The Following Complaint was sent registered mail to the FBI Medford Oregon Field Office on June 7th, 2001.

This is being posted publicly on the Internet to assure that it does not meet the same Stonewalling FATE my earlier complaint lodged with the FBI on Nov. 2nd, 1977 into Government/Media Sponsored/supported Mind Control on the Internet.

June 6th, 2001

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Medford, Oregon Office

300 Crater Lake Avenue

Medford, OR 97504

Dear Sirs,

The following complaint is being submitted to your full and complete investigation of the Douglas County Oregon's Sheriff's Office for violations of Federal law: TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO)

The events of this crime have already been posted on the Internet, as will this complaint.

At approximately 0030 hrs on June 5th, 2000, I was returning home from the Seven Feathers Indian Casino in Canyonville, Oregon, some 80 miles from my home in Cave Junction.

I was driving a 2000 Pontiac Grand Am, a loaner car from my Grants Pass, Oregon Cadillac dealer while my own private automobile was being serviced. It was dark, poorly lit and misting slightly as I approached the Intersection which led to the southbound freeway on ramp of I-5 which would take me home. For all intents and purposes, there was no one else on the roadway I was travelling. No headlights to the front of me, nor headlights behind me. I made a right turn to access the highway without using my turn signals (who was there to signal?).

I crossed under the freeway overpass, then made a left turn onto the on ramp of the southbound freeway. It was then the Police emergency lights came on behind me and I pulled over and stopped.

I got out of the auto and met Sheriff's Deputy Chris Poe, badge #112.

He asked for my license and registration. I told him the automobile was a loaner from the Grants Pass dealership while my car was being serviced.

I told him I had no operator's license, as I was not required to be licensed. I was merely travelling home and was not engaged in Commercial Activity, which would require such licensing. At that point a poorly hidden smirk came upon the face of Officer Poe.

I was approximately 3/4 of a mile from the Indian Casino when stopped.

Poe ran a check on me showing my old ODL license number, but that I was unlicensed at this time (not to be confused with suspended or revoked).

Poe began to write up a citation for "unsignaled turn" and, based on the information verbally given him by me (no id was asked for), "no operators license." He assigned me a court date of 6-27-01 to appear before Canyonville Justice Court.

In the meantime, Poe stated that the car was going to be impounded for no license and no insurance. I advised Poe the loaner car was covered by my personal insurance company. That did not seem to budge Poe. I asked that he call the Shift Sergeant to the scene before proceeding any further. The Sergeant was not available, but Poe summoned a Corporal with the Sheriff's Office instead.

On his arrival, I informed the latter of the same information I had earlier communicated to Poe about my exemption from the requirements of having an ODL. The same enigmatic smirk appeared on "Corporal Dave's" face.

I indicated to both officers the loaner car could just as well be removed to the Casino's parking lot less than a mile away. They weren't having any of it. The car was going to be impounded.

I told them that they were causing me to be stranded some eighty miles from my home, and my Unalienable Right to travel upon the roadways in returning home had been unnecessarily infringed upon by them.

I told the officers then that I was not going to sign the citation with my promise to appear in court. They said it didn't matter. If I didn't show up, a warrant for my arrest would be issued. I then suggested that as long as they were going to impound the car, they may as well arrest me so I could see the magistrate today. Why issue a citation?

Poe responded that I "did not commit a crime," but "an infraction," adding that "it didn't matter though, they could STILL TAKE THE CAR." Both officers refused to take me into custody. It seemed that they were only interested in TAKING THE CAR. A towtruck arrived on the scene and removed the automobile. Deputy Poe lent me his cell phone to call my wife. "Corporal Dave" then transported me back to the casino and dropped me off there. Thus began a long night.

At approximately 9:30 am Anita and a friend arrived at the casino. Armed with proof of insurance in hand, and Anita's ODL, the bureacratic hoops began to proliferate. It was necessary for the Grants Pass auto dealership to fax the Douglas County Sheriff's Office to release the car to us. That little bit of bureaucratic administrative paperwork called a "vehicle impound release" cost my wife and me a "hundred dollars."

Next came the contact with the tow/impound yard in Canyonville, Oregon. On arrival at this eyesore of a business which sported an assorted number of junked automobiles right on the parking lot in plain and open view on a main thoroughfare, we discovered that the deteriorating building that would not pass any reasonable building inspection was all locked up and not a person was to be found on the premises at that time. We called the phone number on their sign and were met with the message that that number was "no longer in service" and there was "no new number."

We contacted a business person across the street from the ramshackle tow company building, and she had a different phone number to call. The tow operator was contacted and arrived on the scene some 45 minutes later.

A ransom payment of two hundred and two dollars ($202.00) was paid the tow operator who had removed the automobile from the freeway on ramp some 12 hours earlier this date.

Yes, folks, that $302.00 was extorted from a citizen by the uniformed Highwaymen and their cohorts, who had, in effect, stolen from another their "usual conveyance of the day." Yesterday the "usual conveyance of the day" was horses, today it's the private automobile. We all know the fate which awaited the "Horse Thieves" of yesteryear. What fate should await the modern day Horse Thieves of Today?

As for me and my wife, we have been damaged by all this. My Civil Rights were violated. My Unalienable right to Travel had been infringed upon. Money has been extorted from me and my wife by those whose salaries are paid by public taxation. They use such salaries to conduct their "color of office" extortion policies.

Reply

Do You Know Where Your Local Car Jackers Are Today?

They're employed by Douglas County, Oregon as Sheriff's Deputies!

Isn't it time we, the people of these United States of America, did something about the increasingly tyrannical policies of our government over its Citizenry?

This is my contribution. Please give it your attention and comment freely upon it. Let us begin, here in Oregon, with a national grassroots movement to SET OUR GOVERNMENT STRAIGHT. Let us make our voices heard by those "servants" we have put into office to represent us.

Following is an official complaint I sent to the FBI on Thursday, June 7th, requesting a full investigation of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office for their violation of the Federal R.I.C.O Statutes in their whimsical policy of confiscating the property of a private citizen without the benefit of rendering to that citizen their Constitutional Guarantee of due process of law or even of being first charged with a crime.

Such extortion tactics of government enforcement officers over private citizens have no place in our State of Oregon, let alone our Country.

It is time to take back control of our country from its present momentum toward the criminalization of a populace, which only serves the agenda of an ever-growing Judicial, Police, Penal Industry funded through ever-increasing tax levies and supplemented by such predatory tactics.

Read the following carefully, then lend you voice to this issue.

The Following Complaint was sent registered mail to the FBI Medford Oregon Field Office on June 7th, 2001.

This is being posted publicly on the Internet to assure that it does not meet the same Stonewalling FATE my earlier complaint lodged with the FBI on Nov. 2nd, 1977 into Government/Media Sponsored/supported Mind Control on the Internet.

June 6th, 2001

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Medford, Oregon Office

300 Crater Lake Avenue

Medford, OR 97504

Dear Sirs,

The following complaint is being submitted to your full and complete investigation of the Douglas County Oregon's Sheriff's Office for violations of Federal law: TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO)

The events of this crime have already been posted on the Internet, as will this complaint.

At approximately 0030 hrs on June 5th, 2000, I was returning home from the Seven Feathers Indian Casino in Canyonville, Oregon, some 80 miles from my home in Cave Junction.

I was driving a 2000 Pontiac Grand Am, a loaner car from my Grants Pass, Oregon Cadillac dealer while my own private automobile was being serviced. It was dark, poorly lit and misting slightly as I approached the Intersection which led to the southbound freeway on ramp of I-5 which would take me home. For all intents and purposes, there was no one else on the roadway I was travelling. No headlights to the front of me, nor headlights behind me. I made a right turn to access the highway without using my turn signals (who was there to signal?).

I crossed under the freeway overpass, then made a left turn onto the on ramp of the southbound freeway. It was then the Police emergency lights came on behind me and I pulled over and stopped.

I got out of the auto and met Sheriff's Deputy Chris Poe, badge #112.

He asked for my license and registration. I told him the automobile was a loaner from the Grants Pass dealership while my car was being serviced.

I told him I had no operator's license, as I was not required to be licensed. I was merely travelling home and was not engaged in Commercial Activity, which would require such licensing. At that point a poorly hidden smirk came upon the face of Officer Poe.

I was approximately 3/4 of a mile from the Indian Casino when stopped.

Poe ran a check on me showing my old ODL license number, but that I was unlicensed at this time (not to be confused with suspended or revoked).

Poe began to write up a citation for "unsignaled turn" and, based on the information verbally given him by me (no id was asked for), "no operators license." He assigned me a court date of 6-27-01 to appear before Canyonville Justice Court.

In the meantime, Poe stated that the car was going to be impounded for no license and no insurance. I advised Poe the loaner car was covered by my personal insurance company. That did not seem to budge Poe. I asked that he call the Shift Sergeant to the scene before proceeding any further. The Sergeant was not available, but Poe summoned a Corporal with the Sheriff's Office instead.

On his arrival, I informed the latter of the same information I had earlier communicated to Poe about my exemption from the requirements of having an ODL. The same enigmatic smirk appeared on "Corporal Dave's" face.

I indicated to both officers the loaner car could just as well be removed to the Casino's parking lot less than a mile away. They weren't having any of it. The car was going to be impounded.

I told them that they were causing me to be stranded some eighty miles from my home, and my Unalienable Right to travel upon the roadways in returning home had been unnecessarily infringed upon by them.

I told the officers then that I was not going to sign the citation with my promise to appear in court. They said it didn't matter. If I didn't show up, a warrant for my arrest would be issued. I then suggested that as long as they were going to impound the car, they may as well arrest me so I could see the magistrate today. Why issue a citation?

Poe responded that I "did not commit a crime," but "an infraction," adding that "it didn't matter though, they could STILL TAKE THE CAR." Both officers refused to take me into custody. It seemed that they were only interested in TAKING THE CAR. A towtruck arrived on the scene and removed the automobile. Deputy Poe lent me his cell phone to call my wife. "Corporal Dave" then transported me back to the casino and dropped me off there. Thus began a long night.

At approximately 9:30 am Anita and a friend arrived at the casino. Armed with proof of insurance in hand, and Anita's ODL, the bureacratic hoops began to proliferate. It was necessary for the Grants Pass auto dealership to fax the Douglas County Sheriff's Office to release the car to us. That little bit of bureaucratic administrative paperwork called a "vehicle impound release" cost my wife and me a "hundred dollars."

Next came the contact with the tow/impound yard in Canyonville, Oregon. On arrival at this eyesore of a business which sported an assorted number of junked automobiles right on the parking lot in plain and open view on a main thoroughfare, we discovered that the deteriorating building that would not pass any reasonable building inspection was all locked up and not a person was to be found on the premises at that time. We called the phone number on their sign and were met with the message that that number was "no longer in service" and there was "no new number."

We contacted a business person across the street from the ramshackle tow company building, and she had a different phone number to call. The tow operator was contacted and arrived on the scene some 45 minutes later.

A ransom payment of two hundred and two dollars ($202.00) was paid the tow operator who had removed the automobile from the freeway on ramp some 12 hours earlier this date.

Yes, folks, that $302.00 was extorted from a citizen by the uniformed Highwaymen and their cohorts, who had, in effect, stolen from another their "usual conveyance of the day." Yesterday the "usual conveyance of the day" was horses, today it's the private automobile. We all know the fate which awaited the "Horse Thieves" of yesteryear. What fate should await the modern day Horse Thieves of Today?

As for me and my wife, we have been damaged by all this. My Civil Rights were violated. My Unalienable right to Travel had been infringed upon. Money has been extorted from me and my wife by those whose salaries are paid by public taxation. They use such salaries to conduct their "color of office" extortion policies.

Reply

For the facts of the case and actions taken to date see: http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch24.htm#Car

Although our Court System has departed from dispensing justice under our U.S. Constitution and has adopted the Maritime/Admiralty Corporate Instrument favored by the New World Order, I, for one, have no intention of either resisting or capitulating to the authorities. When they come for me, I will demand ALL of my Inalienable and Constitutional Rights be recognized.

My errant Law Enforcement "brothers" will first have to arrest me and declare a 63-year-old retired Police Sergeant living on pension here in southern Oregon, one who has never been arrested nor spent a single minute behind bars in his entire life to be -- A CRIMINAL.

When words, not actions, dictate who and what transforms a law-abiding citizen into a criminal, our Country is in deep trouble, for it has taken a self-destructive turn away from the Constitutional Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Neither a crime nor an infraction occurred in the early morning hours of June 5th, 2001, except for a Douglas County-authorized "car jacking" by two Douglas County Sheriff's officers. I was stopped for no cause by an agent from the Douglas County, Oregon Sheriff's Office on a "fishing expedition." I was cited, my automobile (loaner) was impounded, leaving me stranded some 80 miles away from home, and was caused to pay $302.00 ransom to get the automobile back and return it to the Grants Pass dealership that was servicing my own auto.

I shall not respond to the court date given. Why? To do so would cause me to relinquish my Inalienable and Civil Rights under the Constitution by acknowledging jurisdiction of such a Maritime (commercial, equity, business) court over a sovereign Citizen protected by his Inalienable and Constitutional (civil) Rights.

There was a time when traffic citations required the signature of the "offender" which created a contract with the state for one's "promise to appear." If the offender refused to sign the cite, he/she was taken into custody immediately. If the offender signed the cite, then failed to appear at the specified date and time, a warrant was sworn out for the individual based on such breach of contract. Oregon has dispensed with the requirement of a signature on its traffic citations. Such a departure is a veritable gold mine for a justice system lagging in funds and in need to "feather its own nest".

As a followup to this criminal action perpetrated upon a lone "traveller" by agents for the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, I filed a criminal complaint with the FBI on June 7th, 2001, to investigate said Douglas County Sheriff's Office for violations of Title 18--Crimes and Criminal Procedure: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statutes.

This seizing of property by Law Enforcement without due process arose from the "WAR ON DRUGS." It was sold to the public as a control against money laundering. That narrowly defined government moneymaking proposition has now extended its tentacles well beyond the Drug War to reach further and deeper into the pockets and properties of innocent citizens. Such is the example of incremental conditioning of a public to accept the chains of slavery through techniques of intimidation, force and fear. Anybody out there notice it? If not, you've not been paying attention as your sovereignty has been slowly, inexorably, incrementally stripped away. You have been sold out by your leaders who are now jockeying for position to establish their place in the NEW WORLD ORDER.

I intend to demand all of my rights under the Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Bill of /Rights of 1689, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights of 1787, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In any criminal proceeding I shall demand my common law right to a common law jury of twelve veniremen of my peers to decide all issues of law and fact, including my right to argue the Constitution as my theory of the case to the jury. If, any or all of these "revered" legal concepts are discarded out of hand by the court, what does that reveal about the essence of man's law (administered by clever word twisting lawyers) which has served as the bulwark of civilized societies since the earliest of civilizations?

My position is simple. I shall ask the Maritime law/Traffic Court Judge in Roseburg, Oregon that the issue which stands before the court be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

To substantiate my position, I intend to establish that:

In this matter, my Inalienable Rights to Liberty along with my civil rights expressed in the IVth, Vth, and XIVth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution were violated by Deputy Poe of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office.

Inalienable Rights are inarguable. These God-given rights cannot be abridged, infringed upon, surrendered, transferred, converted, or legislated out of existence, nor can they be converted into privilege, as in the issue being brought before the court.

While the State of Oregon has the right to license and regulate those who use our nation's highways for purposes of business or commercial enterprise, that right does not include the regulation of a citizen's right to Travel in one's private automobile for private purposes.

Case law will support this position, for the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states:

" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html#14sec-1

Case law decision regarding the XIVth Amendment also states "Insofar as the police power is utilized by a State, the means employed to effect its exercise can be neither arbitrary nor oppressive but must bear a real and substantial relation to an end which is public, specifically, the public health, public safety, or public morals, or some other phase of the general welfare. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111 -12 (1928); Treigle v. Acme Homestead Ass'n, 297 U.S. 189, 197 (1936)

Amendment IV reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Deputy Poe abitrarily seized the automobile, for the record will show no probable cause existed for the officer to stop my automobile in the first place. He was merely on a "fishing expedition!"

Amendment V reads:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again, Deputy Poe seized the automobile, the private property, the loaner car in my custody, without cause when results of a stolen car check, which should have been run by him, would have proved negative.

The seizing of the automobile by Deputy Poe, Agent for the Douglas County Sheriff's Office without just cause violates the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, my Inalienable Right to Liberty has been infringed upon by Deputy Poe.

Established Case law has said "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

Many will ask why I have chosen to "show my hand" in this matter and have not waited to reveal my case until I stand before the bench. Quite simply it is to HOLD ALL PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. TO WAKE AMERICANS UP! It has been my observation that our present court/law enforcement/penal industry is corrupt. Justice cannot be expected to be dispensed by Institutions which no longer acknowledge that they are bound by the U.S. Constitution but are operating as instruments for a NEW WORLD ORDER by dispensing "justice" through Corporate Maritime Law.

What was it that Patrick Henry said on March 23, 1775:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased

at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take; but as for me,

give me liberty or give me death!"

The following libelous attacks arise from the keyboards of assorted anonymous government/media disinformation agents who, through disruption, intimidation, and character assassination control the flow of information on public Usenet Newsgroups/Forums

I wasn't a carjacking Ray. You broke the law.

Re: COPS and CONFISCATION: The New Trend In America! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:36:59 GMT

From: Hope you end up paying through the nose (unknown)

You have no right at all to pose a danger to people on the road. I for one don't trust you with anything, much less a potentially dangerous motor vehicle. If you don't show for your hearing, that's great. That will give them all they need to arrest you and really ring the money out of you. Do it Ray. Please.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You were forcibly retired, for exacty this reason

Re: COPS and CONFISCATION: The New Trend In America! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:40:25 GMT

From: Where'd you say you went to law school? (unknown)

You're mentally ill, and screaming you were a cop for about a few years several decades ago doesn't change the fact you were forcibly retired. Yeah Ray: shove that fact down their throats. Let's get rid of you once and for all. Where did you say you went to law schoo;l again? Be sure and share that information with them too you kook.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To bad you never did time for your child abuse

Re: COPS and CONFISCATION: The New Trend In America! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:43:40 GMT

From: Or all that fraud. You are criminal Ray (unknown)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You received both due process & equal protection

Re: COPS and CONFISCATION: The New Trend In America! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:46:06 GMT

From: You just don't like the law. Shove it. (unknown)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your "hand" is a crock.

Re: COPS and CONFISCATION: The New Trend In America! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:50:35 GMT

From: Your'e a retard with a God complex (unknown)

You've obviously never taken a course in Constituional Law. Obviously. And the case law you cite here is ancient: you're not even using second series reporters!!! My bet is you know all this full well, and don't have the nerve to show up and make such an inane argument. I think that is what you're really saying here: your case is strong, you will prevail, but ***you don't have the balls to show up and be accountable for your actions.*** What does this ay about your juvenile, self-absrobed personality? It means you never matured past teh age of 5, and you aren't man enough to stand up for yourself, say what you have to say, and take the consequences. In other words what we've all known all along: you're a retard with a God complex.

Reply

rick@okelley.org IP: 12.14.232.44 wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com wrote:

posted 06-11-2001 04:42 PM

rk: "I shall not respond to the court date given. Why? To do so would cause me to relinquish my Inalienable and Civil Rights under the Constitution by acknowledging jurisdiction of such a Maritime (commercial, equity, business) court over a sovereign Citizen protected by his Inalienable and Constitutional (civil) Rights."

ro: This is very much how Ruby Ridge was given birth. A citizen standing up for his God given liberties against a nation of citizens that has been conditioned beyond understanding to believe and accept what ever their government tells them to think and accept.

ro: I too am a retired law enforcement officer who started his career fighting in the trenches of our War on Drugs as a deep cover undercover officer. I was young then and like mosts loyal Americans believed and accepted the government's line without question. As the years went by I saw first hand the destruction that occurs from enforcing our drug laws as we waged war upon our own citizens who just wanted to be left alone to exercise their right of self determination. I saw honest law enforcement officers corrupted by the process of waging war upon the citizens they only sought to protect and serve but somewhere along the way they lost sight of that goal. I speak out and privately a number of my law enforcement bothers tell me they agree with me, only they fear the system and are unwilling to take such a stand.

ro: Sadly, it is probably too late to awaken this nation. Many have tried by different methods and all have failed, some giving their lives in the process, sometimes taking a few lives in the process and America continues down this path not even skipping a beat. I wish you luck in your efforts, and I offer no advice because in the end the choices are yours alone to make, no one in America will risk their property or life for your cause, that I am certain. Good luck.

Rick,

rk: thank you my *Brother Officer* for being there. If only we could touch and rekindle the spirit in our Law Enforcement and Military BROTHERS which existed when they entered the service, this crisis facing our country would be over in an eternal blink of an eye. When does the spirit of public service turn into the NUREMBURG excuse " I was just following orders" --- "I was just following policy" !?

rk: The future of this nation rests in the hands of our Nation's defenders against enemies foreign and domestic. Make no mistake about it, the enemy the American Public faces today is their own DOMESTIC LEADERSHIP!

rk: What will our "Brothers in Uniform" do when it comes time for them to face such enemy in "their moment of Truth?"

Reply

The following response was written to my wife. It has not been edited. It reveals the debased, corrupt, malicious Spirit of a present day American male. Do you now understand who IS SPEAKING for America? Can America Survive under the influence of such degraded Spirit?

WAKE UP AMERICA!!

Sign the petition (The one that icenine and his Government/Media sponsored/supported disinformation agent cohorts have trashed) at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RayNita1/petition.html

Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:09:37 GMT

"The Nine" (icenine@locnet.digitalchainsaw.com)

ak: > Hmmm.... It's been very quiet here for the past couple of days. Why are all the human predators who infest these newsgroups/forums so silent?

in: Anita! How's it hangin? Has the syphillis cleared up?

ak: > Is it because their five-year-long search to meet my husband's challenge to find a "contradiction in essence" in all of his writings on and off the Internet has failed *because there are none -- because everything he has written is true*?

in: No, bitch, it's because your buffalo of a husband has lain dormant for days. See, he doesn't post his screed umpteen newgroups, no one feels the need to rip his ass to shreds.

in: Funny how that works, eh?

ak: > Have these malicious people who daily prey on others been struck dumb to find they've been face-to-face for the past five years with an *honest man who simply speaks his truth* and they've been too blind, deaf, and ignorant to see it?

in: Your slip is showing.

ak: > Are they struck dumb to find that their malicious attacks on Ray and me must fail because *truth* can stand up to anything?

in: And I suppose this is why your husband has pimped you out for this post, Batty?

in: It's real simple: He posts stupid shit, he gets called on it. Several times over. Truth, my rosy red one, lady. It ain't truth until you back it the fuck up, and you can't.

in: (awaiting the inevitable "Truth is all around you, much like the mitichlorians" response.)

ak: >Will these predators now turn their vicious attacks upon you and/or your family?

in: Why? Only person I see needing a reality check is you and Ray.

in: (snip Anita's pathetic begging)

in: But, I'll see if I can get some more signatures for your "petition", Anita. It's the least I can do.

in: You're welcome, dipdunk.

_______________________________________________

IceNine

The Left Of Center InterNetwork http://locnet.digitalchainsaw.com

The Gas Station Washroom on the Information SuperHighway

NEW MIGHTY QUINN SHOW 5/27

5 POEMS ADDED TO XFACTOR 6/3

Reply

Our Court System has departed from dispensing justice under our U.S. Constitution and has adopted the Maritime/Admiralty Corporate Instrument favored by the New World Order. Their flag is the MILITARY FLAG. It is described as follows:

Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. Chapter 1 Sections 1,2, and 3: Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed Forces. (Ah! Law by EXECUTIVE ORDER when implemented in non emergency periods and peacetime. rk)

THE FLAG HAS JURISDICTIONAL IMPLICATIONS Pursuant to the "LAW OF THE LAND," a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown.

Under what is called international law, "The law of the flag," a ship owner who sends the vessel into foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter INTO CONTRACTS with the shipmaster that he INTENDS THE LAW OF THE FLAG TO REGULATE THOSE CONTRACTS, and they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all. "RUHSTRAT vs PEOPLE, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133,49 LRA 181, 76 am, ST. Rep. 30, citing (Bouviers Law Dictionary, Rawles Rev., 799,800

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

Such display of the Military Flag in a court of law signifies the jurisdiction of the court is based not in Constitutional Law but rather, that of Admiralty-Maritime law.

Question: Has Martial Law been declared in these United States of America?

If so, has our U.S. Constitution already been suspended?

Are American Citizens presently living under MARTIAL LAW?

If so, have American Citizens been made aware of this shift away from their umbrella of Constitutional protections?

Is the average AMERICAN even conscious of this shift of governance designed to strip away our Constitutional Rights and enslave our and future generations through a NEW WORLD ORDER?

The fact is that neither a crime nor an infraction occurred in the early morning hours of June 5th, 2001, except for a Douglas County-authorized "car jacking" by two Douglas County Sheriff's officers.

Could it simply have been a case of piracy on the Highway by agents of Corporate America??

I was stopped for no cause by an agent from the Douglas County, Oregon Sheriff's Office on a "fishing expedition."

Here is the existing case law, that Sheriff's Deputy Chris Poe # 112 thumbed his nose at.

His comment: "I am just following Department Policy."

Have our Law enforcement officers shelved their individual integrity and judgment to become mindless automatons primed only to enforce policy without question?

If so, what makes them any different from the Nazi military officers tried for war crimes at the Nuremburg trials of the last century who used the same excuse of "I was just following orders!!"

Additionally, the U.S. courts and existing case law have held:

"To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.) "

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).

"The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected."

But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.

The facts of the instant case will show that my right to travel freely upon the roadways of this State were infringed upon for no cause. No damage occured to anyone by my actions and Douglas County Sheriff's Deputy Chris Poe had no cause to stop my automobile in its progress.

I was deprived of due process when Poe and his fellow officer refused to arrest me on the spot when I requested they do so. They both chimed in that I DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME, but an INFRACTION. (I have no contract with the State of Oregon in the form of privilege dispensing license.) They then indicated that should I not respond to the citation date (as I advised them openly that I would not) a warrant for my arrest would be issued, and I would be arrested and brought before the court.

The question any aware person should be asking of themselves is what future events would alter the unchangeable circumstances wherein THEY REFUSED TO ARREST ME at the traffic stop, yet issued a citation which did not contain a place for, nor require a signature to create a *binding contract* of a *promise to appear* which would precipitate the future issuance of an arrest warrant.

"Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. It has been previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles."

As a followup to this criminal action perpetrated upon a lone "traveller" by agents for the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, I filed a criminal complaint with the FBI on June 7th, 2001, to investigate said Douglas County Sheriff's Office for violations of Title 18--Crimes and Criminal Procedure: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statutes.

This seizing of property by Law Enforcement without due process arose from the "WAR ON DRUGS." It was sold to the public as a control against money laundering. That narrowly defined government moneymaking proposition has now extended its tentacles well beyond the Drug War to reach further and deeper into the pockets and properties of innocent citizens. Such is the example of incremental conditioning of a public to accept the chains of slavery through techniques of intimidation, force and fear. Anybody out there notice it? If not, you've not been paying attention as your sovereignty has been slowly, inexorably, incrementally stripped away. You have been sold out by your leaders who are now jockeying for position to establish their place in the NEW WORLD ORDER.

Make no mistake about it. Should I be arrested and forcibly brought before the court in Douglas County on this issue, I intend to demand all of my rights under the Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Bill of /Rights of 1689, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights of 1787, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In any criminal proceeding I shall demand my common law right to a common law jury of twelve veniremen of my peers to decide all issues of law and fact, including my right to argue the Constitution as my theory of the case to the jury.

But first I shall ask the Maritime law/Traffic Court Judge in Roseburg, Oregon that the issue which stands before the court be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

To substantiate my position, I intend to establish that:

In this matter, my Inalienable Rights to Liberty, along with my civil rights expressed in the IVth, Vth, and XIVth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, were violated by Deputy Poe of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office.

Inalienable Rights are inarguable. These God-given rights cannot be abridged, infringed upon, surrendered, transferred, converted, or legislated out of existence, nor can they be converted into privilege, as in the issue being brought before the court.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

While the State of Oregon has the right to license and regulate those who use our nation's highways for purposes of business or commercial enterprise, that right does not include the regulation of a citizen's right to Travel in one's private automobile for private purposes.

"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.

Case law will support this position, for the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states:

" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html#14sec-1

Case law decision regarding the XIVth Amendment also states "Insofar as the police power is utilized by a State, the means employed to effect its exercise can be neither arbitrary nor oppressive but must bear a real and substantial relation to an end which is public, specifically, the public health, public safety, or public morals, or some other phase of the general welfare." Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111 -12 (1928); Treigle v. Acme Homestead Ass'n, 297 U.S. 189, 197 (1936)

Amendment IV reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Deputy Poe abitrarily seized the automobile, for the record will show no probable cause existed for the officer to stop my automobile in the first place. He was merely on a "fishing expedition!"

Amendment V reads:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again, Deputy Poe seized the automobile, the private property, the loaner car in my custody, without cause when results of a stolen car check, which should have been run by him, would have proved negative.

The seizing of the automobile by Deputy Poe, Agent for the Douglas County Sheriff's Office without just cause violates the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, my Inalienable Right to Liberty has been infringed upon by Deputy Poe.

Established Case law has said "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

Many will ask why I have chosen to "show my hand" in this matter and have not waited to reveal my case until I stand before the bench. Quite simply it is to HOLD ALL PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. TO WAKE AMERICANS UP! It has been my observation that our present court/law enforcement/penal industry is corrupt. Justice cannot be expected to be dispensed by Institutions which no longer acknowledge that they are bound by the U.S. Constitution but are operating as instruments for a NEW WORLD ORDER by dispensing "justice" through Corporate Maritime Law.

For those of you who have attempted to access the legal brief on Driving Privileges vs Rights at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html you will have been met by the following (Note the source of the page at bottom? NWO???):

Document not found

The requested URL http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html does not exist. Please check your spelling and capitalization and try again.

Look at the SCS Web Tips Page for clues on how to find what you're looking for by yourself and a list of frequently accessed sites that have moved.

If you believe there may be a problem with this web server, send a full copy of this error message and a description of what you were expecting to webmaster@cs.cmu.edu.

Do not send mail before checking the web tips page listed above!

You may also want to notify the maintainer of the referring page (use your browser's "Back" button).

Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science

Since the brief is a matter of public record, I shall be displaying it for ALL TO READ on my own Website http://www.arkenterprises.com

What was it that Patrick Henry said on March 23, 1775:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Reply

Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:54:26 GMT

queenkristine@thecastle.com (kristine), wrote:

arkent@arkenterprises.com (Raymond Karczewski) wrote:

rk: > > Such display of the Military Flag in a court of law signifies the jurisdiction of the court is based not in Constitutional Law but rather, that of Admiralty-Maritime law.

rk: >> Question: Has Martial Law been declared in these United States of America?

k: what an interesting leap of thinking, there, bRat....the "court system" (which court system, btw?) had some flag designated that as theirs and is "military", (whatever that means), therefore america is under martial law, according to the logic of bRat. (note: your cites are totally incorrect.)

rk: Truth can only be SEEN! Truth can never be found through the blind venue of Satanic (the Opposer) driven Intellectual thought. All that can be expected at the end of such a futile intellectual search is the conceptual reflection, the *idea* of truth, which can then be dualistically debated endlessly bringing no closure, no understanding, no peace, only arbitrary decision and power to the decision maker. Our justice system is a prime example of that, is it not?

rk: >> If so, has our U.S. Constitution already been suspended?

rk: >> Are American Citizens presently living under MARTIAL LAW?

k: > gee, not according to the definition of martial law.

rk: See what I mean about endless nit-picking at the level of dualistic debate?

k: > but then, since you got a traffic ticket and had your car impounded by the police, i can see where you think all of america is living under martial law.

rk: kristine, for one who purportedly claims to have graduated from law school, your leap of logic in the above statement is an example of the "trained" legal mind's deceptive ability to twist meanings via the letter of the word.

k: > is your ego really THAT large??

rk: >> The fact is that neither a crime nor an infraction occurred in the early morning hours of June 5th, 2001, except for a Douglas County-authorized "car jacking" by two Douglas County Sheriff's officers.

k: > you were driving without a license bRat. the fact that you don't like the law, don't want to recognize the law or live under that particular law doesn't mean it doesn't exist, can't be enforced or that once caught, you don't have to live with the consequences.

rk: It is not my claim that the law doesn't exist. That is your misperception. It is my statement that the law is unconstitutional when applied to one's Unalienable Right to Liberty, which includes the free and unimpeded travel upon the roadways of this country in one's private automobile, the "usual conveyance of the day," for private purposes. I have no problem with the state licensing of "motor vehicles" which use the public roadways for business or commercial purposes. That is the proper venue of the Admiralty-Maritime court; i.e., Traffic Court.

rk: >> I was stopped for no cause by an agent from the Douglas County, Oregon Sheriff's Office on a "fishing expedition."

k: bullshit. you failed to use a turn signal when making a turn and were driving without a license. gee, the farther we get from the incident, the more hazy the facts get for you.

rk: I can understand why the facts are hazy for you. YOU WEREN'T THERE. You see, you are relying upon your own deliberate misinterpretation of another's words which you read on a computer screen. I can ABSOLUTELY say that you misinterpreted the words because I was the author of the words. YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND what I communicated and thus initiate an argument based on your own ignorance. Hell, isn't it?

k: > and when you ran a stop sign in northern california, recieved a ticket (a fine you have yet to pay) you declared that the CHP was practicing "extortion".

rk: See my comments above. You have a tendency to argue over matters of which you have but a limited grasp. But then again, that is the very nature of Ignorance, is it not?

k: > you have a tendancy to blame others for your mistakes, bRat.

rk: Perhaps you will point out the evidence of such blame. Betcha can't do it!!

rk: >> Here is the existing case law, that Sheriff's Deputy Chris Poe, # 112, thumbed his nose at.

k: > where is the hell is there case law that supports you driving without a license? or failing to use a turn signal?

rk: Obviously you missed it. The case law is cited in the various articles of recent and past threads. I'll not repeat them here. Do some homework. Otherwise, all you are left with are your present tactics by which you seek to create a deliberate "contradiction in essence" and then attempt hold another accountable for it.

rk: >> Have our Law enforcement officers shelved their individual integrity and judgment to become mindless automatons primed only to enforce policy without question?

k: > yeah i sorta like that in my policemen...their ability to enforce the law equally and justly. you are just irked cause you got caught driving without a license.

rk: So you like mind-numbed, trained automatons who exhibit no judgement in the performance of their duties, eh? Why does that come as no surprise?

rk: >> If so, what makes them any different from the Nazi military officers tried for war crimes at the Nuremburg trials of the last century who used the same excuse of "I was just following orders!!"

k: > the fact that you can not 1) discern the difference between the nazi holocaust and you recieving a ticket on a oregon road for driving without a license

rk: The Spirit of blind and rigid coercive enforcement policies can be found as the basis for the establishiment of tyranny and enslavement of societies since the earliest of civilizations. Some are gross, some are subtle. Most are able to see the gross (when it is ALREADY TOO LATE for action to be taken). Few see it at the subtle stages (when ACTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN).

rk: The time to stem tyranny is at the subtle level. The gross only ends in bloody revolutions. I fully acknowledge your personal ignorance as being your personal block to the understanding of my comments.

k: > and 2) the fact that you equate what happened to you as the same as what happened to millions of jews, gypsies and poles is mind boggling.

rk: See what I mean about "BLIND IGNORANCE?" I can understand why your mind is boggled.

k: > and santimonious.

k: > and totally insane.

rk: Only from the perspective of a BASSACKWARD conditioned (trained) "legal mind," eh?

rk: >> Additionally, the U.S. courts and existing case law have held:

rk: >> "To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.) "

rk: >> "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).

k: > bzzzzzt. sorry pal. this case HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with driving without a license. you were not denied access to public roades under this case law, but because you WERE DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE.

rk: Perhaps you ought to stow your misdirections until this case is over and the AMERICAN PUBLIC sees for itself whether we are living in a Constitutional Republic or in a state of Martial Law, eh?

k: > the state can not deny persons the right to use the road, but under that law and others, one must observe and follow ALL the applicable laws in order to be afforded that right.

rk: How can the State *afford* a citizen an Unalienable Right? Can you understand, after your years of legal conditioning, the BASSACKWARDNESS OF a fragmented, linear, trained legal mind, clearly unable to grasp the utter simplicity of Unalienable Rights? Here's the simplicity of Unalienable Rights again. See if you can't grasp it this time.

rk: Unalienable Rights are inarguable (because they are holistic). These God-given rights cannot be abridged, infringed upon, surrendered, transferred, converted, or legislated out of existence, nor can they be converted into privilege, as in the issue being brought before the court.

k: > this nuance seems to allude you.

rk: Pay attention to the statement which immediately follows. There you have the answer to your many misdirections.

rk: > > But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.

rk: No harm was done. NO ONE BUT MYSELF AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTY, WHO WAS PARKED OFF THE STREET WITH HIS LIGHTS OUT, WERE PRESENT WHEN THE RIGHT TURN WAS MADE.

rk: There was no one to signal to.

rk: There was no danger posed to anyone.

rk: No one's rights were infringed upon by such an unsignaled right turn.

rk: So where is the damage caused that is necessary for one to be charged with a crime? Such a situation can be likened to the conundrum "if no one is around when a tree falls in the forest falls, does it make a noise?"). You seem to be a blind advocate bent on creating a state of unawareness and knee jerk, robotic responsiveness to artificial, conditioned stimuli, even when such actions are inappropriate and in themselves are the cause of inattention and accidents. I submit it is this kind of conditioning that accounts for the unawareness responsible for the soaring accident rates in this country. The dumbed-down public has readily adopted an unaware state of conditioned consciousness and has thus given up their God-given state of AWARENESS.

k: > you committed a crime. you drove without a license. which part of that don't you get?

rk: Clearly I DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME. Even both deputies have already admitted to that FACT when they refused to arrest me.

rk: kristine, you may have graduated from law school, but I can fully understand why you are not PRACTICING LAW.

rk: >> The facts of the instant case will show that my right to travel freely upon the roadways of this State were infringed upon for no cause. No damage occured to anyone by my actions and Douglas County Sheriff's Deputy Chris Poe had no cause to stop my automobile in its progress.

k: > you have no right to travely freely upon roadways without a license.

rk: WANNA BET?!!!

rk: As long as our government will admit that as *public servant* administrators of our country they still operate under the tenets of our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, and our Constitution has not yet been suspended, set aside, converting government into a CORPORATE BODY bound to Admiralty-Maritime law, you and millions of others who have been defrauded by your government leaders into allowing them to convert your UNALIENABLE RIGHTS into "privileges" are in for quite a surprise when your own ignorance is ultimately brought to the light. The question is, can you handle such a revelation?

rk: >> (I have no contract with the State of Oregon in the form of privilege dispensing license.)

k: > yes you do.

k: > as soon as you turned onto a state maintained, public road of the state of oregon, you entered into a contract with oregon to abide by and adhere to the laws of that state concerning operation of a motor vehicle.

rk: What kind of contract is that? Unilateral, bilateral? Expound on that if you dare!!

k: > the fact that you, personally, don't like the laws or agree with them doesn't mean you are exempt from following them.

rk: One not only has a right, but a duty to refuse to obey laws which run counter to our U.S. Constitution. That is of course, unless our Constitution is no longer in force. Then of course, ALL BETS ARE OFF, and you can KISS THIS COUNTRY GOODBYE!!

rk: >> But first I shall ask the Maritime law/Traffic Court Judge in Roseburg, Oregon that the issue which stands before the court be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

k: > (snipped for brevity and sanity)

rk: I can understand your need to not strain your capacity for deeper understanding which is necessary to transcend the level of slogans and platitudes.

k: > i would give anything to be present at that court hearing when you try and introduce all that case law that has nothing whatsoever to do with driving without a license.

k: > i notice you didn't answer my question from my last post:

rk: Oh "agent of Satan, " (as found inyour prideful sig line)I don't respond to insipid and inane taunts. That "Resist not Evil" lesson was learned long ago.

k: > what would happen if it were decided tomorrow that no one need a license to operate any non commercial vehicle...no tests to determine proficiency or competency. could anyone at any age drive? with any disablility?

rk: I will leave you to your own speculations. I deal with the "WHAT IS!"

k: > my dad is 77 and totally deaf...would he be allowed to drive? how about my 88 year old aunt who, by law is legally blind (20/300) but with her thick glasses on could probably manage to drive herself to the piggly wiggly?

rk: Stow the misdirections. You'll find no audience for them here!

k: > what about if we take your advice and abolish the rules of the road?

rk: I have given no advice! I have merely related my personal circumstances.

k: > You seem to think that each individual should be able to determine when and where a turn signal is used, how and when one can change lanes etc. should everyone who wants to drive be able to drive whenever and wherever and however they choose?

rk: Those are your argumentative assumptions and speculations. They have little to do with the FACTS of the case.

k: > and if there is to be regulations and rules...who should make them up and put them into law and enforce them? you?

rk: See above comments about argumentative assumptions and speculations.

k: > when does NOT infringing on YOUR civil rights begin to infringe on MINE????

rk: When harm is ACTUALLY caused by the action of another -- Actual, not Speculative! Are you capable of discerning the difference? Law based on the "WHAT IF" is always the beginning of TYRANNY and DEATH of that SOCIETY.

k: > an individual can not decide he does not like a particular law(s), choose not to abide by them, and when caught breaking the law(s), claim that he doesn't believe in the law, therefore does not need to follow it or accept the consequences that comes from not following it.

rk: Why not? This country, The United States of America, separated from England and was founded on such INTELLIGENT DISCRIMINATION!

k: > as much as it annoys you, bRat, you can not pick and choose which laws you want to follow.

rk: Sure I Can! Intelligence demands no less when tyranny threatens to destroy our Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

k: > laws are made for the *greater* good, not for the special wishes of one special individual in oregon who thinks he is above it all. what would happen if it were decided tomorrow that no one need a license to operate any

rk: We would be ONE STEP CLOSER to dispelling the past and present tyranny which has made this planet a HELL ON EARTH.

--

kristine queen of the undead afab army

* * * * * * * *

i'm an agent of satan, but my duties are mostly ceremonial

Reply

For those readers who have been following the thread "Are American Citizens Living Under Martial Law?" -- the following is what I will present to the court as my motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the charges brought against me by Agents of the Douglas County Sheriff's office in the early morning hours of June 5th, 2001.

Why am I posting this on the worldwide Internet? To neutralize the corruptness of power wielded by Controlled Government Institutions behind the secrecy of closed door decision making.

Let the light of Truth shine equally upon all -- and thus hold accountable the heretofore unaccountable government officials who seem to have strayed from their oath of office when sworn in as Public Servants promising to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Now comes the Accused, a Free and Natural Person appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this brief in support of notice for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, stating as follows: herein, to move the court to dismiss the charges against this Freeman for lack of jurisdiction.

The "Accused" asserts all of his rights under the Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights of 1787, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The "Accused" waives none of his rights and demands all of them at all times. The "Accused" demands his common law right to a common law jury of twelve veniremen of his peers to decide all issues of law and fact, including his right to argue the Constitution as his theory of the case to the jury.

The "Accused" hereby makes a motion that this case now before this court be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

He cites further from:

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."

HAGENS vs LAVINE, 15 U.S. 533m N-3

On September 23rd, 1999, the "Accused" allowed his valid Oregon Driver's License ODL 4142036 to expire. At no time during the years the "Accused" possessed a valid Oregon Driver's License was such license suspended or revoked for any reason by the State of Oregon. The "Accused" did not renew his license, but instead reasserted his Unalienable Right to Liberty which includes the freedom to travel upon our public roadways without seeking privilege through licensing by the State.

Thus ended the "Accused" 46 years of licensed "driving" history which began at the age of 16. The "Accused" made public notification of such act of "nonrenewal" to the Oregon Governor's Office, State Attorney General's Office, the Josephine County District Attorney's Office and the Josephine County Sheriff's Office, the county of the "Accused" residence. Subsequent to such notification, and up to the 5th of June, 2001, the date of the incident which is the reason for this appearance in court, the "Accused" has been allowed to Travel Freely and Unimpeded upon the roadways of Oregon without incident or infringement upon his Unalienable Rights by Oregon Law Enforcement Officers..

At the age of 16, and throughout the years until the "Accused" 62nd birthdate, he possessed a valid driver's license. His ignorance of Constitutional Law (which existed even throughout the his career as a California Police Sergeant) foreclosed upon any information which revealed that at the time of application for such license, the "Accused" was not fully informed nor made fully aware by the State that the license was a contract designed to entice him into giving up some of his Constitutional Rights as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. If, at the time the "Accused" made application for these licenses, he had been informed of the true intent of the license agreement, the "Accused" would not have accepted the State of Oregon's, or any other State's contractual privilege to drive.

The accused, Raymond Karczewski, a natural person and a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the State of Oregon, being of sound mind and fully aware of the pains and penalties of perjury state the following:

WHEREAS, the Oregon Driver's License requires a signature with apparent agreement or contractual obligations;

and,

WHEREAS, Oregon Statute requires a licensing agreement to operate a motor vehicle upon the public thoroughfares;

and

WHEREAS, One, Raymond Karczewski, feels compelled under implied threat of statutory reprisals, should he fail to obtain a driver's license,

and;

WHEREAS, one cannot be compelled to seek a privilege that is possessed by Right;

and,

WHEREAS, the right to travel is one of the inherited and Unalienable Rights which government was instituted to protect;

and

WHEREAS, a natural person cannot be compelled to waive a Right;

and,

WHEREAS, the State of Oregon assumes power it does not have to compel the demonstration of proof of the licensing agreement;

and

WHEREAS, the State has not power of compulsion, nor can there be, to force citizens into accepting the terms of the licensing agreement (quasi-contract);

and

WHEREAS, to my knowledge, there are only three (3) lawful purposes for which a license need be obtained, and they are:

1. Permission to do something which would otherwise be illegal.

2. A grant to the use of property in which one possesses no estate.

3. Certification that a predetermined level of proficiency has been demonstrated.

and

WHEREAS, terms, obligations, and/or duties of a drivers license are vague, unrevealed, and/or not communicated in full to satisfy informed consent, I terminated my contract with the State of Oregon for a Driver's License on my birthday, September 23rd, 1999, and am no longer bound by the terms of the contract fraudulently imposed upon me by the State of Oregon.

ORS Statute 807.010 States: Operating vehicle without driving privileges or in violation of license restrictions prohibited; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of vehicle operating without driving privileges if the person operates a motor vehicle upon a highway or premises open to the public in this state and the person does not have an appropriate grant of driving privileges from this state in the form of a license, driver permit, indorsement or statutory grant of driving privileges allowing the person to engage in the particular type of operation.

OPERATOR

Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.

"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.

To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.

This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.

This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:

1.Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.

2.Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.

Thus the language of ORS Statute 807.010(1)a indicates applicability to those who operate motor vehicles engaged in Commercial or Business purposes.

ORS Statute 811.335 states: Unlawful or unsignaled turn; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of making an unlawful or unsignaled turn if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person turns the vehicle right or left when: (b) The person fails to give an appropriate signal continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.

PERSON: Note that ORS 811.335 does not make a distinction between a "natural person" and "person"

A *natural person* is defined as: a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law. Again, the language of the Statute indicates applicability to those defined as driver's/operators using the public highways for business or commercial purposes.

This issue now before the court arises from the rescinded contract, now null and void, which formerly existed between the "Accused" and the State of Oregon which requires that he waive his Unalienable Rights and Constitutional Guarantees as a Citizen of the United States of America and instead accept the coercively imposed provisions that accompany government privilege.

Unalienable Rights are inarguable. These God-given rights cannot be abridged, infringed upon, surrendered, transferred, converted, or legislated out of existence, nor can they be converted into privilege, as in the issue now before the court.

The U.S. Constitution states in Article 1 section 10 "No State shall . . . pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. A state cannot compel a natural person and freeman through coercion, intimidation or through the deliberate witholding of the facts that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

The legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.

In addition to the "Accused" Unalienable Right to Liberty guaranteed him as a citizen of these United States of America, his civil rights as expressed in the IVth, Vth and XIVth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution were also violated by Deputy Poe and "Corporal Dave" of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office.

The Traffic Stop:

The "Accused" has his Unalienable Right to Liberty infringed upon by Deputy POE.

Established Case law has said "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

The facts will show that the "Accused" conducted himself in a lawful and orderly fashion as he travelled home in his "loaner" automobile. He was alone on the road save for the officer who was parked off road with lights out when the "Accused" made the right turn without signalling first. There were no headlights ahead of him nor any headlights observable behind him. Who was there to signal to? Signalling is only necessary when there is someone who may benefit from that signal. Such lack of signalling when there was no one to signal to, did not cause any loss or damage to any other Natural Person's rights on the public highway; in other words, no violation of law or infraction occurred as the element of relationship or intent is missing, thus probable cause is absent in Deputy Poe's act of stopping the "Accused" in his orderly travel upon the highway.

Note the vagueness of ORS 811.335(1)b which states "The person fails to give an appropriate signal continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. It makes no distinction as to relationship with other motorists, and/or pedestrians as to necessity, damage caused, or infringement upon another's Rights. Such Statute is void for vagueness and therefore unconstitutional.

It was clear that Deputy Poe was on a fishing expedition and had no probable cause to effect the traffic stop.

Unlicensed Status.

Deputy Poe of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office violated my civil rights as expressed in the IVth, Vth, and XIVth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

While the State of Oregon has the right to license and regulate those who use our nation's highways for purposes of business or commercial enterprise, that right does not include the regulation of a citizen's right to Travel upon public highways in one's private automobile for private purposes.

This issue before the court is one of a natural person, a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the State of Oregon whose Unalienable Rights and Constitutional guarantees were violated by Law Enforcement personnel employed by the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, an issue beyond the jurisdiction of this Admiralty-Maritime court.

Since Traffic Court is a court of equity based in Admiralty-Maritime Law and is charged with the adjudication of Infractions of the Oregon Vehicle Code, it functions as the regulator of "motor vehicle" traffic which uses the Publicly owned Highways for commercial or business purposes.

This court has no jurisdiction over a freeman who has the Unalienable Right to Liberty which includes, but is not limited to his travelling the Highways of Oregon in the usual conveyance of the day, his private automobile when such Travelling is for private purposes

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." FEDERAL/usconst/amend14sec-1

The "Accused" asked Deputy Poe to arrest him since Deputy Poe was impounding the loaner automobile from the "Accused" automobile dealer and would allow the "Accused" to see the Magistrate that same morning.. The loaner automobile was fully insured under the "Accused" personal insurance policy. Both Poe and Corporal Dave (unknown last name) refused to take the "Accused" into custody, stating that the "Accused" did not commit a crime, but an infraction. They, however, stated such lack of arrest would not bar them from seizing the car, which both officers seemed bent upon doing. Such seizure violated the due process clause of the XIVth Amendment which states:

"Insofar as the police power is utilized by a State, the means employed to effect its exercise can be neither arbitrary nor oppressive but must bear a real and substantial relation to an end which is public, specifically, the public health, public safety, or public morals, or some other phase of the general welfare. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111 -12 (1928); Treigle v. Acme Homestead Ass'n, 297 U.S. 189, 197 (1936)

Deputy Poe and Corporal "Dave" violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendment when they seized the automobile.

4th Amendments states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

No "Probable Cause" existed for the traffic stop, nor was there a warrant for doing so.

Deputy Poe and Corporal "Dave" violated the Fifth Amendment which states: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Deputy Poe arbitrarily seized the automobile, for the record will show no probable cause existed for the officer to stop my automobile in the first place. For a violation to occur, there must be specific cause or damage in actual relationship that infringes upon another's Rights. None existed. Therefore Deputy Poe did not have probable cause to effect a traffic stop upon the "Accused" automobile. Deputy Poe merely on a "fishing expedition!"

Again, Deputy Poe and Corporal "Dave" seized the automobile, the private property, the loaner car in the "Accused" custody, without cause since results of a stolen car check run by him would have already proven negative.

This runaway policy of seizing the property of citizens at the drop of a hat must come to an end.

Originally the seizures of property under the Federal RICO statutes arrived on the law enforcement scene as means to control and curtail Money Laundering in the Federal War against Drugs. Now it is being used against a law abiding citizenry who are peaceably travelling upon the Roadways of our State.

A police regulation, although valid when made, may become by reason of events, arbitrary and confiscatory in operation, and, as was said in NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RY, vs WALTERS, "A statute valid as to one set of facts may be invalid as to another. A statute valid when enacted may become invalid by change in the conditions to which it is applied. The police power is subject o the constitutional limitation that it may not be exerted arbitrarily or unreasonably.

The actions of Deputy Poe in seizing the automobile was indeed arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious under the circumstances. Both officers stated they were following department policy and should they depart from it they would be "in trouble." It is unfortunate that present day Law Enforcement officers have surrendered their good judgement in return for automatically following a rigid policy which allows them to use the Nuremburg defense that "they were just following orders."

Nowhere is such a decision more applicable than in the present case. The Douglas County Sheriff's office with their present confiscatory policies of property of citizens without leveling charges is guilty of the very statutes they have used against drug dealers and distributors in their war against crime. The line is blurring which distinguishes the criminal from the police.

I submit to the court this brief for dismissal of charges based on lack of jurisdiction.

The following libelous attacks arise from the keyboards of assorted anonymous government/media disinformation agents who, through disruption, intimidation, and character assassination control the flow of information on public Usenet Newsgroups/Forums

NOTE: May the reader take notice of the sudden reappearance and the increased emotional imbalance reflected in the following attacks by the same anonymous government/media disinformation agents who have dogged my posts through the past six years on the Internet. They have demonstrated their incapacity to attack the message, so they are left with the only option of attacking the Messenger. Pay attention to the harmonious essence within the spirit of the writings, mine and theirs. Who is Normal, Who is BASSACKWARD. Who is Balanced? Who is Christ?

NOTE also the brand spanking new introduction of "The Dueling Sockpuppets" who now engage the reader through "good sockpuppet--bad sockpuppet" misdirections. See if you can't recognize the familiar style of the one who now calls himself "dr teblinsky".

Ask yourselves why the sudden explosive reemergence of these attacks? Pay particular attention to the Articles the attacks have followed. The answer becomes very clear to the spiritually sighted, does it not? They're running scared!! Their ship is sinking, they're short on lifeboats, and some of them "can't swim!" The time for them to be held accountable is drawing near. They had hoped I would just go away, frightened off by their intimidation and libel.

I explained to them early on what they were in for should they continue their attacks. Their deluded perception of immunity from prosecution gave them a false sense of bravado. Not only are they in for a rude awakening, but so are those who have employed them.

The simple fact is that when this driver's license issue is brought to closure, and the FBI completes their investigation into the Douglas County Sheriff's office and their policies which violate the Federal R.I.C.O Statutes ( TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS), The "battle of Jericho shall be replayed and the "STONE WALL OF SILENCE erected by our Federal and FBI officials regarding this government/media sponsored/supported mind control/Disinformation experiments upon unwary users of the Internet USENET Newsgroups and Forums WILL COME TUMBLING DOWN.

By then, the outcome will depend upon whether or not we still have our Constitutional Republic or that the "Written Instrument" which stands as the foundation of the "American Way of Life" will have been suspended, by traitorous leaders, who shall declare martial law and sell us out to the "New World Order."

Allen's right. You're a loser.

Re: U.S. Constitution; State of Oregon: and Rights vs Privilege (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:16:09 GMT

From: Get ready to move out of state Ray! (unknown)

But not for the self-serving reasons you're screaming about. Further, you know it full well: you've openly said you will not go to court and actually make the asinine argument you've been spamming all over the place for weeks now. As has been explained to you repeatedly, as an adult citizen of Oregon you're expected to act responsibly, and in such a way you do not endanger others with your incompetence. Given your history of publis aggression and psychosis, it's especially important you not be out driving a car you can't be entrusted to handle. The only thing that will shut you up will be when they start attching your property to pay fines you owe us. I imagine though that you'll flee the state again, just like you did when you had the same exact problems in California.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I told Ray this a good 1 1/2 weeks ago

Re: Allen's right. You're a loser. (Get ready to move out of state Ray!)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:37:23 GMT

From: Get ready to pay through the nose my man (unknown)

Aguing the Constitution here Ray is showing the court exactly why the law doesn't support your inane, self-aggrandizing claims. The Constitution is what precisely what guarantees the states the right to regulate road safety in their jurisdictions. If you actually find the balls to show up and make that argument you spent a good 16-24 hours trying to write (and you won't, bank on it!), even a half-wit prosecutor will simply use the same exact document to prove you are dead in the wrong. And you are Ray, only you don't have the intellectual capacity or education to realize it. Read the Constitution, and get ready to pay through the nose! I don't want my taxpayer money wasted entertaining kooks with delusional notions of themselves and Constitutional law in any traffic court I fund.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again with the demand for armed marches?

Re: U.S. Constitution; State of Oregon: and Rights vs Privilege (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:21:52 GMT

From: You seem to be severelylearning disabled (unknown) This will not help you at all Raymond. If the police find out you've been posting threats to take up arms against other people in the streets, they'll understand what a psycho you are, and the public may well have the right to demand you be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks more like severe psychological disorder

Re: You really are mentally retarded, aren't you? (Getready to payroyally foryour stupidity)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:52:47 GMT

From: Get some sleep and sanity you creep (unknown)

The fact Ray is up at 5 AM spamming reposts all over the Internet means he's doing that instead of getting some sleep and the clarity of thought and emotion it brings. He's been unemployed for several decades, which means he's not killing time at work with this spam. Ray, get some sleep and get better. Either that or go to court and get your questions answered. I just know you're going to hate the answer you get. Too bad: you're not above the law you bloody kook. And I sure as hell don't want anyone as mentally ill as you obviously are driving what amounts to a potential weapon on my roads.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What you need is a good, swift kick in the arse

Re: Allen's right. You're a loser. (Get ready to move out of state Ray!)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:33:50 GMT

From: Glad to see you get your come-uppance (unknown)

Grow up already and accept responsibility for your wrongful conduct. You have no more of a right to drive unlicensed than I have to perform heart surgery unlicensed. Get over it already. Your life is almost over and you still act like a three-year-old spoiled brat. Why didn't your parents ever teach you even basic lessons about resposnibility, integrity, and dignity? Shame on them and on your wife for allowing you to degenerate into such a sick parody of an adult human being. You are despicable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you're a danger to others, commitment is possible

Re: Again with the demand for armed marches? (You seem to be severelylearning disabled)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:52:20 GMT

From: Continue the threats Ray: love to see it (unknown)

I'd like nothing better than to see you locked the hell up

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why you were removed from jury duty

Re: U.S. Constitution; State of Oregon: and Rights vs Privilege (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:59:21 GMT

From: You can't be trusted w/even simple tasks (unknown)

The reason is simple, and you yourself spammed it all over the place. You have somehow taken it into your demented head that you are above the law (which you obviously are not!), and you were trying to get jurors to nullify legitimate legal decisions in a court of law. As I recall from the spam you posted and reposted at the time, you also offended the hell out of your peers with your psychotic pontification, aggression, and hate. Given you operate intellectually at the level of a grade-school child, and at the emotional level of a psych ward patient, it's obvious no court could allow you to simply decide to not apply prevailing lawm, and to attack other jurors for failing to fall in line with your dementia. It's that simple. No corruption here, except of course your own uncontrollable mental disease: you do not have the intelligence or education to be trusted to make even the simplest of legal decisions. Get over it already. After you do so, take yourself and your diseased wife out of our state.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There couldn't really be six sociopaths this world who'd...

Re: Jesus abhors your hate and arrogance (You have no understanding of Christ)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:52:25 GMT

From: Dr. Teblinsky (unknown)

actually spend a beautiful Sunday morning replying to this unfortunate person. We can't blame Mr.Karczewski. He obviously suffers from a mental dysfunction that is not being treated adequately, perhaps not even professionally diagnosed as yet. It is obviously a cognitive mental disorder.

But what about the sociopaths who encourage him, reply to him, bait him? Sociopathy is not mental illness, but a recognized behavioral defect. The jails are full of them, as are the rolls of serial killers, multiple rapists and child molesters. What do these characters do in their off hours...torture squirrels and baby robins?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He apparently hasn't yet threatened you & your family

Re: There couldn't really be six sociopaths this world who'd... (Dr. Teblinsky)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:09:36 GMT

From: Spare us your ignorance: inform yourself (unknown)

Ray has threatened virtually everyone around him in various ways, depending on what his psychosis dictates that particular moment (usualy gun violence and lawsuits galore). I didn't pay any attention to him until he personally threatened me too for no better reason than I dared to disagree with his appraisal of himself as God. You do realize he thinks he's God, don't you? Or are you so completely uninformed you don't know that part? Perhaps you should come and meet the man to understand he is not a simple mental case. It will take all of a few seconds. He will one day completely break, take his guns, and go out into the streets with them as he has been threatening to do. So "doctor," given he refuses all medical help and his wife is even more psychotic than he is, how do you propose people protect themselves and their families from his disease and rage? Or do you not even give a hot damn about other people's safety? The good thing about this development is that the last time Ray had serious legal problems happened (in California), he simply fled the state. That would work for me, and all would be well. But for now you can save your condemnation until you minimally inform yourself about his history of violence, threats, and abuse. Clear enough?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Only a very disturbed and dangerous person

Re: He apparently hasn't yet threatened you & your family (Spare us your ignorance: inform yourself)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:20:01 GMT

From: Dr. Teblinsky (unknown)

would knowingly provoke and torture a person suffering from mental illness.

Is your life so very small, are your prospects so poor, you future so bleak, that taunting a mentally ill human being is all you can do on a Sunday morning sir?

I repeat it this so you will clearly understand EXACTLY what I'm saying, so there will be no doubt in your small vicious mind.

That man is obviously suffering from serious delusions and mental dysfunction, obviously unaware of the full import of what he's saying.

You, on the other hand, are a sociopath. A sociopath is not mentally ill in the sense of not knowing what he's doing, a person who knows full well what he's doing, and obtains some sick pleasure from doing it.

He needs to be assed and treated, as his disease is amenable to medication and therapy. You need to be imprisoned because your condition does not respond to any known treatment. I have no doubt you will end up there, as characters like you always progress in your cruelties until you run afoul of the law in a big way.

The trouble is, we never find out who people like you are until you kidnap and torture some innocent child to death. Then we all read about you and wonder why nobody caught you until it was too late.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No.

Re: Only a very disturbed and dangerous person (Dr. Teblinsky)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:33:05 GMT From: (unknown)

What I want is simple. I want dangerously ill people refusing all medical help and threatening my family with violence made to get treatment. I cannot understand how you champion someone with such an extensive history of sociopathic and psychotic behavior, and condemn the people he's threatened over and over as "sick and dangerous" because they've been threatened and are reacting to that fact. Invite Ray to visit with you and see what you're dealing with. Or don't you dare?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You clearly are the sociopath

Re: No. Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:41:52 GMT

From: Dr. Teblinsky (unknown)

I do not in any way "champion" his distorted view of reality. I recognize it, and recognize that the ONE way one does NOT interact with a person having a paranoid component to his cognitive disorder is to irritate it, engage it, validate it or provoke it in any way.

If you read any late DSM, you can identify that his dysfunction is one of involuntary inability to perceive or cope with reality. This is not anything like the clinical definition of "sociopath" or "psychopath", although, like most true sociopaths, you seem to enjoy justifying your anti-social actions by employing words and concepts of which you have no real knowledge to blame others for your intentional, voluntary actions.

You do not have the excuse of being removed from reality. You are clearly in touch with your motives and actions, and their import. Worse yet, your sociopathy is not amenable to any known medication and, absent any voluntary desire on your part to modify your anti-social behavior, any non-psychotropic therapies would be of little hope.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will not allow Ray to threaten my family. Period.

Re: You clearly are the sociopath (Dr. Teblinsky)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:57:40 GMT

From: What don't you understand about that? (unknown)

I will not allow this man to threaten my family. That is not sociopathic. It is self-defense. I notice you will not post your address, and inform yourself about Ray personally. I wonder why? Do you fear seeing face to face what other people have been suffering from this man? This is not a forum game. Ray is real, and so is his sickness, threats, and refusal to help himself. The problem isn't nearly as simple as you'd like it to be. Ignoring people as unwell as Ray doesn't make them better. It simply doesn't. And I will not tolerate anyone that sick threatening my family with violence. Again, clear enough?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Violence is unacceptable even from the psychotic

Re: There couldn't really be six sociopaths this world who'd... (Dr. Teblinsky)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:19:40 GMT

From: Why does this escape you? (unknown)

If Ray refuses to be accountable for his conduct, someone must make him so. Even the grossly mentally ill cannot go around threatening their neighbors all the time. Surely even you can understand that principle? Perhaps not. In that case, here it is in a nutshell: Violence and threats iare unacceptable, even from the psychotic. Period.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I told you above, you DON'T torure them

Re: Violence is unacceptable even from the psychotic (Why does this escape you?)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:25:35 GMT

From: Dr. Teblinsky (unknown)

You don't provoke them. If you can't treat them or lead them to treatment, a decent, healthy human being leaves them alone.

You're obviously not a healthy human being, but a person who gets some sort of sick thrill out of poking a wounded animal to see if it will jump.

You sociopaths have a particular and identifiable condition, caused in the first 6-18 months of life. You're unable to feel much of any emotion, so you provoke pain in others to "experiment", to see what it's like for other living creatures to feel pain and suffer.

You need help. Without it, I have no doubt that we'll be reading about you in the newspapers in the future. And what we read won't be pretty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the third time, you are a very sick person

Re: Post your address. Ray'll be there armed like a shot (Let's see how you like it)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:31:04 GMT

From: Dr. Teblinsky (unknown)

Assuming you are right, do you think that what you're doing to him is in any way making him less dangerous to others? Does a healthy human being tease a wounded wolf or bear?

Of course not, and you know it. You haven't the slightest concern for any possible victim of this man, or anything else other than amusing yourself with someone else's suffering.

You have an obviously twisted and inhumane bent to your amusements, whether or not you want to face that fact.

Again, I strongly recommend you seek immediate help. I now the sociopath rarely wants to admit this, and thus rarely if ever can be treated but there is still time before you do something that gets you in serious trouble and injures of kills an innocent person.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beg your pardon. He attacked my family, not vice-versa

Re: So you provoke more? What kind of disturbed personality (Dr. Teblinsky)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:52:16 GMT

From: You obviously know nothing about this (unknown)

So your family is sacrosanct, but the rest of us are targets? I don't think so. I never hurt anyone, and if you knew any damned thing about me and Ray's history, you'd be ashamed by the lack of intelligence you show in attacking me in this way. Ray's history on this forum is important because when he is stopped, it will serve as written evidence of how dangerous he is to himself and others. I don't deserve to be attacked by either Ray or by you. I strenuously suggest you inform yourself minimally before you continue your groundless attacks on strangers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You are an obvious sociopath in denial

Re: Beg your pardon. He attacked my family, not vice-versa (You obviously know nothing about this)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:03:45 GMT

From: Dr. Teblinsky (unknown)

There is nothing more to be gained by attempting to persuade you to seek the help you so obviously and desperately need.

The very fact that you defend provoking a person you yourself claim is dangerous into more of the same activity for the purposes of some pathetic little enjoyment you might gain on such a forum is proof positive of the disturbed and dangerous nature of your personality disorder.

Talking to someone like you before you reach the stage of criminal "newsworthiness" is akin to those fanciful stories of time travelers who go back in time to try to prevent tragedies (e.g., the Kennedy assassination). One can see so very clearly what is coming and the tragedy of those who will be your victims, but it seems predestined that the result is unavoidable.

For the last time, seek help. Quickly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with some of what you're saying, but

Re: There couldn't really be six sociopaths this world who'd... (Dr. Teblinsky)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:08:50 GMT

From: You really have no knowledge of this (unknown)

You really don't know anything about Ray, as is obvious from your remarks. Yes, he's very ill, and yes, people react in a counterproductive way to his threats. But the fact you think ignoring him will make him better or even maintain his present level of unbalance is outlandish. If you had any knowledge of Ray's history here and problems with legal authorities in several states, you'd not be attacking his victims as "sociopathic" criminals in the making. We never asked for Ray to threaten us, and none of us are criminals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eye test, ray, eye test

Re: U.S. Constitution; State of Oregon: and Rights vs Privilege (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:11:33 GMT

From: Bert (bert@cheeriohiphip.com)

No, really, there's no way to legislate your way past poor vision. There is hope, however, that new advances in eye surgery may help you to correct whatever seems to be wrong with your sight that keeps you from taking your DMV vision test, and who knows, maybe some multivitamins might help to stabilize your moods so as to help you be calm enough to see that the law wasn't specifically written to attack you or something.

Old age happens to everyone, and you're no exception. If you're not fit to drive anymore, then you'd better find other ways to go forward in life. Vision is a critical component of highway safety, and if you're losing yours, which I suspect, you really really really really really don't want to be out there, especially not on the freeway these days, where the average speed is approaching 75 MPH, and disaster can strike in seconds.

You can go ahead and attack the law, I guess, but you will accomplish little beyond a pyhrric victory, because the whatever minor change you might affect will still be beyond your capacity to take advantage of, as the visually impaired are typically not allowed to drive, even in third world countries with no traffic laws at all. Good luck though, press on, stiff upper lip, all that rot....

Reply

Allan Hampton 208.180.184.148 wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

ah: Ray, I posted your post here to a legal eagle email group, they replied "your case is a losing one". Our corp government and its corp courts don't give a big rats ass about your, or my, constitutional Rights and they prove it everyday.

rk: Allan, it is the fault of SLEEPING MUNCHKINS that has allowed such imbalance to take root in our society.

ah: Our only "powers" to control the elected (government) are the vote, jury duty, and the gun.

ah: I suggest using the vote and screaming for HELP come November 2002 to vote the unconstitutional socialist/communist and corp out of office.

rk: I maintain none of the above are viable solutions to the problem. We've already seen the rampant corruption within the voting system. I've been on jury duty. Only maleable ignoramuses get picked as jurors. Only schnooks allow themselves to get twisted up with words by slick talking lawyers. The American people have lost sight of the BIG PICTURE. So that's out also. As far as taking up the gun, a guy could get killed doing that.

rk: No Allen, the only way to TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY without firing a shot is to BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT.

rk: Strip away YOUR money from the hands of the money changers (bankers) and rulemakers (politicians) Jesus exposed them in his time and it seems that his actions were for naught. Think not? Look at the present state of the world. What lasting effect did Jesus have on the world today? Until the Christian public come to understand the TRUE MESSAGE of my Spiritual Brother, Jesus the Christ, and not get suckered in by the religious mind controllers who bind them to pagan MYTHS, life will remain a HELL ON EARTH for conditioned civilized man.

rk: As far as real effective action, let each stout hearted employee go to their Employer. Allow them to see the wisdom of rescinding their previous voluntary Witholding Tax agreement with their employer. Let them find the courage within to DEMAND their full day's pay for a full day's work.

rk: Then let each contact their Elected Congressional Representatives and DEMAND that OUR government fund its operational activities with its own enormous monetary surpluses which have been gained through their investments of public tax monies as reflected within their Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR).

rk: DEMAND that our Elected Leaders withdraw this Country from membership in the United Nations.

rk: DEMAND the removal of foreign troops from our Sovereign Land.

rk: DEMAND a Return to an economy based on Real Money -- the Gold-Silver Standard.

rk: Send the Federal Reserve packing. Get them out of our lives and pocketbooks.

rk: Expose the National Debt as the Fraudulent Action that it is -- An action designed to enslave an entire population for generations to come through the illusion of credit/debt. Renounce the NATIONAL DEBT, NOW and for ALL time! End its strangle hold upon a previously sleeping, and slow to awaken population.

rk: Lastly, do give our elected officials ONE GOOD POTENT IMAGE TO PONDER.

rk: STOP THIS GUN CONTROL NONSENSE IN ITS TRACKS!

rk: Give them a PEACEFUL but MEMORABLE ONE MILLION ARMED MAN MARCH upon WASHINGTON DC.

rk: For those unable to make it to Washington, organize and conduct a simultaneous peaceful armed march upon your State Capitals, County Governments and City Halls throughout this Nation carrying the placards "ARE YOU LISTENING?"

rk: Isn't it time that the officials of a Government once declared to be OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE got the message!

Reply

Next Page

Return to Home Page