The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About917711 ~ 000679 RECEIVEO-4/-24ì2006 at 1"2:42 PM RECEIVING # 917711 BOOK: 617 PAGE: 679 JEANNE WAGNER LINCOLN COUNTY CLERK, KEMMERER, WY above line for Recorder use AFFIDAVIT OF RELIANCE ON COURT RULINGS "Within the Admiralty" "Within the Admiralty" The Admiralty Extension Act, Title 46 U.S.A. Appendix ch 19-A §740. TO PUBLIC SERVANTS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, DEBTORS OF THE UNITED STATES for the United States of America 1. A matter must be expressed to be resolved. 2. In Commerce, Truth is sovereign. 3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. 4. An un-rebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in Commerce. 5. An un-rebutted Affidavit becomes judgment in Commerce. NOTICE: This Affidavit was not written for the purpose of debating the constitutionality or legality of any Law or Act, but rather to establish facts declaring Affiants' foundational beliefs regarding the non-taxable nature of Affiants' remuneration for property, acquired through personal labor. The below court decisions pertain directly to lack of jurisdiction of the various government taxing agencies over Affiants. Affiants reliance on court rulings for those beliefs are inviolable under law. These court rulings support Affiants' belief that Affiants' property is not now nor has ever been subject to a corporate income tax as described by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and as codified in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code. UNLESS THESE AFFIRMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS ARE REBUTTED POINT BY POINT WITIUN 30 DAYS OF PUBLIC FILING OF THIS AFFIDAVIT, THEN THIS AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS JUDGMENT IN LAW AND AS WITNESS TO AFFIANTS Maurice Wayne Jones' and Dorenda Leigh Price Jones' status as nontaxpayers, which nontaxpayers are "without the scope" of the Internal Revenue Laws as per Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States. Affiants Maurice Wayne Jones and Dorenda Leigh Price Jones, being of sound minds and competent to make this affidavit with personal knowledge of the information and facts contained herein and in attesting to said facts in Affiants' authorized capacity, Declare and Affirm the following court decisions are a major part of our core beliefs in Page 1 of9 ',i . .';';C;';(.~.~~:'<.'I·"',;·;' .;¿.;::; :i.:~f.~;"C"~~"ot;'~;j~:~,:!' ,.:.;.::¡(,','", ..r··:,.'..~~::; ·:'-~i.Ío-:~;~~1i.·~~jþ;·;b'~K.~~ßr1~i!f~¡:~·:',· ':i'~': >. ".:;,_ ,_,:';'.'-!.~:~r.~'):t::t:':i¡i -,;,...,/~,;:r.( :':;i",,~ ;.:l;:"!;.Î.;:,',,'~¡¡;::: ,-;:';'~':¡:,,:-;.¡::.£ :~~;-~'.~:~~: :,i.\"-:: ~~:i;t'::' :,:';. .': ,·¡:i;¡!¡~ii~~;;iN9:'I~,¡;¡;;h:'l;.;:'. >~:. ..... W~æi~ '. :,1. ·':O:j~::I:¡ï:·;)' .; '. ,_, q ':';.:. !"',"¡.j ",,'.! ':.', _:,~,·;I:.':, ~,:,,:~~:;':';t;': , .' <. ·':I~~,:,:~.~.~.~.~I~,~.. '. .:!.:.:.-1t:t~1L.!;;T'·'\"';:;;i¡r:<:~~~~~~:,:~,.:.:.ot.'~,.- ,.Y·,. ;fe~:~"", ;·'i~:.:I>'r",;';t;;:'.I;':I;o,··1!:;~~;·~r..~r,:..~e!i:~.ïr!::-"!~:.:. " 'l'\", "" C00680 0917711. regard to the income tax as administered by the Internal Revenue Service: ..( Court Decisions [emphasis added except where noted as original] 1. "There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' and compensation for labor CANNOT be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word 'profit~ as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- -a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor." Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep. 2d 859. 2. "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceedingfrom property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor. " Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739. 3. "... Congress has taxed income [profits and gains) not compensation" - Connor v. U.S., 303 F. Supp., 1187 '69. 4. "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure... but it matters little [what the form says); the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes income 'derived'from many different sources; ONE DOES NOT 'DERIVE INCOME' [gains and profits) BY RENDERING SERVICESAND CHARGING FOR THEM" - Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed. Rep. 1. (Emphasis added). 5. "Income," contrary to popular beliet is NOT a wage, salary, fee, first-time commission, or compensationfor any kind of labor, unless consented to by contract." United States v. BaIIard. 536 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 1976). 6. "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce ... " Title 15 U.S.c. Â§17. 7. "The term 'income' is properly defined as either a profit or gain, nothing else. Compensation is defined as an EQUAL exchange, thus does NOT qualify as either profit or gain ... " "One does NOT derive income by rendering services and charging for them." Congressional Record, Aug. 28,1913 Pgs. 3842-3845; Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110, 1916,2 MD Cir; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189,1920; Staples v. U.S. ,21 F.Supp. 737, 1937. 8. "There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income) must be given the meaning in all Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and what that meaning is has now become definitely p 9 , ~ /i]1ij; ~~ ~._'!.:" !:: ""...,~~~', ,.,...ç.. :-;'::-:'\~.;lít;ai·;4~;"I:~:<:;;'ìfPF..r,'T'~~~~:¡~EL~2.7,",,:5.:"'~~:·:!'':,:fZ:..~1'1d.~~.',1~ ,';¡ ;¡:..:t;';:'·':':':'::·:';":':I~.:..:t'''?¡':j;'';¡';_', .:.-." , ,.' :··..··;.--:'.:1~,,'!:£.~il.¡!{r:l,;~'j~-"rre·l1.'12iG:·m.·; ':.":':·:~,(::':hJ;:oj!i!ð!m'~":-.~·'-:. "'.'-1: ;;:.~':'{":.;.~~'i.!/~~..\'.' C00681 0917711 settled by decisions of the court. " (Emphasis added) Merchant's Loan & Trust Company vs. Smietanka, 255 U.S., pgs 518, 519 (1921). 9. "Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat, 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely'an equal exchange of funds for services" Brushaber v Union Pacific RJR 240 U.S. 1,17; 36 S.Ct. 236, 241. 10. "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two." Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 31. ' 11. "Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income. " And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income, THE TAX IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE UPON "GROSS RECEIPTS" ... " Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs. Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902. 12. "Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... meaning within the Declaration of Independence of 1776. "...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..." Supreme Court...Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescennt City Co., 111 U.S. 746. 1883. 13. "Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific-definition of 'income, ' it imports, as used here [in the Internal Revenue Code] the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities... We must reject in this case... the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that alZ receipts, everything that comes in -- are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'... " Doyle vs. Mitchell, 247 U.S. 1799,330. 14. "Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act than it that of 1909 (See Stratton's Independence vs. Hauberk, 231 US 399,416, 417)...we assume that there is no difference in its' meaning as used in the two acts" Southern Pacific C. vs. John Z. Lowe, Jr.,247 US 330, 335 (1918). (Emphasis added) 15. "Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable." Olk v. United States, February 18,1975, Las Vegas, Nevada." Page 3 of9 , 'ê / . :l·I~Ò:')~I~~¡!.~;!,:<t:'~.:I;','·· .;':.'(;:!.: ~Z'J~:fi!'~~_·i:':";;~;!. C.: ,'¡'. .";".'.~ .~~,~~... :.'{;;.:~:.o!:~. i , .' ;:; :w~2.:~::.'·· ..:.~.!.~...~~~~.!t~í:', . ~: ··..:{~l:!:~rlr,lJ~:~~1-.':'\':~··-:!í.~~~··i.·;'1·r.;'\:':t{'!. :i:? .' ',. .. ¡ :.j;!;: ':~~:rJ;r.l"¡;¡I;~i~; ~i ~ ¡':; ': ;.¡' :.,:'--':",~ ~i!.~( .:,=.¡t~;.;.. CO[682 091.771.1.. ". 16. "Property acquired by gift is excluded from gross income. " Commissioner of · IRS v Duberstein, 80 5. Ct. 1190. 17. 17, "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax... The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right. " Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 18. "Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress. " Blatt Co. v U.S., 59 S.Ct. 186. 19. 19, "...the definition of' income' approved by this court is: The gain derivedfrom capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets. " Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 US Supreme Court. 20.20. "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit" Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. vs. Matthews, 345 Pa. 239; 21. "Income is realized gain." Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643. 22. "... it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income, " according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation, alter the Constitution, from which it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations, alone, that power can be lawfully exercised..." [income is] Derived-from-capital-- the-gain-derived-from-capital, etc...." ..and. "...Here we have the essential matter -- not gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchanged value...severedfrom the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived, " that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description... " Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189. [The emphasis was in the original ruling.] 23. "..whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essentialfeature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner V Macl!mber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61 (a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income, CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION"! Conner v US 303 F Supp 1187 Federal District Court, Houston. 24. "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within ~:;:;::,::;':::.,:r~ ·...:...,;....,....c,,;· Pq!,~~lo'~'o,0f 9 ¡','¡I,t',',I,lj4,",I¡'J ~~~~~~;:~;~::::~:" , .' ~ @~f:~:f:*t::~:~: ;~::; :;:;:;:;:;~~~:;~~ . ',OJ! f¡'.'~.r!¡'. ,... ··!,:¡',~·'c·:·~~.~_...::_;.::";::::":: ':":~:~2¡¡::;:.·.".·._... ~ .,.,': :~;~.!:.;:: _,~~~~ .,.,. --,"-,--,.,', , .'. "~.I¡I¡'¡I;"~''''j,'.'.'.' - . . .;:·':".!!:!S".}(~<f.titV~'f~~.:::CL~er-.:.·:·.j.·:OO·~~~i'," -' ~. '. t .::,'......!;........,.".;, >_.;.::'._,:._~:....,"'-..., ;;;:'~.;:;.:;:.~¡;.:.:,;: C00683 0917711 the meaning of the 16th Amendment. " Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575. 25. "... the government can collect the tax from a district court suitor by exercising its power of distraint... but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT, NOT UPON DISTRAINT" [Footnote 43J "If the government is forced to use these remedies (distraint) on a large scale, it will affect adversely the taxpayers willingness to perform under our VOLUNTARY assessment system n. Flora v U.S., 362 US 145. 26. "... The meaning of income in its everyday sense is a gain recovered byan individual in a given period of time. " Webster's Seventy New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 425 "Income is nothing more or less than realized gain." Shuster v. Helvering, 121 F. 2d 643 (2nd Cir. 1941) "It [Income) is not synonymous . with receipts. "47 C J S Internal Revenue 98, p. 226." Quoted in Conner v. United States, 303 F. Sup. 1187 (1969) pg. 1191. 27. ''After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary) Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245. US Supreme Court. 28. "The Court has hitherto consistently held that a literal reading of a provision of the Constitution which defeats a purpose evident when the instrument is read as a whole, is not to be favored. , [and one of the examples they give is...] 'From whatever source derived, , as it is written in the Sixteenth Amendment, does not mean from whatever source derived" WRIGHT v. UNITED 'STATES, 302 U.S. 583 (1938.) 29. "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed, ... "Bowers vs. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174D. 30. "The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such... " Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.s. 1. 31. ..... the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far reaching effect of this erroneous assumvtion will be made clear by generalizing Page 5 of9 '~ ~....,:.:, '('::.:' '. ,', ;,!< ,·:·/-'-·;·-:·¡~';;;;'~':;¡j.;~:,'i;·:~ï!ÎY.!¥J"ID;Y"'~~llt!.j,h ',i":.:",",~1!.:"'" ·:t,·'f/"ft""j&"Jltt:, :--', '. .:..\~,:"':r':"\::,;:·_:':1:-=i~~:'¡"i.1:' ::....!~ .: " ',ff:·· ::;...~'-(-~Xdk,[:..¡f.-~~~~¡:2"~ît¥·~.t;.~~·,... i~ :.::~'-; _'~;:;J~m~i"'-:1-:::t. :;.¡,~;.;,,:.:;;\;~··..~¡'¡ir¡';".I."." . COC684 0917711 the many contentions advanced in argument to support it..," BRUSHABER v. t ,. UNION PACIFIC R. Co., 240 US 1.11 (1916): 32. "... it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation. " STANTON V. BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103, 112 (1916): 33. "The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or ~numeration. 11 was not the purpose or effect of that Amendment to bring any new subiect within the taxing power... "BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926): 34. "The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent dl!cisions. it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subiects... " PECK v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165, 173 (1918): 35. "An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (the 16th Amendment) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations." DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918): 36. "The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted" "As repeatedly held this did not extend the taxing power to new subiects.., " EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189,205, 206(1920): 37. "Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: 'It is not. in view of recent decisions. contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before." EVANS V. GORE, 253 U.S. 245, 259 (1920): 38. "A reading of this portion of the statute (1909 corporation tax act) shows the purpose and design of Congress in its enactment and the subject-matter of its operation. It is at once apparent that its terms embrace corporations andjoint stock companies or associations which are organized for profit and have a capital stock represented by shares. Such joint stock companies, while differing somewhat from corporations, have many of their attributes and enjoy many of their privileges. "FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 144 (1911) 39. "There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word 'income' must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has now l~j111mt;Jm;li ¡;~:::::::~~::::I:::::' !~ :t;;:::!t~~J:~:~~ t;~;~j~¡~~r.:õ~¡~¡~;t::::;~·~:~¡:::~~¡; :;,.: ~.~~\liSír1~~ffi:~'¿ _':-;?¡:HJ~~~' :~:;'¡iÌ.":::~:~2.:'~':··:"::!~~;··· .~: :~t (t"Jil;:, : " :;: ¡:;~¡!"¿;~j!f!;~f..f:~~;~i:· " . ;:~::·rk'-;~JÜêI~<I!·'··~·~"':"S~~¡~~·:::::;S··"'~!: '.'.:;;:·;'Y'?;!.:~fI¿'>h¿~¡':".;:;~i-;! ù:¿: ::-¡i :~i~::;,} -;. .::-:;;!:.:.:~~;.:. COC685 0917711 become definitely settled by decisions of this Court" MERCHANTS" LOAN & TRUST CO., v SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509,519 (1921) 40, "Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of I 909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. "BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE, 271 U.S. 170 (1926); 41. "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment. tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment. " HEL VERING v. EDISON BROTHERS' STORES., 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943) 42. "We must reiect in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909. the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in. are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income '. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts." SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918); Affiants have filed proper public Notice of Affiants' status as natural flesh and blood human beings and that Affiants are non-corporate beings. These documents were filed as follows: "Received 2/3/2006 at 10:40 AM, Receiving # 915742, Book: 611 Page: 463, Jeanne Wagner, Lincoln County Clerk, Kemmerer, WY", and "filed in Wyoming Public Records, Lincoln County, Kemmerer, Wyoming by Lincoln County Clerk Jeanne Wagner, 1/19/2006 at 10:43 AM, Receiving #915333 Book: 610 Page: 97 to Page; 115". Thus, according to the Constitution and the Supreme Court interpretations thereof, Affiants' property acquired through Affiants' efforts are not corporate, therefore are not under the jurisdiction of and not taxable by the Internal Revenue Service. Affiants have a right to pursue Affiants' own callings of life in any way desired free frQm government interference. Therefore, Affiants stand on the above rulings of the courts and on the below final court case cited; 43. "The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits. which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same applied to all persons of the same age, sex and condition, is a distinguishing privilege claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property. so it is the work ofhis own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. " BUTCHER'S UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (1814) Page 7 of9 , ,~ ,/ :'i;n:a¡¡:¡i~:~!il::;':;;'..I~'..·;· '~i:~:": :~.-~:-;,-",\: ·'~;LP-,Í;'J:::..\.!:Ú:·.;·~:,,~:.' " .:'>: .::;';:;'ij~'"i1!f'5~'.',,: "';".,' I: 'i' I' " ¡:1~':':1:':':1):(':1:~7':';' ~;~,':.~'.'. .';')';~¡~ì1i1w·,:m;::.li!~;~·;~:t·r.!:.!ti,:,...· ': ··;·i"J.t;¡¡o:;¡'~.a.;~:·".·,,·· ;r:~,·::;.·!,;.~\.¡t;.¿.,;:..... ., COC686 0917'711 CONCLUSION According to the above court rulings, the property acquired by Affiants Maurice Wayne Jones and Dorenda Leigh Price Jones is not now nor ever has been subject to the Income Tax as codified in Title 26 use. UNLESS THESE AFFIRMATIONS AND DE CLARA TIONS ARE REBUTTED POINT BY POINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF PUBLIC FILING OF THIS AFFIDAVIT, THEN THIS AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS JUDGMENT IN LAW AND WILL HOLD UP IN ANY COURT IN THE LAND. DISCLAIMER Affiants reserve all rights under all forms oflaw, without prejudice. Affiants hereby refute, disclaim, and refuse any implied contract to which any mailing address, salutation, request, demand, quote of statute, or presentation contained in this document may subject Affiants. Affiants do not waive any Constitutional or Common Law rights. Affiants do not voluntarily or involuntarily acquiesce into any foreign jurisdiction. Affiants hereby make explicit reservation of all rights and remedies, Time is of essence; and the Affiants hereby make reservation of all rights and remedies under all forms of law. Use of Notary below is for purposes of signature identification only and Affiants accept no foreign or domestic jurisdiction by the use thereof. Affiants hereby declare and affirm, as God is our witness, that the foregoing is true and correct, having first hand knowledge of the facts in this case on this ).,1 day of /I/r;¡ , 200~. 4- ~~~)W~--v k ~ Maurice Wayne fónes, ){gent ~1b¿~dL~¿ßaâ" ~0ate ¿ltþJol#t'~ Date ~J/I¡;r 2-a>b I Maurice Wayne Jones and Dorenda Price Jones, Agents for MAURICE, W JONES and/or DORENDA P JONES, c/o PO Box 117, Grover, Wyoming [83122] NOTARY ENDORSEMENT On this gL day of /J¡J.nf ' 200 ~ Maurice Wayne Jones and Dorenda Leigh (Price) Jones personally appeared before me, and is/are (~allY known to me, or ( ) proved by valid identification, to be the affiantljs} whose nameljs} are P , ~ ¡J;[~¡j~;~~~;t¡,;;@:~ ~~m~m~i~m: ¡L,':,¡:':'·' :;::!;¡'i~Ij'j·¡~i!Î!;~¡!i!l;i'in"d·.¡"·i~l.~i~tt'tl~~i!~~r..·:1:~1!::~\'¡';:.'~...~,'~ :·.,,~'.;.'ll~~~-' ,'.." --.", - " ~'2i ~ :~~' "';:'¡'?¡~Î~;~i~~~~~:';~:'~; .' "i' .',-. .. ~- ·<';I":m-N.f:fð'MWN~r¡¡'_~~J"J.j;:~'\.":\:r~il·~:- ,'. '\.~.:: f'~''',·~a~¡fiSi~~r';i<::.; S:'):!;:1""::';~~~".i~..""J;t.· -' " C00687 091?~11 subscribed to the above instrument, and acknowledged to me that by his/her/their signature thereon he/she/they executed the instrument. . ~millOffi~ Stgnatu e / . dated 1,/t9v//o0 My Commission eXPires3!6/ ¡() Notary Public seal Page 9 of9 ~ DIANA j. ~AESTON NOTARY PUBUC COUNTY OF ~ STATE OF LINCOLN ~ WYOMING MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 3.5. 2010