COMES NOW, Marc Bru ( hereinafter “affiant” ), whom reach the age of majority, competent to state the facts forthwith, and pledges to correct the international record under solemn affirmation and to have the particulars addressed as compulsory evidence for the accusation of the political assassination attempt perpetuated by the Department of Justice under the administration of Joe Biden in private membership association acting as within military occupation using military instrumentality rule against the affiant as a civilian in violation of the Law of Armed Conflict, and

Respondents: Julianna Dippold, Michael Harvey, Youlee Yim You, Spokane County Department of Corrections, City of Portland Court Services, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Capital Police, House of Congress, Mike Pence, Chuck Schumer, Nanci Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, District Judge James E. Boasberg, and potentially other individuals pending descovery and FOIA reguests completed.

The affiant on the dates of March 16th. 2021 was at a storage unit where several deputy sheriff’s and FBI special investigators approached the affiant and the affiant’s mother with guns in hand and aimed directly at the affiant and the affiant’s mother, and

The purpose of the arrest was mentioned for being present in Washington, the District of Columbia on the events of January 6th, 2021 following the observation and witnessing Antifa members dressing up to disguise as Trump supporters to cause rebellion and insurrection, and

The Affiant is not an Antifa member and does not in any way associate with any Antifa member, and

The accusations listed in the complaint stated that the affiant entered a restricted area during a joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The affiant requests the published bilateral social compact agreement by and between the House of Representatives, the Senate and the people? The affiant requests the letter of acceptance of office from every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate? If the respondents are claiming that the affiant is entering a restricted building during a live joint session of the United States in Congress assembled, then the evidence must be present that this is in fact a congress of the people, by the people and for the people and not an unauthorized congress violating ex injuria jus non oritur, and

The affiant was present in Washington, District of Columbia on January 6th, 2021 for the reasons that the affiant is aware of the massive fraud in the November 3rd, 2020 election by the Biden Administration attacking The United States of America by way of implementing communism by the Totalitarian Party which is illegal in The United States of America, and

Law of Nations Book 1 Chapter 5-

§66. Who are to decide disputes respecting the succession to a sovereignty.

The same principle will also furnish us with the solution of a celebrated question. When the right of succession becomes uncertain in a successive or hereditary state, and two or three competitors lay claim to the crown, -it is asked, Who shall be the judge of their pretensions? Some learned men, resting on the opinion that sovereigns are subjected to no other judge but God, have maintained that the competitors for the crown, while their right remains uncertain, ought either to come to an amicable compromise,-enter into articles among themselves, -chuse arbitrators, - have recourse even to the drawing of lots, -or, finally, determine the dispute by arms; and that the subjects cannon in any manner decide the question. One might be astonished that the celebrated authors should have maintained such a doctrine. But since, even in speculative philosophy, there is nothing so absurd as not to have been advanced by one or other of the philosophers, what can be expected from the human mind, when seduced by interests of fear? What! In a question that concerns none so much as the nation, -that relates to a power established only with a view to the happiness of the people, - in a quarrel that is to decide for of the people, - a quarrel that is to decide for ever their dearest interest, and their very safety, - are they to stand by as unconcerned spectators? Are they to allow strangers, or the blind decision of arms, to appoint them a master, as a flock of sheep are to wait till it be determined whether they are to be delivered up to the butcher, or restored to the care of their shepherd? 

But, say they, the nation has divested itself of all jurisdiction, by giving itself up to a sovereign, it has submitted to the reigning family; has given to those who are descended from that family a right which nobody can take from them; it has established them its superiors, and can no longer judge them. Very well! But does it not belong to that same nation to acknowledge the person to whom its duty binds it, and preventing it’s being delivered up to another? And since it has established the law of succession, who is more capable or has a better right to identify the individual whom the fundamental law had in view, and has appointed out as the successor? We may affirm, then, without hesitation, that the decision to this grand controversy belongs to the nation, and to the nation alone. Even if the competitors have agreed among themselves, or have chosen arbitrators, the nation is not obliged to submit to their regulations, unless it has consented to the transaction or compromise, - princes not acknowledged and whose right is uncertain, not being in any manner able to dispose of its obedience. The nation acknowledges no superior judge in an affair that relates to its most sacred duties, and most precious rights. Grotius and Puffendorff differ in reality but little from our opinion, but would not have the decision of the people of state called a juridical sentence (judicium jurisdictionis). Well! be it so: we shall not see dispute about words. However, there is something more in the case than a mere examination of the competitors’ rights, in order to submit to him who has the best. All the disputes that arise in society are to be judged and decided by the public authority. As soon as the right of succession is found in uncertain, the sovereign authority returns for a time to the body of the state, which is to exercise it, either by itself, or by its representatives, till the true sovereign be known. “The contest on this right suspending the functions in the person of the sovereign, the authority naturally returns to the subjects, not for them to retain it, but to prove on which of the competitors it lawfully devolves, and then to commit it to his hands. It would not be difficult to support by an infinite number of examples, a truth so evident by the lights of reason: it is sufficient to remember that the states of France, after the death of Charles the Fair, terminated the famous dispute between Phillip De Valois and the king England (Edward III) and that those states, through subjection to him in whose favour they granted the decision of Arragon that decided the succession to that kingdom, in favour of Ferdinand, grandfather of Ferdinand the husband of Isabella queen of Castile, in preference to the other relations of Martin king of Arragon, who asserted that the kingdom belonged to them.

In the kingdom of Jerusalem also, it was the states that decided the disputes of those who made pretensions to it, as is proved by several example in the foreign political history. The states of the principality of Neufchatel have often, in the form of a juridical sentence, pronounce on the succession to the sovereignty. In the year 1707, they decided between a great number of competitors, and their decision in favour of the king of Prussia was acknowledged by all Europe in the treaty of Utrecht.

Subsection 66 of Chapter 5 in Book 1 of the Law of Nations states that the successor is decided by the nation alone, the nation is its people, and........