Pursuant to the rules of the Douglas County Court System and a short conversation with Justice of the Peace Carol Roberts of Douglas County Justice Court, Canyonville, Oregon, the following was submitted to the Justice Court as directed by Justice Roberts.

This is the first step in the process of holding our officials accountable to their sworn oath to support, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. To the best of my ability, I shall keep the public apprised of every step of this judicial process as it unfolds, cognizant of constraints which may be imposed upon me by the Judicial System of Douglas County.

Pay attention, America. Our Unalienable/Constitutional Rights are being put to the test here.

Honorable Carol Roberts

Justice of the Peace

Justice Court

209 N. Main Canyonville OR 97417

Your Honor, Enclosed is the Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction regarding the above Citation issued to me by Deputy Poe, #112 of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, on June 5th, 2001.

As per your directions during our earlier conversation this date regarding formatting, I left it in the format I had envisioned would be acceptable to the Court.

This is an issue which has a high profile on the Internet and is of interest to all Americans who "Travel" in their private automobiles.

I await your decision.

State of Oregon

Plaintiff

vs

Raymond Karczewski

Accused

________________________________________

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:

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 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, the accused terminated his contract with the State of Oregon for a Driver's License on his birthday, September 23rd, 1999, and is no longer bound by the terms of the contract fraudulently imposed upon him 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.

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 required 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.

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"

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 necessary when there is someone who may benefit from such signal. What purpose does a turn signal make in the vacumn of non-relationship? Such lack of signalling when there existed no one to signal to, did not cause any loss or damage to any other Natural Person's property or rights on the public highway; in other words, no violation of law or infraction occurred, as the element of relationship/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 is 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 the "Accused" 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/amend.14sec-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" also 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 forfeiture and seizures of property sans due process 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 to 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 are 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.

First of all, your honor, I reserve all of my rights at all times and waive none of my rights at any time.

Oregon Court Procedure rules regarding Motion to Dismiss ORCP 20.17 States:

(20.17) *LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER* ORCP 21 A(1) allows dismissal of a claim for "lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter." "(I)f it appears by motion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisidiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." ORCP 21 G(4) (emphasis added). Regardless of whether a defendant raises lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court has a duty on its own motion to refuse to proceed when the complaint fails to allege facts giving the court subject-matter jurisdiction. Greeninger vCromwell, 127 Or App 435, 438, 973 P2d 377 (1994)

(20,20) *LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON* ORCP 21 A(2) allows the dismissal of a claim for "lack of jurisdiction over the person." ORCP 21 permits the trial court to determine the facts relating to personal jurisdiction (and other enumerated ground) based on either the face of the pleadings or the factual material submitted to the court, Sutherland v. Brennan, 131 Or App 25, 28, 883 P2d 1318 (1994), aff'd, 321 Or 520 (1995); Industrial Leasing Corp. v. Miami Ice Machine Co., 126 Or App 80, 83-84, 867 P2d 548 (1994)

Common law is the standard by which to ascertain what are proper cases for prohibition to a court of admiralty, and not the civil law...

This traffic court derives its civil law jurisdiction over matters of equity and commerce in Admiralty- Maritime Law.

Admiralty-Maritime courts have jurisdiction over contracts, torts, and other special cases. Waring v. Clark, 5 HOW 441m 454-464: Genesse Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 HOW. 443. 454, United States v Flores, 289 U.S. 137, 154. (1933)

No contract existed between myself with the State of Oregon for a Driver's License, neither can the State compel a citizen to waive his Rights and cause him to enter into a contract which allows such Rights to be converted into Privilege. The State does not have the power to convert the individuals right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."

I submitted to this court prior to appearance this date a written motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. ( *LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER*; *LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON*)

HAGENS vs LAVINE, 15 US. 533m N-3, states that "once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."

I ask for such proof of jurisidiction by this court addressing the motion submitted or else, that this court dismiss all charges.

boots 7.5 wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

Wed Jun 20 12:37:06 2001

b: Well Ray, I want you to know I'm on your side with this one. Let us know the results, because as you said, it could be the beginning of the end to the courts overstepping their boundries.

rk: You bet I will keep you and the other readers of this forum apprised of the results. It's time citizens begin to publicly post on the Internet their personal interactions with government officials in these matters of government infringement upon the Unalienable Rights of the Individual. What better way to hold all ACCOUNTABLE for their actions and disarm the Machiavellian "power of government" which tyrannizes citizens "behind closed doors"?

rk: This issue of whether our U.S. Constitution is STILL IN EFFECT and recognized by our government officials affects everyone who would deign to have the audacity to step into their private automobile without first seeking government permission (privilege) and "Travel" from point A to B in an orderly and nonobtrusive manner on the public roadways of our country.

rk: This one's a NO-BRAINER. Let's see if the AMERICAN PUBLIC has the INTELLIGENCE to SEE IT?!!

rk: Let us see just how long and how far our present government will continue to overstep their bounds by ignoring the tenets of our U.S. Constitution?

rk: As an honorably retired Police Sergeant, I can tell you that the FACE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT in this country has changed since I was in the business. How long, before the public wakes up to what is awaiting them "just around the bend?"

b: God knows we need a starting point, and the people knowledgable of how to make the charge.

rk: Since 1995, I have been writing on the Internet about the coming New World Order and people called me crazy -- saying that no such thing existed.

rk: This is not a matter of "he who laughs last, laughs best," for I assure you that those who have the "spiritual eyes to see and ears to hear" ARE NOT LAUGHING.

b: God Bless you and the Patriots.

rk: Thank you, Boots. I would like to see more than just one or two "brave souls" who have retained their God-given Intelligence and energy stand up publicly as you have just done and openly express such sentiments. That is how we the people will reclaim control over our country.

rk: Unlike the propaganda Americans are inundated with on a daily basis by the privately controlled media, it does not take a "village" to start a shooting revolution. It takes SOVEREIGN CITIZENS standing up for their UNALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS to SAVE A NATION!!

rk: It's time to STOP TALKING and DO SOMETHING to restore balance to our errant, tyranny-bent government.

rk: Remember the chant of the 60's -- "HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!!"

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

Oregon has a driver's license statute

Re: You are correct.. (Greg Laux)

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:20:47 GMT

From: The state in well within its rights here (unknown)

I cannot see where the cops acted outside their own legal authority in impounding a car from someone who admits he was not legally credentialed to do so. Depending on just how psychotic Ray's behavior was during the stop, they would have had plenty of extra cause to take the vehicle away from him in the name of public safety. Ray's problem is that he had the exact same legal problems in California, screamed "extortion" when called to account for his crimes, and he cannot renew his Oregon license until he accepts responsibility for what he did in California first. I see licensing drivers as perfectly reasonable and fair. Ray needs to learn fundamental lessons about how to act like an adult member of society, including the fact everyone is accountable for any activity carried out against the duly legislated law of the people. I sure as hell don't want someone this psychotic out driving amok on public roads. Ray needs to either grow up and demonstrate he can competently drive a motor vehicle, or start taking buses wherever he wants to go. No compromise of his mobility or of his freedom to travel here: this is simply asking him to minimally prove he won't be a serious threat to public safety. Only Ray would spend weeks writing such a psychotic screed as the one he's posted here.

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

Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence??

Re: U.S. Constitution Rights vs State of Oregon Privileges (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:11:15 GMT

From: And you want to be taken seriously??? (unknown)

Ray, you really have suffered a complete psychotic break here. FYI: Magna Carta has nothing to do with Oregon state law. And the Declaration of Independence is simply a statement of reasons why the colonies separated from the British crown. Neither have any legal value in contemporary American courts. You really should read things before you start spouting off so publicly like this.

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

Here are your results Ray

Re: U.S. Constitution Rights vs State of Oregon Privileges (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:48:16 GMT

From: Please feel free to travel out of Oregon (unknown)

You already lost, but for some reason you don't have the intellectual capacity to grasp the obvious. This guy "boots" must post on some flipped out militia-style board, which would be the only kind of personality who might share your delusions of persecution. The two of your are PATHETIC and sefl-serving creeps. In short, I invite you to feel free to travel, and especially encourage you to leave our state (do this, for God's sake: we never wanted you here to begin with, and had you forced on us because you had problems with the California cops too). You just don't have the right to drive since you are obviously dangerously psychotic and cannot be trusted with a car. Can't wait for you to receive your reality check from the court: will you flee this state then just like you fled your California legal problems too?

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

You will be held accountable Ray

Re: U.S. Constitution Rights vs State of Oregon Privileges (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:52:24 GMT

From: And you'll pay for your crimes (unknown)

We are all waiting for you to finally understand your liability in this matter. The court will help you to do this, and I will love to watch you scream in outrage when they start attaching your assets. **You will account for the wrong you do in court,*** just as you have been made to account here for your violence and fraud. Only this time you'll pay through the nose.

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

Re: U.S. Constitution Rights vs State of Oregon Privileges (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:54:37 GMT

From: You're a very small, petty man (unknown)

With all the *real* problems in the world, and the misery human beings suffer from day to day, you do nothing in your damned life but post whining about how you have to prove you are competent to drive a car? Are you so infinitely self-absorbed you see this as some sort of ground-shaking, history-making event? It isn't Ray, and you are a very small, petty man. A driving test is reasonable, fair, and necessary to protect other people. Or don't you give a hot damn about others? That I would believe. Maybe finding some volunteer work helping people in genuine trouble would help you to understand the difference between serious problems in life and your personal inability tp pass a simple driver's test.

Reply

Gail Schoettler (gailschoettler@email.msn.com) wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

Sun., Jun 24 12:59:32 2001

gs: > Sunday, June 24, 2001 - Timothy McVeigh has paid for his monstrous crime. While his execution can never atone for the suffering of the victims and their families society has held him accountable. Now, we Americans need to ask, will our premier law-enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, be held equally accountable for its irresponsible behavior in this case?

gs: > We may not have much sympathy for Timothy McVeigh. But what if you or I, or one of our children, were accused of espionage, a crime bearing the death penalty? What if the FBI withheld files that would prove our innocence? Maybe they wouldn't be so lucky as to find them just before the penalty was carried out, but only after an innocent person had died.

gs: > It's not just an individual who is now on trial; it is our system of justice. It is our top law-enforcement agency, the FBI. That the FBI could behave in such a callous manner when someone's life was at stake ought to frighten all of us. Because if the FBI could withhold evidence in Timothy McVeigh's trial, they could do the same to any one of us, anywhere, and ime, for any reason whatsoever.

gs: > We Americans have every right to expect that our law-enforcement agencies will themselves obey the law. And, in most cases, they are highly professional, courteous, courageous and fair. In this case, however, the FBI, for whatever reason - indifference, incompetence, arrogance - simply didn't obey the law that it is sworn to uphold. The FBI is not alone. Remember how the Los Angeles police recently framed innocent people in a number of drug cases.

gs: > It's not that these accused people are upstanding citizens. Most of them have been in trouble with the law before. But in our country, you can only be convicted of a crime you committed, not one that the cops wish you had committed. There must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Framing someone is not only blatantly illegal but is a threat to our system of justice. It is a threat to the rights, freedom and safety of every one of us.

gs: > In the O.J. Simpson trial, as Alan Dershowitz pointed out, a pair of bloody socks presented as evidence clearly had been tampered with. In addition, the defense successfully attacked the credibility of a key detective in the case. Even jurors who believed Simpson was guilty had trouble voting to convict a man when they believed the police themselves had violated his rights in defiance of the law.

gs: > Years ago, the Miranda decision required police to advise us of our rights when we are arrested. A whole network of laws limit police power, from illegal searches to abuse of prisoners. Our system of justice is based on the theory of innocence until you are proven guilty, on the right to a speedy and fair trial and the right to be judged by one's peers. It works well if everyone, including law-enforcement agencies, obeys those laws.

gs: > We criticize China and other countries for not respecting human rights. In China, as in many countries, once arrested you could reasonably expect the police to manufacture evidence, to torture you into a confession or to withhold documents that would prove your innocence. Fortunately, we are not China. Fortunately, we have a system of justice that is designed to protect the innocent. What we do not always have, it seems, is a law-enforcement structure that follows the laws it swears to uphold and defend.

gs: > Our law-enforcement agencies must always respect the law and the Constitution. Whether it's free speech or protecting the rights of the innocent or ensuring the safety of someone in their custody, these are essential protections in a democracy. That the nation's top law-enforcement agency ruthlessly ignored its responsibility in the Oklahoma bombing trials should be an outrage to all of us. And it should frighten all of us.

gs: > If they could do this in one case, they could do it to any of us. The FBI needs to be held accountable.

Gail Schoettler (gailschoettler@email.msn.com) has been a U.S. ambassador, Colorado lieutenant governor and treasurer, and a school board member.

rk: Ms. Schoettler and anyone else interested in the experiences of just one private citizen who has, since Nov. 7th, 1998, attempted to hold the FBI accountable for their Malfeasance of Office and refusal to do their duty according to their *sworn oath* of office can read many articles linked on http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialchst.htm

rk: If expanded serious research is desired, check out the hundreds of articles written by me which may be found under my name in the Google Archives

rk: Then sign the petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RayNita1/petition.html

rk: It's time we as citizens took back control of our country without being pushed into an armed revolution by Federal Agencies like the FBI and those elected Federal and State officials we have put into office through a corrupt voting system.

Reply

I have written thousands of articles on the Internet since 1995.

Few respond seriously to the simple content of my messages. Many attack that which they do not understand. Understandably so, for such is the tenuous path walked by Christs in a world populated by Satanists.

I write about the "Fall from Grace" civilized man has supported since the dawn of Civilization. It is this fall into Hell that is observed by the Spiritually Sighted as Life on Earth populated by human beings who blindly stumble through its many intellectually imposed problems sans their rightful estate of Divine Intelligence.

It is the prideful, unhealthy, "conditioned" ego which seeks to be a "god in its own right" that is bound to the worship of fragmented reflections which abound in dualistic conceptually ridden, blind Intellects. It accounts for the "blind to be led by the blind" -- for the "few to rule the many."

Many are outraged by my use of the *word* CHRIST. Yet few understand what I MEAN by it.

A Christ is a man/woman of Truth. It has always been, is now, and will forever BE SO.

Truth is the unmistakable essence of WHAT IS. It stands alone. It resonates with an original holistic (nondualistic) vibration unmatched and unattainable by lesser, conflicted dualistic energies of Intellectualism. As such, it stands as a mirror to all who are not whole human beings.

Another word for a CHRIST is a "Child of God." The essence which resonates atone with the unmistakable essence of the indefinable Infinite one calls GOD.

Another word for a CHRIST, a more "down to earth" word, is that individual who resonates in Spirit as a SOVEREIGN human being. The state of Sovereignty is Holistic. A Sovereign Consciousness enables men like a simple carpenter who lived some 2000 years ago to be regarded as "King of the Jews."

But what is a King? And why was this simple carpenter labeled as such by his fellow man?

Perhaps the following excerpt from my book "Journey Beyond Thought: Breaking the Bonds of the Conditioned Mind " will shine the "Light of Truth" upon it.

"This man Jesus, in reference to the civilized world of His time, said that He was "in this world, but not of it." He admitted to being on the outside of the structured society of His time, living in a state of noncontradiction, a state of Love. He coexisted with the law. His relationship was one of abiding with, but not being solely bound to the confines of man's law."

"His was a relationship of fulfillment, not protest, not resistance."

"He preached "Resist not Evil." Resistance to anything gives strength to that which is resisted. It increases the contradiction within oneself and destroys one's inner peace, which is Love. When there is Love, there is intelligence. When intelligence is operating, there is harmony, an atonement with all. He spoke to the people of His time about the spiritual equality of man. This, ultimately, is what led to His death."

"What happens when there is a state of Oneness with all? There is no longer the duality of greater and lesser, there is just "What Is." When one looks at another man while in that state of atonement, the other is perceived to be neither superior nor inferior. In that state of Oneness, authority does not exist."

" In the time of Jesus, what kind of a man would view himself to have no authority over him? ONLY A KING! For would not all others consider themselves to be subject to the ruling authority? This led to the charge of blasphemy, which carried with it the label of "King of the Jews."

"The only crime committed on that day was the execution of an uncivilized mind by civilized society. The Man's death was a tribute to the state of wholeness and Love. That Love truly was the example of Christ's life and death. For with His final breaths of life, He uttered, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." His last concern appeared to have been for the ignorance of those who were not aware of their true nature."

"The uncivilized mind is seen to be nonpersonal, unfragmented, nonjudgmental. It is not concerned with the me, the ego. It has the intelligence of self-ending. It is capable of functioning well within the technical area, but it does not spill over into the psychological realm. In doing so, it does not get trapped in illusory thought patterns. It, therefore, is a free mind, a nondualistic mind which is capable of adapting and flowing with the stream of life that is ever-changing. Yet, it remains stable and clear in its perception of "What Is."

"The uncivilized mind is the mind grounded in common sense: the sense that is common to all minds. This common sense links one to the Universal Mind that is shared by all. One's common sense can only be relinquished in response to the pressures of conditioning. It is traded off in return for the acquisition of knowledge, which tethers a mind that is in search of security. Through the temptation of doubt, its wholeness and simplicity are given up in return for the promise of more, the pursuit of pleasure, power, and the fulfillment of its desires. It becomes lost when caught in the state of becoming, in goal setting. These are the mind's escapes that are readily provided in order to divert one's attention. This diversion, found in the mindful state of becoming, is nothing more than the seduction of being drawn away from the reality of "What Is" and thrust into one's projected fantasy of what should be. This psychological mechanism is what produces the endless effort, pain, and struggle that we know to be life. This is the cost to one who is living in a civilized world."

"It is only the uncivilized mind that is in this world but not of it. It is the "outsider" who poses a threat to the authority of his time. It is the mind that is based in Love, in understanding, Oneness with all. It is the mind of the entity that can "Love his neighbor as himself," for in the state of Oneness, the neighbor is himself. It is the mind that does not resist evil; for evil is only an idea that is the opposite of the idea of good, fed by one's own energy. Good needs evil and evil needs good in order to maintain their very existence. In the state of common sense, there is no judgment; therefore there is no good and evil. There is only "What Is," a state of harmony and order; and one is able to deal with everything they face, effortlessly. One truly is free. That is what Jesus meant when He declared, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." It is here, now, this moment, this instant!"

Who amongst you can grasp the Truth of the above statements? If WE lived such TRUTH, would not our world be a different place for all concerned?

I write about Mind Control. All who are subject to fragmented belief systems inculcated into them by their mind controlling handlers, be they political or religious, or their own parents who are also ignorant of their TRUE SELVES, are servants to "SATAN, the Opposer"; in other words, to their own Satanically-directed Intellect.

Does that make a Christian a Satanist? Look deeply into energy of the above communicated TRUTH for yourself. Let the TRUTH reveal itself to you. Look not to another for a "pat answer"; for if you do, surely your mind will be controlled by such outside "authority."

I have offended many on and off the Internet who have misunderstood my message due to such far reaching and penetrating political and religious mind conditioning.

The only question of any consequence to all who read this is for them to answer the following questions for themselves: "WHO AND WHAT IS IT THAT I (the reader) SERVE? Do I (the reader), in fact, serve GOD, or merely the idea of God; i.e., SATAN?!!

Shocking, isn't it?

It is time for an AWAKENING.

The world of "civilized man" is ruled by the Satanic few who rule the many. It is the dark force which permeates our world as the elitist few now seek to consolidate their power in a NEW WORLD ORDER.

Is it a helpless, hopeless situation for mankind?

FAR FROM IT!!!

There are MORE of US than there are of THEM. We are the producers. They are the manipulators. We are Sovereign Beings, not Slaves. They ARE NOT our masters.

We have the power to CHANGE OUR WORLD in the blink of an eternal eye!

Each of you ALREADY understand intuitively which momentum guides you in your present state of consciousness and its ultimate outcome.

So the question remains, why do you live the life you are now living? Life's momentum can be changed INSTANTLY by YOU. For indeed, YOU ARE LIFE itself. You are CHRISTS, even though you presently suffer from Amnesia.

In civilized society, which is invented (not created) by the Satanically-driven dualism-based Intellect, one inevitably "chooses" to live their life in HELL. One has been seduced by the Satanic Intellect away from his/her True Estate of Divine Intelligence -- CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS.

In such a Satanically-ruled, fragmented, partial realm of consciousness, time is invented and the "eternal" moment of NOW is filtered through and imprisoned by the aftermoment-based realm of thought. The aftermoment is clearly observable to be of the past conceptually-interpreted living moment of NOW.

The past is a DEAD thing. It is found nowhere but in the dead, mechanical instrument of the dualistic, concept-bound Intellect. Thus one finds Civilized Society is a dualism based Hell on Earth -- inhabited, supported, and worshipped by the "Living Dead."

In Hell, the dualistic thought-based realm ruled by a Satanically-Driven Intellect, ALL perceptions are filtered through concepts which manifest opposition, confusion, violence, and power. Familiar? It should be. For most of you reading this -- THIS IS YOUR LIFE!!

In such an "artificial pseudoexistence," bereft of wholeness and love, emerges the spectre of the Leaders and the Led, the Haves and the Have Nots, the Masters and the Slaves.

Those who set the momentum have control over those who follow the momentum laid out for them. Thus the leaders and the led, regardless of their position of power or lack thereof, voluntarily give up their personal sovereignty, their wholeness as Spiritual Beings, independent and Free, in order to don the cloak of the codependent HELL BOUND. Why? So that they may achieve the Satanic Intellect's promise that they too may become "gods" in their own right.

This simplicity is beyond the ken of the average civilized human being who in the past has shown repeatedly that they choose death over life when given the opportunity. This is the "silly intentional sacrifice called martyrdom" found in every bloody revolution which has plagued mankind since his "Fall from Grace."

All the while, the leaders still maintain their power, their momentum over the led, by creating more crises which impact the lives of their value-producing, codependent followers by imposing more and more rules, then using the monies gained through their increased taxes, tithings, and fines against them. The followers, the codependent frustrated slaves dumbed down through a relentless campaign of incremental mind control conditioning, can only seethe with resentment over their impotence while fantasizing with relish their own programmed death wish of a glorious, heroic demise via a bloody revolution.

The answer to this as seen though the average conditioned Hell-bound intellect is that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to stop the present momentum short of such necessary martyrdom.

In fact, the answer to this is quite simple, direct, and WORLD CHANGING when observed by the "Spiritually Sighted."

STOP THE MOMENTUM SET BY THE LEADERS.

THE SOLUTION -- BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT!!!

Take back your "control" of your money. Withdraw from the *Voluntary* withholding tax agreement you have with your employer. Get a full day's pay for a full day's work.

Rescind the fictitious National Debt created through interest owed on valueless paper money. Take your money out of the hands of the "money changers" -- the bankers.

Restructure your government by demanding that it fund its own services through the *Trillions* of dollars it currently has in its coffers through investments outlined in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report -- CAFR!

Do that, and there need not be a SHOT FIRED in Revolution!

How many of you reading this, who consider yourselves to be Intelligent, are INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO SEE THIS as a viable solution for mankind's present crisis?

What can you do HERE and NOW? First, if you see the simple Truth of what has been expressed in this article, share it with your loved ones. Then repost the message to all Internet groups you perceive to have an interest in changing our world short of bloody revolution. LET'S GET SERIOUS!! Let us cover the Internet with this simple message of Peace.

Do not SINK to a NEW WORLD ORDER. RISE to a NEW WORLD CONSCIOUSNESS.

Reply

Chronology of a Sheepshearing:

For those seriously interested in researching the current legal question regarding the Constitutional issue of Rights vs Driving Privilege, may I suggest you read the links below in their sequence of order.

June 5th, 2001, 0025 hrs AM.....Citation received for unsignalled turn and no drivers license. Court date set for June 27th, 2001 at 2:00 PM in Canyonville Justice Court

June 18th, 2001..... 210 mile round trip made from my home in Cave Junction to County Courthouse of Douglas County in Roseburg Oregon seeking Douglas County Court rules and procedural info for filing Motions. Advised to contact Magistrate at Canyonville Justice Court.

Returning home, Stopped by Canyonville Justice court, a small 3 person office in shopping center. Contact made with Justice of the Peace Carol Roberts. When asked for instructions on procedures to file a motion to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction, She advised me to write a letter to her, adding that legal form was not necessary.

Roberts stated her course of action in these cases of Rights vs Privilege would be to read the letter, then prior to, or on the scheduled date of Appearance on June 27th, she would enter a default judgment of guilty, then reassign and reschedule the case for a Jury Trial in another court. Roberts added that I would likely be contacted by mail. All this before she even heard the case.

As a result of Robert's instructions, I submitted the Cover Letter and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on June 18th, sending it to her office via Registered Mail, signed receipt requested. Mail was received and signed for by Office Personnel Leslie Britt on June 21, 2001, See: U.S. Constitution Rights vs State of Oregon Privileges June 18th, 2001 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch25.htm#Privileges

June 27th, 2:00 PM....160 mile round trip made from my home in Cave Junction to Canyonville Justice Court. Not having received any communication regarding disposition of the matter via mail, my wife Anita and I arrived at the Justice Court for my scheduled hearing listed on the original citation. Officer Poe, the arresting officer was not present. I was there, the officer was not. The case should have been dismissed on the spot, but wasn't.

Since cases were heard on a first come, first serve and informally held in the office of Justice Roberts, I was called in after Roberts had dealt with an individual in jail garb, in chains, accompanied by a Douglas County Sheriff's Deputy.

There was no trial setting, nor were the proceedings recorded as Justice Roberts indicated her traffic court was not a court of record. My wife Anita, who accompanied me took notes. I presented additional info to the prior Motion to dismiss to Justice Roberts, and asked that I be allowed to read it to her. She attempted to stifle that by saying she was too busy to hear the motion, but in my own inimitable way, managed to read it anyway, as Justice Roberts sat back and listened.

After reading the motion, Roberts stated that she would not dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction, adding to the mix, a comment irrelevant to the motion by listing the boundaries of her geographic jurisdiction. She completely bypassed the jurisdictional intent of the Motion. See: Motion to Dismiss June 27th, 2000 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch25.htm#Dismiss

Roberts adamantly refused to discuss further the question of common law jurisdiction and Admiralty-Maritime Law, the latter of which she admitted governed her court.

I brought Robert's specific attention to the cite of HAGENS vs LAVINE, 15 US. 533m N-3, which states that "once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."

Although Roberts admitted she had read the earlier lengthy motion to dismiss, she refused to make any offer of *proof* regarding her courts "jurisdiction" over the matter. With that, an exception was made to her ruling for purposes of appeal. Her statement as to the issue of jurisdiction, was "I BELIEVE this court has jurisdiction in this matter. To my knowledge, BELIEF does not constitute PROOF. I suggested she contact her legal colleagues in the District Attorney's office regarding the merits of the the legal cites listed in the motion. She brushed it off.

With that, Roberts stated that she would be rescheduling another hearing on the Citation itself sometime in August. She stated if Deputy Poe did not show then, the issue would be dismissed, or, if after hearing the facts of the case the court might rule in my favor. She added that I did not have to testify at such hearing.

Roberts stated that If I intended to appeal the matter, to bring a written request for appeal in no specific form and present it at that time. However, if found guilty, I would have to pay the fines of $170 for "No Operators License", $72 for "Unsignalled Turn" and an addition filing fee in the amount of $167 for the Appeal should I wish to appeal the courts ruling. (Roberts was not certain of the Filing fee amount as it was taken from a 1999 fee schedule.

Should I win the appeal, the Fines would be returned to me but not the $167 filing fee. Nor would the Sheriff's Office Administrative fee of $100 and the Impound Fee of $202 be returned. That issue, she stated was between the Douglas County Sheriff's office and myself and of no concern to the court.

Now here's the bottom line that all Americans ought to be considering right about now. What has happened to me can happen to any of you. In fact, if you are paying attention to the news, these types of Constitutional Infringements by those we have put into office to serve us are becoming epidemic in our society. In the instant case, a 63 year old retired Police Sergeant, living on pension, one who has never been arrested or spent any time behind bars for any reason can be made into a criminal with a word or two by those who no longer swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and no longer honor their oath of office. They function as a "collection agency" for Corporate America.

I have already paid a $100 Sheriff's Office Administrative Fee, $202 Impound Fee, am expected to pay $170 fine for No operator's License, $72 for Unsignalled turn and an appeals filing fee of $167 for a total of $701. If successful in my appeal, the two fines will be returned to me leaving a balance owed of $559.

Not only were my Unalienable Rights and Constitutional Rights trampled upon and violated, $559 was extorted from a Citizen who was merely "Travelling" in his private automobile in an orderly manner upon the public highways, causing no damage, harm, or infringment upon any other individuals rights or person.

Is not the theory of Justice "traditionally" illustrated by a blind entity holding Scales which represent Balance? Is not True Justice served when one is returned to the state of being prior to the assault upon their balance?

What is wrong with the present American Justice System when law abiding citizens are wrongfully attacked in their Constitutional and Unalienable Rights to freedom and liberty by "Public Servants?"

What is wrong with a deliberately complicated and convoluted system whose rules are made by the few and for the few, which allow the few to exploit the many by extracting as much energy (money) as possible out of the pockets of the "excluded and uninitiated" without awakening the "sleeping giant" -- the hypnotically slumbering public.

What is wrong with the American Justice System when one who successfully traverses the complicated legal system of appeals is finally vindicated, allowing the system to announce in its never ending promotional PR campaigns that Justice has been served, yet the person, the successful survivor of such system, has been stripped of his energy units, his money, as in the instant case, to the tune of $559?

Such imbalance can be likened to one who blindly steps upon the Slippery Slope of exploitation. Once begun, such exploitation can be repeated as often as necessary to continue the exploitive process until the individual has been stripped of his money, his freedom, and ultimately, his life.

Such diminishment of one's consciousness and energy is the very transformative process of rendering a Sovereign Human Being into a cowering, codependent, obedient Slave.

The perpetrators -- government agents and court officials who are supported with public tax monies, but through their "color of office", rigid enforcement policies have bypassed our US Constitution and now operate via Corporate Admiralty-Maritime law which openly supports automobile Piracy on the highways.

Think about that Oregonians at the next Law Enforcement Levy you will be asked to pass. They are using YOUR MONEY AGAINST YOU!!

By the way, if there are any Law Firms which specialize in Constitutional Law interested in representing me in this Rights Vs Privilege issue/Constitutional/ Civil Rights violations, please contact me via my website. at http://www.arkenterprises.com

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

Douglas County, Oregon Sheriff's Office -- Modern Day Highwaymen?

June 5th, 2001 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch23.htm#Highwaymen

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

FBI COMPLAINT: Douglas County Oregon Sheriff's Office and RICO VIOLATION

June 7th, 2001 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch24.htm#FBI

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

COPS and CONFISCATION: The New Trend In America!

June 10th, 2001 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch24.htm#CONFISCATION

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

The U.S. Constitution; State of Oregon: and Rights vs Privilege

June 16th, 2001 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch24.htm#Oregon

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

U.S. Constitution Rights vs State of Oregon Privileges

June 18th, 2001 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch25.htm#Privileges

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

Motion to Dismiss

June 27th, 2000 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch25.htm#Dismiss

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

This was inevitable: you broke the law. Period.

Re: Anatomy of a Sheepshearing (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:20:31 GMT

From: That "motion" was a legal joke man (unknown)

Thanks for posting this Ray. You've made my day by showing psychotic jerks like you will made to be accountable before a court of law. Glad to see you made responsible: now they'll start attaching your assets when you refuse to pay the state what you owe for your crimes. You'll lose any appeal you plan on filing. You really are a ignorant, arrogant old s**t.

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

This woman would be livid if she knew

Re: Hold FBI accountable (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:12:31 GMT

From: Leave her out of your delusional kookery (unknown)

you were dragging her words into your muck of paranoia, delusion, and just plain kookery. Leave it to you to ride on the coattails of a reasonably sane person's concerns about the FBI. Trouble is YOU are mentally ill, and make such concerns an absurd farce of robot conspirators, New World Order plots against you, and skeptical bullies. Get a life and speak for yourself, you lilly-livered psychotic.

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

So stay off the roads, you f**king psycho

Re: Anatomy of a Sheepshearing (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:27:30 GMT

From: You have no right to drive while crazy (unknown)

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

I dunno. I don't want to pay good tax money funding this

Re: I know you're having fun tweeking the authorities, (Hal)

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 20:55:46 GMT

From: Glad you're paying through the nose Ray (unknown)

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

So you put on a dancing bear show at our expense?

Re: Anatomy of a Sheepshearing (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 20:54:37 GMT

From: Pathetic song and dance here Ray (unknown)

Your meglomania and delusions are disgusting.

You have no business taking up taxpayer time and money b**ching about something as reasonable as getting busted for driving unlicensed. The fact you put on an absurd show only increased, injustifiably, how much money we wasted to fund the time you took in court. If, in your "own inimitable way" (PLEASE! Could you get anymore f**king ***self-absorbed*** for Christ's sake??!!), you read your entire pathetic excuse for a legal "motion", this grandstanding must have gone on forever, wasting even more of our hard-earned money. F**king parasite.

You are perfectly obscene in your infantile refusal to accept responsibility for your actions. At least you will not prevail, and once they ring the money you owe us out of you, maybe you'll start to understand that you will be held accountable for yourself, whether you, in your delusional narcissism, like it or not. In other words, shove the grandiose and ridiculous attempts at legal argumentation: your thinking and character are equally ***garbage.***

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

So someone who couldn't even get into law school...

Re: Anatomy of a Sheepshearing (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 21:27:14 GMT

From: You obviously know nothing about the law (unknown)

rk: I suggested she contact her legal colleagues in the District Attorney's office regarding the merits of the the legal cites listed in the motion. She brushed it off.

Ray, is this for real? Someone who couldn't even get into law school, and who has been informed repeatedly about the nature and scope of Oregon state court jurisdiction over Oregon state citizens, was asinine and psychotic enough to tell a sitting judge he knows the law better than she? The least you deserved was to get shot down, and in my opinion, you deserved a good reprimand as well. Your ignorance is equalled only by your overweaning, monstrous ego. The principle is simple: If you partake of the rights of citizenship in this state, you are accountable to the courts of the state as well. Contest this Ray: I want to see you pay as much as possible for such a revolting display.

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

Good, don't pay. They'll simply attach your assets

Re: A Rush to Judgment: Citizens, US Constitution and Justice (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 21:24:00 GMT

From: Idaho, here come the Karczewskis! (unknown)

Ray, please continue in this vein. I would love nothing better than to see your finances drained, or you and your damned wife leave our state. You're both stinking disease, and should pay us every penny it cost to even hear your psychotic screed in court.

Reply

In The Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ."

What are these ""Unalienable Rights?"

Life: As with all Truth, the "Right to Life" is self-evident. The duty of Life rests in it's own self-preservation.

Liberty: The quality or state of being free. Freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.

"Happiness" is the essence of Life "unimpeded."

It is the natural state of a "Free Man." These "Unalienable Rights" cannot be infringed upon by a government which is a servant of, and exists at the behest of a Free People.

Specifically, it is the Right to Liberty and the 14th Amendment, Section 1 (due process) of the US Constitution which is the Authority that is addressed in this writing.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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." http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html#14sec-1

All quoted material below is extracted from a legal brief used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for charges being dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants

see: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html

"The 'most sacred of liberties' of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:"

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

"The concept of liberty is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:"

"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.

and further...

"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.

"Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the 'most sacred of his liberties,' the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life."

and...

"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.

It must be noted that the "ordinary and usual conveyances of the day" for travel at the time the Constitution was written were horseback or horse and wagon. Today it is the "automobile."

To steal a man's horse was to threaten his very survival. Such an act violated man's Unalienable Rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As such, punishment for the crime of horse theft was swift and sure--Death by hanging! Keep this in mind as we observe the errant journey our present day goverment has taken since the Constitution was written and established as the Supreme "law of the land."

"There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:"

"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

"While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:"

"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

"The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word 'automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232. "The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:"

"'Motor vehicle' means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property."

"'Used for commercial purposes' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit."

"Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire."

If one examines the Oregon/California State Vehicle Codes which require a contract being entered into by an individual seeking to obtain a license (privilege) to drive , they will see such regulations pertain "only" to the regulation of "Motor Vehicles" and does not include the private use of automobiles.

"The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily."

"Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities."

"Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case."

"No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations."

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke, 1784.

"Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses 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. "

In Josephine County, Oregon, where I live, our state and local government law enforcement officials have expanded implementation of the Rico Statute which was originally designed for the "War on Drugs" (a MAJOR FRAUD perpetrated upon the people by its own government).

Additionally, such implementation can be seen to be a clear violation of the "due process" clause in the 14th Amendment (confiscating private property of citizens in order to exploit and shore up sagging department budgets). Such extraordinary actions only further a deliberate government enforcement momentum designed to intimidate and throw fear into the minds of a "helpless public." Government disregard for the oath to support and defend the Constitution only results in everincreasing, power based, nonessential busy-work, bogey-man programs which, along with our military interventions throughout the world, is bankrupting our nation.

This expansion of confiscating private property of citizens without "due process" is a radical step away from the Constitution-based Government we at one time enjoyed. Oregon government is now targeting for confiscation the "automobiles" of the poor, the uninsured, the unlicensed, and less fortunate of our society who, although some in society may wish otherwise, are equally endowed with the Unalienable Right to Life (survival), Liberty (freedom of movement to ensure survival), and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Again, it must be noted, this is all being done without the necessity of due process. Not only do they violate the Constitution by infringing upon the "Unalienable Rights" of citizens to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," they "steal" away from citizens their "ordinary and usual conveyances of the day." The question must be asked by each of us--To what end?

History shows us the penalty suffered by the horse thieves of yesteryear. What should the punishment be for the horse thieves' modern counterparts who steal (confiscate) "automobiles" away from the poor, the uninsured, and/or the unlicensed ((none of whom are actually required to be licensed if they are not operating a "motor vehicle").

I am a retired police sergeant living on pension here in Southern Oregon. On September 23rd, 1999 my driver's license (contract) expireswith the State of Oregon. I shall not renew it. Instead, I shall reclaim my Constitutionally guaranteed Unalienable Right to Liberty as it pertains to driving my two automobiles on Oregon roadways.

Thus will end a 46-year-long unbroken chain of Driver's licenses possessed by me since the age of 16.

Yes, folks, sometimes it takes that long to WAKE UP!

On September 23rd, 1999 I'll be 62 years of age. I possess good health and coordination. Both of my automobiles are fully insured and in good mechanical working order.

I do not use either automobile for commercial purposes. They are used for private transportation purposes which ensure the survival of my wife and myself.

Gathering provisions at the local store requires a round trip of approximately 20 miles from and to my home. I do not consider that I need to secure a government "privilege" in order for me to attend to the survival needs of myself and my wife. I merely ask that I be afforded the same Unalienable Right to drive my "automobile(s)" on the public roadways as do farmers who currently drive their motor-driven farm equipment on Oregon roadways without needing to be licensed.

At the time of this writing I have never been arrested, nor have I been incarcerated for any reason. In other words, at the time of this writing, I AM NOT A CRIMINAL.

Let us see whether our government can make the act of a free man who demands his "Unalienable Rights" to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness into a CRIMINAL ACT!

Reply

June 5th, 2001, 0025 hrs AM.....Traffic Citation received for unsignalled turn and no drivers license. Court date set for June 27th, 2001 at 2:00 PM in Canyonville Justice Court

June 18th, 2001..... Contact made with Douglas County Court Clerks office in Roseburg Oregon seeking Douglas County Court rules and procedural info for filing Motions. Advised by Clerk to contact Magistrate at Canyonville Justice Court.

June 18th, 2001.....Contact made with Canyonville Justice Court, Justice of the Peace Carol Roberts. I was accompanied by my wife Anita L. Karczewski who witnessed the conversation. When asked for instructions on procedures to file a motion to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction, Judge Roberts advised me to write a letter to her, adding that legal form was not necessary.

Judge Roberts stated her course of action in these cases of motion for dismissal in issues of Constitutional Rights vs State Privilege would be to read the letter, then prior to or on the scheduled date of Appearance on June 27th, enter a default judgment of guilty, then reassign and reschedule the case for a Jury Trial in another court. Judge Roberts added that I would likely be contacted by mail. Her course of action was already laid out even before reading the motion for dismissal or hearing the facts of the case.

A Cover Letter and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was submitted on June 19th. It was sent to Judge Roberts at the Canyonville Justice Court via Registered Mail, signed receipt requested. Mail received and signed for by Office Personnel Leslie Britt on June 21, 2001,

June 27th, 2:00 PM....I responded to the Canyonville Justice Court for my scheduled hearing listed on the citation. Officer Poe, the arresting officer was not present. I was there ready to proceed, the arresting officer was not. As a retired Police Sergeant, in my experience with Traffic Courts, such circumstances alone were considered ample grounds for dismissal of all charges.

The Canyonville Justice Court bore no resemblance to any court in my experience as a law enforcement officer. Its semblance was that of a corporate entity sitting in judgment of those brought before it.

I was accompanied by my wife Anita who took notes of the interchange between Judge Roberts and myself. When summoned into Judge Roberts' office, I was advised by Judge Roberts that there would be no hearing of the case on that day even though the Citation directed me to appear on that specific date and time for a scheduled hearing.

A trip to the Canyonville Justice Court from my home in Cave Junction Oregon is a 160 mile round trip. The expense and waste of time incurred in meeting my responsibility to appear before a Judicial hearing only to have the case postponed to another date with no just cause is reasonably said to be arbitrary and capricious.

That is the first exception noted for purposes of appeal.

When I asked whether the proceedings would be recorded, Judge Roberts stated they would not, as Traffic Court was not a court of record. I presented to Judge Roberts, orally and in writing, additional information to supplement the prior Motion to dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction to wit:

Oregon Court Procedure rules regarding Motion to Dismiss

ORCP 20.17 States: (20.17) *LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER* ORCP 21 A(1) allows dismissal of a claim for "lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter." "(I)f it appears by motion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisidiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." ORCP 21 G(4) (emphasis added). Regardless of whether a defendant raises lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court has a duty on its own motion to refuse to proceed when the complaint fails to allege facts giving the court subject-matter jurisdiction. Greeninger vCromwell, 127 Or App 435, 438, 973 P2d 377 (1994)

(20,20) *LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON* ORCP 21 A(2) allows the dismissal of a claime for "lack of jurisdiction over the person." ORCP 21 permits the trial court to determine the facts relating to personal jurisdiction (and other enumerated ground) based on either the face of the pleadings or the factual material submitted to the court, Sutherland v. Brennan, 131 Or App 25, 28, 883 P2d 1318 (1994), aff'd, 321 Or 520 (1995); Industrial Leasing Corp. v. Miami Ice Machine Co., 126 Or App 80, 83-84, 867 P2d 548 (1994)

Common law is the standard by which to ascertain what are proper cases for prohibition to a court of admiralty, and not the civil law...

This traffic court derives its civil law jurisdiction over matters of equity and commerce in Admiralty-Maritime Law. XXAdmiralty-Maritime courts have jurisdiction over contracts, torts, and other special cases. Waring v. Clark, 5 HOW 441m 454-464: Genesse Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 HOW. 443. 454, United States v Flores, 289 U.S. 137, 154. (1933)

No contract existed between myself with the State of Oregon for a Driver's License, neither can the State compel a citizen to waive his Rights and cause him to enter into a contract which allows such Rights to be converted into Privilege. The State does not have the power to convert the individuals right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."

I submitted to this court prior to appearance this date a written motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

HAGENS vs LAVINE, 15 US. 533m N-3, states that "once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."

I ask for such proof of jurisidiction by this court addressing the motion submitted or else, that this court dismiss all charges.

After hearing the motion, Judge Roberts, denied the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Roberts issued a comment irrelevant to the motion by stating the physical boundaries of her geographic jurisdiction. She completely bypassed the jurisdictional intent of the Motion as set forth in the Oregon Court Procedure rules secured from the Douglas County Courthouse Law Library.

Judge Roberts adamantly refused to discuss the motion for dismissal regarding the question of common law jurisdiction and Admiralty-Maritime Law, the latter of which she admitted governed her court.

I specifically brought Judge Roberts' attention to the cite of HAGENS vs LAVINE, 15 US. 533m N-3, which states that "once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."

I had challenged the Admiralty-Maritime law based traffic court's jurisdiction which violates my Unalienable Right to Liberty which includes the right to travel in the usual conveyance of the day, the private automobile, to wit:

"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 horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which 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.

Further challenged was the Admiralty-Maritime law based traffic court's jurisdiction over me since no contract existed between me and the State of Oregon which required that I waive my 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.

Judge Roberts made no offer of *proof* regarding her court's "jurisdiction" over the matter. Another exception for purposes of appeal was made as to her denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It is this that stands as the primary basis for this appeal.

Judge Roberts' terse and only statement as to the issue of jurisdiction, was "I BELIEVE this court has jurisdiction in this matter. The issuance of Belief of jurisdiction does not constitute PROOF of jurisdiction.

I suggested to Judge Roberts that she confer with the Douglas County District Attorney's office regarding the merits of the legal cites listed in the present and previous written motion submitted to her. Judge Roberts brushed the suggestion off.

Judge Roberts stated that she would schedule another hearing on the Citation to be heard by "her court" sometime in August. This contradicted her earlier statement made on June 18th, 2001 when she indicated a default judgment of guilty would be entered for me on June 27th, 2001 and the matter would then be rescheduled in another court for a jury trial.

Judge Roberts stated that the facts of the case would be heard by her at the next hearing. Absent was any mention of a Jury Trial she spoke of on June 18th, 2001. Judge Roberts stated if Deputy Poe did not show up to testify at that time the case would be dismissed, or, if after hearing the facts of the case, the court might rule in my favor. She added that I was not required to testify at such hearing.

Judge Roberts offered to drop the "unsignalled turn" charge if I plead guilty to the "unlicensed driver" charge. I declined her offer.

Judge Roberts stated that if I intended to appeal the matter, I was to bring a written request for appeal, in no specific form, and present it to her at that time. She would send all the paperwork to the Circuit Court at the County Courthouse in Roseburg, Oregon which would hear the appeal. However, Judge Roberts stated that if I were found guilty at that time, after hearing the testimony of the arresting officer, I would have to pay the "bail" of $170 for "No Operators License", the "fine" of $72 for "Unsignalled Turn," and an addition "filing fee" in the amount of $167 for the Appeal should I appeal the court's ruling.

I will indeed appear at the hearing at Canyonville Justice Court when summoned. However, since the traffic court is not a "court of record" (testimony and proceedings are not recorded by a court recorder or a tape recorder to preserve them as a matter of record), and a clear momentum has already been perceived to be set into motion by Judge Roberts at the subtle levels of pre-hearing proceedings, one sees the "writing on the wall." As such, my intention is to demur to the charges of "Unlicensed Driver" and "unsignalled turn" and stand mute. Should I be found guilty, I shall proceed with the appeal, but WILL NOT pay the fines! Can Justice be found in Canyonville Justice Court? Answer the question for yourself.

The proceedings in Judge Roberts' Justice Court were less that of a Judicial Court and more that of a bureaucratically run collection agency.

Perhaps it's time Oregons Justice Courts conducted by Justices of the Peace be reexamined as to their efficacy in the administration of Justice.

It has been said, "Those who make the rules, win the game" -- or do they?

For full background on this case, read the following:

http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch25.htm#Horse

http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch23.htm#Highwaymen

http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch24.htm#FBI

http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch24.htm#CONFISCATION

http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch24.htm#Oregon

http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch25.htm#Privileges

http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch25.htm#Dismiss

http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch25.htm#Anatomy

Reply

Next Page

Return to Home Page