Are
Ed & Elaine Brown Facing Life in Prison?? Are the Feds
Declaring War on Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient,
Natural American Men and Women?
Edgar
Wolphe spamt...@spamcop.com
View profile This
person has not created a profile. wrote:
Raymond Karczewski
(arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:
ew: > One can
imagine what goes through a lawyer's mind when Ray
pontificates his
case- spewing out citations like he actually knows
what he is talking
about!!!
rk: Thats
easy. One public defender whom the court forcefully imposed (in
order to protect themselves) on me against my will told me that
he could not represent me better than I represent myself. He
confided lawyers were not trained at that level of law and I know more
about it than he does.. After my closing statement to the jurors,
the other forcefully court imposed attorney stated that in 25
years of practice it was the best closing argument he'd ever witnessed
of a non lawyer "acting without a safety net."
ew: >
Ohhhh THE HYSTERIA!!!! You must have had JoCo's court in
stitches with crap like this! No wonder you will never again be
taken
seriously!
rk: You are
wasting your time with your attempts as misdirection. The STATE
OF OREGON and COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE went after me, threatening me with 35
years only to release me after their offer of Sentencing was
rejected. So much for Contract Law, eh? That is the
JURISDICTION issue I refer to which you try so hard to distort.
ew: >
BTW- the phrase "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be
proven" does not appear AT ALL in the in the case decision.
rk: Au Contraire,
that is the precise language of the cite as stated.
ew: >
And Ray-- I do hope that Ed and Elaine are not trying to use these same
citations in their defense!!! (heh, heh!)
rk:
JURISDICTION is the primary challenge brought before the court
which must be answered
by the court in order for them to proceed in the prosecution of Ed and
Elaine Brown. . Otherwise, the security force was operating
unlawfully and Ed and Elaine were KIDNAPPED by members of such private,
for profit, Corporate Security (regardless of the title they present to
a gullible public.)
rk: The
indisputable fact is there is no lawful government operating in America
today as Administrative Courts are now acting as prosecutors under
"Color of Law" contract proceedings, and are not Constitutional
Article III courts,
rk: The Police of
today are not lawful entities either since they are now contract
employees hired to protect the Corporation rather than the
People. It is the ignorance of the People which allow and support
such tyranny to continue.
rk: I assure you
that if the People of America watch closely the proceedings launched
against Ed and Elaine over these newly trumped up charges, (why were
they not charged immediatly) and if Ed and Elaine hold to their
Sovereignty, CHALLENGING the court to prove JURISDICTION, as I had in
my two cases, they too, will be released, and a few heads of judges,
prosecutors, and sheriffs, will roll just as they did in my case.
Only this time, heads will roll for TREASON.
The government made a
serious mistake with jailing two people over a law that does not
exist. They came up with these extra charges now to keep them in
custody and shut them up. Thats how Tyranny operates.
ew: >
And... because I am a nice guy, here is the the link to the the Supreme
Court record. Ray... I suggest that actually suck up your Ego
long enough to click on this link and read the actual case you think is
so important to your "Soveriengty".
rk: The Supreme
Court's ruling doesn't apply to those who are not subject to the
Corporate rules. Unless the court can prove JURISDICTION over the
Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man or Woman
(which they can't-- A Fiction cannot claim jurisdiction over its
Sovereign Creator). You and thousands, if not millions of
Americans do not realize the immense importance of this Issue is
to the Unalienable Rights of the Sovereign People of our country, the
True Government.. Without it, America will become known as the
Home of the Cowardly and Land of the Slaves. . .
ew: > I
did not bother to look into the other citations, but I am sure that
they are just as accurate as this one. But, it would behoove you,
Ray, to make the effort before you make yourself look foolish again.
rk: It doesn't
matter. Statutory Law is no more than legal (not lawful)
Corporate Policy and applies only to those who are subject to such
policies by their own consent which lie within the limited
JURISDICTION of the private, for profit Administrative Corporate Court.
rk: . To any
Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man or Woman who
has not consented to, nor contracted with, nor waived their
Rights is standing under God's Law, or to lesser degree,
Common Law, Constitutional Law, All these, in the order given,
TRUMPS the corporate rulings of all such private, Corporate,
Administrative Court Law
rk: In the
language of Cruden v. Neale, The law states: "There, every man is
independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is
not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his
consent." CRUDEN v NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. That
is fundamental Law.
rk: That is why
the STATE OF OREGON and COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE would not and will not
answer the question of JURISDICTION in my case. . They're on the
hook for Millions of Dollars, just in my case alone.
rk: What
happens when thousands of Jailed Americans catch on to how they have
been unlawfully kidnapped and held hostage as slaves for the perceived
crimes of a fictional juristic person whom they are not. Did not
Elaine state simply in the court record: i.e, "I am not the person on
this indictment," Elaine Brown, 68, told federal Magistrate Judge James
Muirhead yesterday. "I do not plan on taking part in any proceeding on
it whatsoever."
rk: Now it is
time for the Court to Rebut such statement offering proof in writing as
the law demands. They refused to do it in my case. Let us
see if they will do it in the case of Ed and Elaine Brown, while an
entire Nation watches on, demanding that the questions be answered by
those who have the power of life and death over those unfortunates who
are brought forcibly before them..
rk: In that
Moment of Truth when the courts are forced to answer the two questions
of jurisdiction the People of our land will come to see for themselves
the true corruption of the Pharisees in Black Robes who serve the
agenda of Satan..
rk: When
answered, the corrupt Satanic system would disintegrate in the Blink of
the Eye, and freedom, the gift enjoyed by all Sovereign People will
make itself known in America, if not the world which surely will
be watching on. That is what lies in the outcome of
the upcoming phony trials of Ed and Elaine Brown. SHOW US THE
LAW, AND PROVE JURISDICTION. Two simple questions which
have the power to bring down the Satanic Humpty Dumpty System,
which, as the Childrens fable predicts, "All the Kings Horses and
All the Kings men cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
(ahhhh... scratch that
! Ray cannot help looking foolish!)
EW
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

Are
Ed & Elaine Brown Facing Life in
Prison?? Are the Feds Declaring War on Living, Breathing,
Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural American Men and Women?
Edgar
Wolphe spamt...@spamcop.com
View profile This
person has not created a profile. wrote:
Raymond Karczewski
(arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote
rk: >>
JURISDICTION is the primary challenge brought before the court
which must be answered by the court in order for them to proceed in the
prosecution of Ed and Elaine Brown. . Otherwise, the security
force was operating unlawfully and Ed and Elaine were KIDNAPPED by
>members of such private, for profit, Corporate Security (regardless
of the title they present to a gullible public.)
ew: >
Or, the court just might take the view that Ed and Elaine committed a
crime (actually, quite a number of crimes!) while living in the State
of New Hampshire and the United States. That solves the
Jurisdiction issue rather convincingly, does it not?
rk: The court can
take an view they want, however there has to be crime that has been
committed for the court to try anyone for a crime, not a so-called
"Color of Law" crime.
rk: In the
instant case, Ed and Elaine Brown stood in Common Law, and therefore by
their demonstrable actions taken no crime was committed.
rk: In Common
Law, for a crime to be committed, one must do harm to another or
to another's property or infringe upon their Rights. No Harm was
done, by Ed and Elaine to either anyone or anyone's property, nor did
they infringe upon another's Rights. Therefore No crime was
committed by Ed and Elaine Brown.
rk: The court is
attempting to try them Fraudulently as they had in the first case,
since the charges were based in what is know as "statutory" law, or
else known as "Color of Law". Color of Law apply only to those who are
subject to Corporate "Color of Law" policies.
rk: Ed and Elaine
by standing in Common Law and Constitutional Law as Sovereign People,
they stood outside the jurisdiction of Maritime Administrative Court
Law, the court of contracts. They did not consent to doing
business (contracting with) the private, for profit, Unconstitutional
Non-Article III court. They, Ed and Elaine were standing in their
Private capacity as Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Man
and Woman. They were not acting through the fictional Juristic
Person whose name is spelled in all capital Letters and created by the
courts flying the military flag with the Yellow Fringe.. That
Sovereign standing was demonstrated by Elaine when she advised
the court: "I am not the person on this indictment," and "I
do not plan on taking part in any proceeding on it whatsoever."
rk: Unless the
court can prove JURISDICTION in writing to the challenges made by Ed
and Elaine Brown, the court would be committing the crime of Fraud
should they proceed with such unlawful, unconstitutional proceedings.
rk: The OREGON AND
JOSEPHINE COUNTY court did just that in my two cases. That is why
they threw me out of jail after their unlawful conviction of my
Juristic Person.
rk: They, the courts
and prosecutors are now tainted with the crime of fraud,a crime
which carries with it no "Statute of Limitations" I can move on
them anytime I want. However, I am more successful in educating a
slumbering public as to who they truly are, along with the power which
exists in anyone acting in court in full legal standing as a
sovereign, man/woman of the People, the True Government.
rk: Sovereigns
are the masters over black robed servants hired to do the bidding of
the Sovereign People, The public servants have attempted to turn
the tables on the Sovereign People in America. The
servants now present themselves as Master, and tyrannical masters over
their perceived public slaves at that.
rk: The two
trials of Ed and Elaine Brown and my two cases in JOSEPHINE COUNTY
OREGON (Case #02CR0617 AND #03CR0170) are the most important legal
events going in America Today. It is putting to the test the
question of whether Americans are Sovereign with full Rights or
Slaves.with no Rights.
rk: The challenge
of JURISDICTION has been made by Elaine. Now the Court MUST
ANSWER the question of JURISDICTION in writing as to whether Ed and
Elaine Brown, are presumed to be "Wards of the State", "Infants"
in the eyes of the Law, Incompetent to handle their own legal
affairs thereby preventing them from standing in their full legal
capacity, and/or are presumed by the court to be sureties for the debts
of the Juristic Person/defendant. However, Elaine has
already rebutted such presumption with her statement made on the court
record i.e., ."I am not the person on this indictment," and "I do
not plan on taking part in any proceeding on it whatsoever."
rk: It is now for
the Court to answer the challenge of JURISDICTION or drop all charges,
including the phony charges which convicted Ed and Elaine's
Juristic Persons in the first trial and immediately releasing them from
custody, or they stand guilty of Fraudulent Prosecution..
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven" HAGENS vs LAVINE,
15 U.S. 533 " No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
Standard v.Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sect 556 and 558 (b).
" The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been
challenged, it must be proven." Man v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct 2502 (1980)
rk: For all you
Freedom Loving Americans out there, I ask that you pass this thread
onto all of similar mind and soul throughout our nation,, keep those
cards, letters, emails and faxes and phone Calles going to New
Hampshire Courts and Legislators. They are our SERVANTS. We
are their MASTERS. Act like it. We can take back our
country without firing a shot in Bloody Revolution.
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©