% of these protective orders that I see, I see the people right back in here again. This is a different kind of case. I hope that won't happen. If they call me again you may not be so lucky. Do you understand that?"

Page 2 of 2