The Real Nationwide Significance of
STATE
OF OREGON VS. RAYMOND RONALD
KARCZEWSKI ---
WREAK HAVOC ON AN INJUSTICE SYSTEM?? -- YOU BET!!!
Following are excerpts from the Appellant Brief filed by Attorney
David Groom with the Oregon Court of Appeals. In it lies the key
to liberation for an enslaved public, only this time presented by an
officer of the court and member of the bar who possesses courage and
integrity, a commodity not found amongst judges and lawyers
practicing law in JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON.
The quoted footnote below spells out the key to Sovereignty, the Lawful
Liberation of an Unaware People from their CONDITIONED yoke
of "Juristic" Slavery.
2 It may be feared that if defendant's argument is correct, it
would wreak havoc with the criminal justice system because the court
would have to establish jurisdiction over every defendant. This would
not be the case, however; very few individuals have copyrighted their
names and have asserted their rights in the manner this defendant has.
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF
OREGON
) JOSEPHINE COUNTY
Plaintiff-Respondent,
)Circuit Court No. 03CR0170
vs.
)
RAYMOND RONALD
KARCZEWSKI,
)
Defendant-Appellant.
) Appellate Court No. A122754
_________________________________________)
APPELANT'S
BRIEF
Appeal
from the Judgment of the Circuit Court
for
JOSEPHINE County
Honorable
WILLIAM G. PURDY, Judge
_________________________________
DAVID E. GROOM #78231
714 SW 20th Pl.
Portland, Oregon 97205
(503) 771-3587
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
HARDY MYERS #64077
Attorney General
MARY H. WILLIAMS #91124
Solicitor General
400 Justice Building
Salem, Oregon 97301
Phone: 378-4402
Attorneys for the Plaintiff-Respondent
(7)
Standard of Review
Questions involving the trial court's
jurisdiction are legal questions, and decisions of
the trial court are reviewed by the appellate court for errors of
law. See, e.g., State v.
Donovan, 307 Or. 461, 770 P2d 581 (1989)
Discussion and Argument
Defendant was convicted of seven counts of
Simulating Legal Process, ORS 162.355,
for causing papers to be served on seven individuals in the criminal
justice system, which
purported to be judgments owned to defendant by these
individuals. It was defendant's
position, and continues to be his position that the Josephine County
Circuit Court did not
have jurisdiction over him to render a judgment in this criminal
matter. It may be difficult
for people who work within the criminal justice system to fully
comprehend defendant's
position.
"Here are my . . . objections to the continuance of this case, and a
request
for dismissal of all charges.
1. This court is a legal fiction. It has jurisdiction only
over other legal fictions. I am not
a legal fiction. This court has no jurisdiction over this living,
breathing, flesh-and-blood,
sentient, natural private man. I have not nor will I confer
jurisdiction to this court through
consent or contract.
2. I am not the defendant whose name appears on the
information. I have never been, nor
shall I ever be. The burden of proof lies With the prosecution to
prove that I, this living,
breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man am the named
defendant in this
case. If the prosecutor cannot prove that, this case must be
dismissed.
3. In the last eleven (11) months of case number 02CR0617 and
this case, 03CR0170, in
seven (7) of my last ten (10) appearances before the court, I have
repeatedly challenged
the court to prove in writing, as required by law, its jurisdiction
over this living, breathing,
flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man. This Josephine
County court has
repeatedly snubbed its nose at the law and refused to do so." 1
Defendant acknowledges there is a general rule
that assumes a court has jurisdiction
over a criminal matter, as stated as follows:
______________________________________________________________________
1 There are a number of other objections contained in this
document, but these are the arguments that are
pertinent to the issue raised by this assignment of error.
"It is well settled and not disputed that a
court of general jurisdiction proceeding within
the scope of its powers will be presumed to have jurisdiction to give
the judgments and
decrees it renders until the contrary appears. In re Lyon, 128
Or. 94, 98, 265 P. 1087;
Northcut v. Lemery, 8 Or. 316, 322". State v.Lillie. 172 Or 194,
139 P.2d 576 (1943).
The appellate courts have discussed circuit court
jurisdiction over the subject matter
and over individuals, and have noted a difference between "excess of
jurisdiction" and
"absence of jurisdiction." This difference was defined as
follows:
"Excess of jurisdiction may be defined as the
state of being beyond or outside the limits
of jurisdiction, and, as distinguished from the entire absence of
jurisdiction, means that the
act, although within the general power of the judge, is not authorized,
and therefore void,
with respect to the particular case, because the conditions which alone
authorize the
exercise of his general power in that particular case are wanting, and
hence the judicial
power is not in fact lawfully invoked. Although a court may have
jurisdiction of the
subject matter and the parties, its act or order may, nevertheless, be
in excess of its
jurisdiction, as being something which it has no power to do; and it
has been said that any
act of a court in violation of statutory prohibition may be considered
to be in excess of
jurisdiction." 21 C. J. S., Courts, section 25.Garner v Garner,
182 Or. 549, 562, 189 P.
(2d) 397 (1948).
The Court of Appeals has even gone so far as
to rule that the lack of jurisdiction of the
circuit court is an error apparent on the face of the record:
"(W)here the same is apparent on the face of
the record it is the duty of the appellate
court to not the absence of jurisdiction on its own motion. Northern
Ins. Co. v. Conn
Organ, 40 Or App 785, 791, 596 P2d 605 (1979); League of Women Voters
v. Lane Co.
Bndry. Comm., 32 Or App 53, 59, 573 P2d 1255, rev den 283 Or 503
(1978)." Montez v
Gomez, 54 Or App 996, 636, P2d 1027 (1981).
The consequence of a lack of jurisdiction was
discussed by the Court of Appeals as
follows:
"When there is a want of jurisdiction over the
parties, or the subject-matter, no matter
what formalities may have been taken by the trial court, the action
thereof is void because
of its want of jurisdiction, and consequently its proceedings may be
questioned collaterally
as well as directly. They are of no more value than as though
they did not exist. But in
cases where the court has undoubted jurisdiction of the subject matter,
and of the parties,
the action of the trial court, though involving an erroneous exercise
of jurisdiction, which
might be taken advantage of by direct appeal, or by direct attack, yet
the judgment or
decree is not void though it might be set aside for the irregular or
erroneous exercise of
jurisdiction if appealed from. It may not be called in question
collaterally." Bank & Trust
Co. v. Fredrick, 271 Mich 538, 544-45, 260 NW 908, 909, (1935)" .
Wood v. White 28
Or. App. 175, 179, 558 P2d 1289 (1977).
Applying these judicial philosophies to
defendant's case, it is apparent that the circuit
court in the present case did not have jurisdiction over him. He
made continuous
requests, not only during this trial, but over the course of the twelve
months leading up to
this trial, that the court prove it had jurisdiction over him. As
noted in the Preservation
section, and the portions of transcript quoted therein, the trial court
stated on the record
that it "assumed" it had jurisdiction over defendant. This was
not sufficient. The court
should have shown to all parties' satisfaction that jurisdiction did
indeed exist. Defendant
contends in this appeal that the court did not, and thus could not have
proven it did.
Defendant had copyrighted his name.
Thus, two entities existed; one was the "juristic"
person, as defendant described it, which consisted of the, incorporated
name. The other
entity was defendant himself, a "living, breathing, flesh-and-blood,
sentient, natural,
private" person, over whom the court had no jurisdiction by virtue of
defendant having
copyrighted his name.2
__________________________________________________________________
2 It may be feared that if defendant's argument
is correct, it would wreak havoc with the criminal
justice system because the court would have to establish jurisdiction
over every defendant.
This would not be the case, however; very few individuals have
copyrighted their names
and have asserted their rights in the manner this defendant has.
Because the court had no jurisdiction, or at
least did not adequately prove its
jurisdiction, defendant could not be tried in criminal court.
Thus, the judgment against
defendant is void and the charges should be dismissed. Defendant
was deprived of his
right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States
Constitution. Indeed, federal law provides that once state and
federal jurisdiction has been
challenged, it must be proven. Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S.
1, 4, 100 S. Ct. 2502, 2504,
65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980).
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing assignment of error,
defendant respectfully requests that his
convictions be vacated.
Respectfully
Submitted,
David
E. Groom
Attorney
at Law