July 19, 2001

Carol Roberts

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

Justice Court

Canyonville, Oregon 97417

Your Honor,

As I have repeatedly stated in all my past motions made to the court, I assert all of my rights under the Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights of 1787, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I waive none of my rights at any time.

I have repeatedly challenged the court to prove its jurisdiction in this matter and the court has refused to do so. "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., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

I reassert my objections and ask that this case be dismissed as you have failed to prove jurisdiction. 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)

I bring your attention to your letter of July 2, 2001. It says:

Dear Sir,

Your motions are denied. Your hearing is scheduled for july 27, 2001 at 9:30 AM. Please have all witnesses and evidence present at that time.

Yours Truly,

Carol Roberts

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

I do not recognize in your letter, the language as that of an official summons which compels one to appear before the court and stand trial. Any appearance on my part on that date and time in response to the absence of an official summons would be a voluntary appearance on my part and would cause me to waive my Rights and submit to the Jurisdiction of the court.

"When a judge exceeds his/her jurisdiction and grants or denies that beyond his lawful authority to grant or deny, he has perpetrated a "non-judicial" action." (Civil Rights) Yates v. Hoffman Estates (1962, DC Ill.) 209 F. Supp. 757

I consider such absence of an official summons as reflected in your letter to be a "non-judicial" action and therefore carries with it no force of law.

Your jurisdiction in this matter has been challenged repeatedly. Until such time as you are able to prove the traffic court's regulatory Jurisdiction over a freeman/natural person who is merely asserting his Unalienable Right to Liberty by travelling the public highways in his private property for private purposes and has not entered into a contract with the state seeking privilege of a driver's license nor having given his consent to be regulated as though he were engaged in using the public highway in the regulated activity of trade, commerce, business, or industry, I do not recognize the court's jurisdiction in this matter

I therefore will not respond to your invitation to appear, but will await either your issuance of a proper summons or your dismissal of this matter.

Reply

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:07:58 GMT

From: Hal (unknown)>

h: Note to Mr. K.

h: Go to www.leg.state.or.us/ors/051.html

h: There you will find all the authority for a justice of the peace court to handle your court.

rk: You miss the point, but that does not come as a surprise. The U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land." It's jurisdiction is based in Common Law. A sovereign citizen demanding his Rights under Common Law is not subject to the limited jurisdiction of Admiralty or Maritime law courts unless he/she waives his "common law" and Unalienable Rights and consents to it's jurisdiction through the simple act of "contracting" his rights away. Here is a simple question that the modern civilized citizen may answer for himself. How many times a day is he being asked to "SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE?!"

rk: I have no such CONTRACT with the State. Therefore Admiralty/Maritime courts which regulate activities of trade, commerce, business, and industry have no jurisdiction over such a freeman/natural person. That is the issue at hand. One cannot expect ignoramuses and slaves to understand anything which is beyond their conditioned slave mentality.

h: It is given broad jurisdiction by the legislature.

rk: Yes, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of a sovereign citizen who DEMANDS his Unalienable/common law/ Constitutional Rights not be infringed upon by "his/her" public servants.

rk: It is when the servants become masters and the masters have been incrementally conditioned to see themselves as slaves, only then does the mentality of a BASSACKWARD world based in TYRANNY become acceptable to cowardly individuals who would "lick the boots" of their masters. This scenario plays itself over and over again throughout history, yet ignoramuses never seem to learn the lesson which lies at the heart of such repetitive and habitual insanity.

h: The justice court does not have to prove it has jurisdiction; you have to prove it doesn't.

rk: As usual, you and the other anonymous misdirecting yahoos on these newsgroups/forums speak from ignorance and/or deliberate deception/misdirection. In the original article of this thread I have cited existing case law to that very point of requiring the courts to "prove" jurisdiction when it is challenged. If you missed it, here it is again.

"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., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

h: The "law" you cite is worthless.

rk: The law(s) (cited by you as worthless) which pertains to my case are as follows.

"Amendment IV

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.

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

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

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

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

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

Amendment XI fn3

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

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

Amendment XIV. fn6

Section. 1. 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.

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

rk: That hal, is no more nor less the import of this issue which I am publicly sharing with the American Public.

rk: If our U.S. Constitution is alive and well in this, the United States of America, formerly called the"home of the brave and land of the free," the unlawful case brought against me by police and judicial agencies which no longer serve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution but now do the bidding of the New World Order's Admiralty/Maritime/Corporate judicial system, WILL BE DISMISSED.

rk: If however the latter has rendered the U.S. Constitution null and void, and the American People have been sufficiently dumbed down, inert, and impotent to do anything about it, well then, you can kiss the likes of a Raymond Karczewski goodbye.

rk: To a freeman, it is always a matter of liberty, is it not?

rk: This matter of Rights vs. Privileges and the other Federal matter of Government/media sponsored/supported mind control/disinformation agents conducting mind control experiments upon unwary users of the the Internet are the two issues I have personally brought to the public's attention. What the public does with it will establish whether Freedom or Tyranny shall prevail in this country and perhaps in the rest of the world, in the days to come.

Reply

Raymond Karczewski

PO Box 1870

Cave Junction Oregon 97523

Dear Sir,

I have read your letter of July 16, 2001.

June 27, 2001 is the date Deputy Poe cited you into court for your first appearance. A first appearance is just that- a time for you to come to court, be advised of your right to hearing and enter a plea. If a plea of not guilty is entered a hearing is scheduled for a later date.

You've told me you were a former police officer and as such you would know that large groups of people are cited in at a certain date and time for first appearance. For instance we have 124 people cited in on July 25, 2001 at 2:00 PM. Of these 124 people some will come in early, some will appear by mail or phone, some will fail to appear and the rest will appear on July 25th.

Of those that appear in court a small percentage will want a hearing. You can see how impractical it would be to pull every deputy whose written a ticket into the Court on July 25th at 2:00PM on the off chance they will be needed for a hearing. When a hearing is request one is set about three or four weeks after the first appearance taking into account the officer's and defendant's schedule.

You came in prior to your first appearance date and filed a motion which was denied. A hearing on the traffic ticket has been scheduled for you on July 27, 2001 at 9:30 AM. If you choose to appeal my decision at the hearing you would do so AFTER the hearing. As I told you the non-refundable appeal fee to circuit court is $167.00 + the bail on the citation. You do not have to use a special form to request an appeal. The appeal needs to be in writing, dated and signed. Please clearly list your mailing address.

If you file an appeal after the time of the hearing, I will forward it along with the citation and your check in the amount of $409.00 made out to Circuit Court who will then notify you by mail of a new date.

Yours Truly

Carol Roberts

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

Reply

Carol Roberts

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

Justice Court

Canyonville, Oregon 97417

Your Honor,

Again, Your Honor, I demand all of my rights at all times and waive none of my rights at any time. Your stated comment "I have read your letter of July 16, 2001" is a curious one indeed. It was not a letter but a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Although recognized to be unorthodox, it met the criteria set forth by you as to form in our personal meeting on June 18th, 2001.

To date, I have "travelled" 420 miles to Canyonville and Roseburg from my home in Cave Junction to deal with this unlawful, civil rights violating, exploitable by government issue.

The difficulties faced in the court's administrative logistics are the problems of the court, not mine. Traffic courts I have observed in the past have dispensed with the issue at the specified date and time for appearance issued by the citing officer on the citation. Since no prior notice was given me to the contrary as to bureaucratic rules and procedure to be followed, it is unconscionable for the court to impose such unnecessary loss of time and expense upon the citizenry without just cause.

I shall AGAIN briefly state my objection to the Court's refusal to "Prove" its jurisdiction in this matter when challenged on numerous occasions. I again bring to the court's attention existing case law and demand the court meet its duty to the law. "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., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

The traffic court's sole responsibility is the arbitration of "vehicle code" infractions and collection of fines and fees within the limited venue of regulated activities which fall under the State's Police Powers. These Police Powers given the States by our U.S. Constitution are limited to regulating the use of public highways for those engaged in the regulated activity of trade, commerce, business, or industry, and/or other citizens who unknowingly have waived their God given Unalienable/Constitutional Rights. The latter give up their rights when compelled by their government to enter into a binding contract holding them to the enforcement terms of such contract. Without a Driver's License contract existing between the State of Oregon and myself this traffic court HAS NO JURISDICTION over this sovereign person.

Traditional color of the Law bureaucratic regulations do not apply universally to all citizens. They apply ONLY to those who have given their consent to be governed by such limited regulation and to no others.

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

This Traffic Court has no jurisdiction over a freeman/natural person who refuses to waive his Unalienable and Constitutional Rights to Liberty and has not entered into a contract with the State for the privilege of "driving."

The fact that millions of Americans have been the victims of a massive Construction Fraud perpetrated upon them by their government officials through practices of coercion and intimidation and have been compelled by their government into "believing" they must accept the yoke of government privilege is a sad commentary indeed.

I bring the court's attention to the problem in proceeding further in this matter. I have not entered a plea. I have demurred to the court and challenged the court to prove its jurisdiction in this matter. That challenge has not been met by the court. Until such time that it is fully met, there can be no further legal proceedings against me.

I further bring the court's attention to her statement "If you choose to appeal my decision at the hearing you would do so AFTER the hearing. As I told you the non-refundable appeal fee to circuit court is $167.00 + the bail on the citation. You do not have to use a special form to request an appeal. The appeal needs to be in writing, dated and signed. Please clearly list your mailing address."

This comment is not different from the statement made by you on June 18th, 2001 at our first meeting in your office. It appears you have already made up your mind before hearing the case. You have me convicted even before hearing the case. Are you not by definition denying me "due process" of law?

One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial." (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020; Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)

As to bail, is not the court getting ahead of itself?

According to Bouvier's LAW DICTIONARY, Revised Sixth Edition, bail is defined as "The essential qualification to enable a person to become bail, are that he must be, 1. a freeholder or housekeeper; 2. liable to the ordinary process of the court 3. capable of entering into a contract; and 4. able to pay the amount for which he becomes responsible"

Until such time as the court can prove its lawful jurisdiction over this natural person, this freeman does not recognize the jurisdiction of this court and is not (according to Bouvier's definition #2) " liable to the ordinary process of the court."

Your Honor, will you follow the law as set forth by the US Supreme Court and prove your jurisdiction over a man who demands his common law, Unalienable and Constitutional Rights be recognized by his government or dismiss the charges?

Reply

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:43:18 GMT

From: IceNine (icenine@locnet.digitalchainsaw.com)

in: >Rayyyymond...about this court thing...(LONG.)

rk: All that work you've just done in order to discredit me is moot.

rk: It amounts to "almost but no cigar,." but then, what else can be expected from one who sees life blocked by the blinders of ignorance and prejudice?

rk: Now that you have labored so hard and so long to prove to the world your ignorance, may I make a suggestion?

rk: CHUCK the lay dictionary and pick up a LEGAL dictionary. There you will find that geographical jurisdiction is but one form of jurisdiction. Why don't you see how many other forms of jurisdiction you can come up with and report your findings back to these newsgroups with the same level of energy you have put into this *MISDIRECTING SPIN?*

rk: I suggest you research further into the "Yellow Fringed" American Flag. When will you disinformation "Yahoos" tire of making such fools of yourself?

in: > Ray, let's clarify something here. Here's a little nugget from your last screedfest: (From: Oregon Courts, The "Slick" Side...)

rk: I notice you have a tendency to take my comments *out of context.* That does not bode well for the establishment of Truth, does it?

rk: >> As usual, you and the other anonymous misdirecting yahoos on these newsgroups/forums speak from ignorance and/or deliberate deception/misdirection. In the original article of this thread I have cited case law to that very point of requiring the courts to "prove" jurisdiction when it is challenged. If you missed it, here it is again.

rk: >> "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., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

in: > OK...let's make sure we have jurisdiction down here...

in: > Jurisdiction (from dictionary.com)

in: > 1.Law. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.

in: > 2. a.Authority or control: islands under U.S. jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs. b.The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.

in: > 3.The territorial range of authority or control.

in: > Now...let's go back to your account of the big day in court (From: A Rush To Judgement...)

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

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

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

rk: >> 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.

in: > That fulfills number 3 in the above definition. Jurisdiction is proven. You lose. 15 seconds work to make you look an ass. Hell, isn't it?

in: > Now, I'll assume for the sake of argument since that's such an easy fit, and also taking into account that you parse words at the subatomic level, that territorial jurisdiction isn't what you mean. So, let's assume your talking about Number 1 in the above definition "The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district."

in: > As far as this particular screed goes, I think this goes to the heart of your argument (From: Re: Restoring Our Constitutional Government --SOLUTIONS!)

rk: >> Next time you enter a court, check to see whether the American Flag has yellow fringe. If it does,unless you are in the Military, you know you have just stepped into an Admiralty-Maritime court, and your US Constitution protections have just gone bye-bye!!!

in: > So it is your assertion that yellow fringe on the flag in a courtroom means that the courtroom does not have jurisdiction? Have I got that right?

in: > http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Schneider.htm (Quoting from Webpage)

[...]

in: > Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child's game wherein one's power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman.

in: > http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-fring.html (Quoting from Webpage)

[...]

in: > The use or non-use of fringe on a United States flag in a court has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court or with martial law.

in: > http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/PDF/tsc/994/halljd.pdf. (Quoting from Webpage)

[...]

in: > 6 Although the record is not completely clear, the defendant apparently perceived gold fringe ornamentation on the courtroom flag to be symbolic of martial law jurisdiction. We note that the display of the United States flag with gold fringe is common in many ceremonial settings, including courtrooms. From a historical and legal standpoint, the use of fringe on the flag has no inherent or established symbolism . It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court or with martial law . It is purely a decorative addition to enhance the appearance of the flag. See Fringe on the Flag?, New England Journal of Vexillology (Online edition, 1 997); Data Summary Sheet No. 1 3/95, Flag Research Center (1995); see also Scheider v. Schlaefer, 975 F. Supp. 1160, 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1997) (finding that fringe on flag was not of any legal significance affecting the jurisdiction of the court and holding all future claims.

in: > Ray, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a State Supreme Court decision, innit?

rk: Izzit? I think you will find that a State Supreme Court is a lower court, a mere stepping stone on the way to the United States Supreme Court where case law is decided according to the Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution.

in: > I wonder why it never got sent up the ladder to the US Supreme Court? Maybe Scalia is allergic to straw?

http://www.bus.ucf.edu/ckelliher/tax/examples/tax_protesters_hall_of_fame.htm

in: > United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996) Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees. Argued that as a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas," the district court lacked jurisdiction, that the case should be moved to "Our One Supreme Court for the Republic of Texas," and that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty.

in: > So, let's revisit that Jurisdiction Definition again...

in: > 1.Law. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.

in: > 2. a.Authority or control: islands under U.S. jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs. b.The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.

in: > 3.The territorial range of authority or control.

in: > You're not a Native American, are you? Just making sure, since you spend some time in casinos...Last I checked, Oregon wasn't an island...just wanna cover all the bases here.

in: > We'll leave your family out of this, we know there's no control here. If there were, you'd be getting some kind of counselling.

in: > Judge Roberts did state the physical boundaries of her geographic jurisdiction, so that's proof of Jurisdiction.

rk: See my above comment about "almost but no cigar!!"

in: > Finally, there are several examples of your Yellow Fringe Jurisdictional Argument that have fallen flat on their ass. One of them, a State Supreme Court Decision.

rk: There again, you stop along the way and don't go to where the real answers lie -- the United States Supreme Court. Are we not a nation composed of political jurisdictions (in descending levels of federal, state, county, municipalities and townships) which create, through color of office, unconstitutional bureaucratic laws, regulations, and ordinances which stand until they are ultimately challenged by a tyrannized populace when taken to the highest courts for a final determination?

rk: This nation is rife with unconstitutional laws, which have not yet been put to the test.

rk: What do our leaders do about it? Do they repeal them? NO, it's much too profitable to exploit the masses when so few would dare to challenge them.

rk: Do they perform their duties according to their Sworn Oath of Office to protect, defend and abide by the Constitution? Or do they seek to amend the Constitution through repeated attempts to call for a new Constitutional Convention?

rk: Failing that, have they not subverted the U.S. Constitution by establishing Admiralty-Maritime courts which better serve the aims of Corporate America instead of the populace this Common Law based U.S. Instrument was designed to protect?

rk: Had not the Framers of the U.S. Constitution fled from an errant, runaway, tyrannical goverment, much like the one we have today, so that they may start from scratch and form "a more perfect Union"?

in: > Jurisdiction is easily proven. About 180 degrees from your being able to prove any of your accusations. That MUST suck.

in: > Advice: Stop at a Pharmacy on the way to Canyonville. Pick up some Astroglide. You're GOING to need it.

in: Unless Anita's got a spare can in her purse, of course.

i9

rk: I have already made note of the justice court's *invitation* to me to appear for a hearing on July 27, 2001. I have advised the court that its actions are null and void until it can prove its jurisdiction, and not merely assert the "BELIEF" that it has jurisdiction over one who has no contract with the State nor has given his consent to be prosecuted under its limited JURISDICTION.

rk: Such administrative invitation falls short of a "common law" criminal summons, which must be issued at the Circuit Court Level in order to carry with it the force of law.

rk: In my last motion made to the court regarding "procedural rules" I stated to judge Roberts:

"I consider such absence of an official summons as reflected in your letter to be a "non-judicial" action and therefore carries with it no force of law.

"Your jurisdiction in this matter has been challenged repeatedly. Until such time as you are able to prove the traffic court's regulatory Jurisdiction over a freeman/natural person who is merely asserting his Unalienable Right to Liberty by travelling the public highways in his private property for private purposes and has not entered into a contract with the state seeking privilege of a driver's license nor having given his consent to be regulated as though he were engaged in using the public highway in the regulated activity of trade, commerce, business, or industry, I do not recognize the court's jurisdiction in this matter

" I therefore will not respond to your invitation to appear, but will await either your issuance of a proper summons or your dismissal of this matter."

rk: "When a judge exceeds his jurisdiction and grants or denies that beyond his lawful authority to grant or deny, he has perpetrated a "non-judicial" action. (Civil Rights) Yates v. Hoffman Estates (1962, DC Ill.) 209 F. Supp. 757

rk: I have demanded my right to due process in a common law court of record. Traffic Court is not a common law court of record. I demanded that the proper court of Jurisdiction either send a summons compelling me to appear, swear out a warrant for my arrest, or else dismiss the charges.

rk: If the warrant for my arrest bears the name of any other Magistrate but that of Traffic Court judge Carol Roberts, that alone establishes a prima facie case for the Traffic Court' lack of Jurisdiction? Let us see what course of action is decided upon by Judge Roberts, shall we?

rk: Can you say, CHECKMATE??

Reply

Me IP: 206.11.234.102 wrote:

posted 07-20-2001 10:47 AM

m: As I have pointed out, you had no case to begin with, and now you have a hearing before a pissed off judge.

Quinton qwojedwa@webtv.net wrote:

q: After reviewing the flowing prattle and waves of words, I would suggest you shut the hell up and pay your damn ticket before they stuff your ignorant ass in the county lock-up for a while. "Your going to a place so exclusive, you have to be reccomended by a judge to get in!!!" Also, I viewed the link posted on all your rantings and find it to be misdirected if not outright disturbng. God warned me there would be people like you! WOJ

rk: The above two responses are typical of the mentality exhibited on these newsgroups/forums. Ignoramuses who have long ago sold out their integrity and sovereignty and have capitulated to their mind controlling masters.

rk: You spot them immediately by their cowardly, anonymous, compensatory, "say nothing" patter. It would be too much for them to back up their words with their true names/identities, let alone initiate any meaningful actions of their own.

rk: Living in the dark shadows as they do, they are easily disturbed by the sudden light of Truth thrust upon them, a searing light which shocks them to the very core of their conditioned blindness.

rk: They compensate for their inability to initiate any meaningful action in and of themselves, and so have taken up the role of a judgmental spectator; i.e., those who sit on their hands, on the sidelines, while watching an actual event by willing participants who put it all on the line.

rk: What is the essence revealed in their communications? Is it not CAPITULATE, CAPITULATE, CAPITULATE?

rk: Is this not the conditioned mindsets of slaves? Is this not what the United States of America citizenry has been reduced to? Seems so, doesn't it?

rk: These cowardly capitulators have forgotten what it means to be a person of integrity. Don't take my word for it. See it for yourselves. Look at the typical comments addressed toward my posts.

rk: Why should the actions of a man who will stand alone if necessary to hold his government responsible upset them so?

rk: Why do so many verbally talented, but action stunted slaves cower in fear at the mere mention of ACTUALLY holding their public officials accountable?

rk: Why indeed!!

rk: These are the majority of posters (over and above the *seeded* government/media sponsored/supported disinformation agents assigned to blanket Internet newsgroups/forums. Their purpose: to control the public flow of information on the Internet, the last bastion of Freedom of Speech not fully under the control of the few who rule over the many) who reveal their present state of unawareness and impotence, who seethe, bluster, and fume when their attention is focused upon the behavior of a sovereign citizen who expects his government officials to serve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and conduct themselves according to their Oath of Office.

rk: Ah, America, "the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" -- I knew you when....!!

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

Why are you responding to mental illness with logic?

Re: Rayyyymond...about this court thing...(LONG.) (IceNine)

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:31:19 GMT

From: Ray is ill, as anyone can see. (unknown)

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

You exude the arrogance of a snob.

Re: At least the guy doesn't abuse his kids (Ironic you preaching, given your history)

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:44:31 GMT

From: Hal (unknown)

Are you a man intellectually above us all? So high an mighty that we need to be lectured from time to time, with examples of your daily discourse with the unwashed?

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

Paean to inanity

Re: Ah, America, I Knew You When...!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:48:40 GMT

From: snoop (unknown)

Felt I just had to extrapolate a piece of the preceeding paean to inanity: "Satanically driven intellect seducing an ignoramus to his inevitable destruction? "

At long last hte master has told us precisely what he s up to.

If we should ceasze to respond to his self-serving egomaniacal tyrades, he would soon tire of inventing respponses and GO AWAY

Of course, if ite helps you to feel more significant, then go ahead and respond. It ain't gonna be long 'til we are rid of his tripe anyway.

tripe)In Mexican my word for his.... ...is caca or mierda.

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

Now I get It

Re: Ah, America, I Knew You When...!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:50:16 GMT

From: Bongo, the Chimp of Mystery (unknown)

q: You must live in a cave. > > rk: I live on a beautiful 142-acre ranch which I don't own. > I am free to enjoy its benefits without enduring the bondage that > accompanies ownership.

Ray? You're a f**king freeloader? Jesus Christ, now I understand. You want to have everything handed to you, everything to go your way.

Never mind, you are the loser.

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

Your mind is controlled by your body chemistry

Re: Ah, America, I Knew You When...!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:38:27 GMT

From: You are the most abject slave imaginable (unknown)

It is more than ironic for you to be attacking these posters. You obviously have no self-control whatsoever, and have utterly capitulated to become an abject slave to your own unbalanced body chemistry. I think it's a good thing for you to continue to spew your hate and rage all over. Make sure and do it in court. Perhaps someone will finally force you to get the medical attention you so desperately need, and put an end to your obscenely self-indulgent screeds. You ought to be ashamed of acting like a child throwing a tantrum at your age. If you don't like the law, petition the legislature for change. **That** is the essence of our constituional republic, not throwing an infnatile tantrum when you don't like the law. And if they don't change it, get the hell out of our state. You were never welcome here in your raging mental illness and hatred.

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

Pathetic, paranoid SOB

Re: Re: Ah, America, I Knew You When...!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 13:56:14 GMT

From: Take your meds for pity's sake man (unknown)

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

Perhaps it's best you move to Cuba or China

Re: Ah, America, I Knew You When...!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 15:36:56 GMT

From: That way your paranoid will be real (unknown)

Yuo are a disgrace to responsible, hard-working Americans. Given your parasite status and ignorance of our Constitution, you have no grounds for proclaiming yourself as any kind of patriot. You are a drain on society, offer nothing in return, and spend your life spewing hate and psychosis all over the Internet. You are a sick joke, only you have neither the minimum intelligence or self-awareness to realize it.

Reply

Quinton (qwojedwa@webtv.net) wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

7/22/2001, 12:19 am

q: I spent the last 16 years of my life at a lower economic level than necessay because I didn't believe the state had the authority to suspend my liscense.

rk: That's what happens when you waive your Unalienable/Constitutional Rights in return for entering into a contract with the state for a driver's license. You bought the "privilege scam" as did millions of others who, also in their ignorance (including myself), were deceived by our own blind trust in government. In that act, you consented to the terms of the contract, including your consent to be prosecuted. Without a license, what is there to suspend or revoke? Think about it.

q: I may or may not have been wrong, but as I was told on more than one occasion: "You might beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride!"

rk: Does that not have the same familiar ring of facesaving ignoramuses who promote the opinion that "You can't fight City Hall?"

q: Try to get a good job without a liscense.

rk: Change your conditioned mindset of expecting others to GIVE you a job. In other words, break the habitual way you have been trained to look at the world. Then tell me, what do you see?

q: Well, after some accumulated 2 3/4 years of the last 16 were spent in jail because once they knew who I was, that was it. I've been pulled over for more reasons than I could possibly list. A judge once told me to get out of his town and not come back... I hope he's dead because I go there a lot now.

rk: It is your resentments which imprison the soul of quinton. No one has power over you unless you give it to them. Dead or not, that judge still controls you, doesn't he?

q: I've taken minimum wage jobs just to exist.

rk: Again, quinton, that was your mindset ruling your actions. Shake that poverty mindset and you will know true freedom regardless of how much money you are able to accumulate.

q: I rode a mountain bike EVERYWHERE for 2 years just trying to get by.

rk: See poverty mindset comment above!

q: I rode to work, to church, the store and so on. I was even pulled over on my mountain bike. They wanted to make me buy a light system.

rk: They were only welcoming you into the coming police state of the New World Order.

q: This doesn't look like much in print, but this is the last 1/3 of my life. I'm 35, I have a 1 year old daughter to think of. I got my liscense after really busting my ass for the last 6 years.

rk: You didn't learn did you? You couldn't wait to place yourself under their jurisdiction once again, could you?

q: Money was never an issue with me and DOL. It was time. My fines were paid.

rk: Did you learn to say "Yes, boss." "Whatever you say, boss." "How high do you want me to jump, boss?"

q: And anybody that loses his/her liscense for any reason better get it back soon.

rk: Do you see how quick you are to give advice to other slave minded individuals (is it because misery loves company?) because of your own unresolved fears? The sentiment expressed through your words qualify you to be the poster boy for "slave of the month," don't you think?

q: Maybe your protest is right legally, but things don't work that way now.

rk: THEN AS A NATION OF AWAKENING SOVEREIGNS, LET US SHAKE OFF OUR CHAINS OF SLAVERY AND CHANGE THEM!!!

q: Better get used to it. Try to resist to hard and we'll read a small bi-line about some dude getting gunned downed by the cops during a traffic stop.

rk: Ever hear the one about "Give me Liberty or give me Death?"

q: Maybe even slip a dozen times on a bar of soap. Don't do what I say, it's up to you. But the machine will catch up with you.

rk: There's that knee jerk "You can't fight City Hall" sentiment again. You have yet to understand the true estate of the one called quinton. You are still bound by the "outer directions" which rule your life.

rk: The problem, quinton, is that you are like the LEGION of other codependents who have been conditioned/trained to look to others to solve their personal problems for them. Thus emerges the class distinctions of "experts" and "incompetents," the latter being the masses who are exploited, controlled, and schnookered into the "Redistribution of Wealth" schemes concocted by the former.

rk: That, quinton, is the "wide path" which leads to destruction you've heard so much about. Get quiet. Stop the chattering of an opposing intellect which pulls and pushes you hither, thither and yon. Return to balance and you will understand the meaning of the statement "Narrow is the way (Balance) that leads to salvation."

q: I have made a sacrifice.

rk: Don't confuse "piddling" your life away with sacrifice.

q: What's yours??? Also, I am Quinton A. Wojciechowski and I live in Edwall Washingon just like my WebTv adress shows and I have no reason to forge my identity.

rk: Yet you do not post it in your sig line, not even in this post. Quibbling is the mark of a hypocrite, isn't it, quinton?

q: I work for a living. I trust in my Lord and Savior Jesus THE Christ, The Son of the Living God who's death, burial and Resurection washed my sins away and made me presentable before God because without Jesus I would be fit for nothing but Hell.

WOJ

rk: But aren't you, in fact, living in Hell, quinton? Sure sounds like it to me.

Reply

7/22/2001, 12:30 pm

Quinton (qwojedwa@webtv.net) wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

q: No my existence is not hell. I rather enjoy it.

rk: The letter of your words say one thing, the "Spirit" of your words say another. Your face-saving response is typical of hypocrites ruled by their fragmented, Satanically (Opposer) ruled Intellects.

q: I get to see the smiling face of my daughter every day and she loves me very much.

rk: I would venture to say your relationship with your daughter is also typical of an illusory, image-bound Christian Intellect. For instance, do you view your daughter as an emerging sovereign human being, or as an adjunct to your own sagging societally-conditioned ego?

q: You must live in a cave.

rk: I live on a beautiful 142-acre ranch which I don't own. I am free to enjoy its benefits without enduring the bondage that accompanies ownership.

q: Either that or you have no need to provide for your own existence by the way you think any activity relating to work is looked down upon as some form af slavery to the state.

rk: I am retired. All my needs are met. I want for nothing. I created this present existence by the sum total of all the actions I have taken in my lifetime. Guided by the Holistic (holy) Spirit of Intelligence every step of the way, by the timely actions taken in daily problem solving, I could not have planned it better. Such are the "perks" of the Christ State.

q: If you use a small portion of your brain, you can get around the tax system instead of standing up and shouting to the world your refusal to participate.

rk: You are not even aware that you are creating conflict within your life by promoting "resistance" to evil. You claim to be a Christian, yet you eschew the advice of your mythical hero who preached to all "Resist not Evil." Understand the words Jesus spoke, don't just worship empty rhetoric drummed into you through conditioned reinforcement of religious beliefs. Then you will transcend your personal Hell, an illusory intellectual realm you have made for yourself.

q: My problem is I want to be around for the "Big Party" rather than be wiped from existence during the first wave.

rk: See what I mean about a "reward" oriented, Satanically driven intellect seducing an ignoramus to his inevitable destruction? You're not even aware of what you say, are you?

q: My warning will be when people like you are determined to be detrimental to society therefore they must be expunged.

rk: Spoken like a typical Christian who hasn't a clue of the ACTUAL Christ State of Consciousness. Here's a clue. Reread your statement of expungement above. Is it based in "Oneness," "Wholeness"; i.e., "Love?" Or is it based in "Divisiveness" "Opposition" ; i.e., "Hate?" See how simple that was?

q: I have no doubts as to where our society and even the "history" of Mankind is going.

rk: Quinton, in "essence," YOU are that "Mankind." You are merely expressing where it is that you are going. Hell, isn't it?

q: It will get rather ugly before the return of Jesus, but that is ok because God is Sovereign.

rk: What a convenient copout, eh? Such debilitating religious beliefs provide you with a ready excuse to avoid taking personal responsibility for your present impotence/incompetence when dealing with your own daily personal problems.

rk: You have been trained from an early age to be incompetent and codependent upon others, have you not? You live your life much like any child who refuses to grow up and act as and be the Sovereign human being that is his/her True Estate of Christhood.

rk: Such is the way for all "Spiritual Children" who cannot put away the things of *spiritual childhood* and grow fully and mature into a Spiritual entity atone with the Infinite unbounded Intelligence many call God.

rk: Such spiritually debilitated entities would rather leave their salvation to some illusion bound, religion-conditioned image of a Messiah who will save them from themselves. How co-dependent of you/them, eh? Are you beginning to see from what depth of consciousness your present problems of life arise? It's your dualistic religious and societal conditioning, isn't it?

q: Think what you will, and run as you see fit. I will give you till the next 2-3 times you get pulled over and stuffed in Jail for 90 days.

rk: Should that occur, I assure you it will be to serve a larger purpose than you are presently capable of comprehending. Have you not heard the one about "Not my will, but Thine be done?"

q: Your knowledge of Englsh Common Law will be interesting reading for the guards on 2West. Can't fight city hall? Sure you can if you have the funding. Legal fights are not free. Especially if you are white and able to work.

rk: Do I detect the "not so subtle" energy of the habitual mindset of an incompetent entity crying out "Poor Me, Poor Me?"

q: I've been known as WOJ since grade school.

rk: At 35, you STILL haven't left "grade school," have you?

q: Break that oe down and you still haen't told me of your sacrifice to your cause. Have you?

WOJ

rk: How can the "Truth, the Life and the Way" sacrifice itself? Sacrifice is a concept important only to the "Living Dead"; i.e., those who have already sealed their fate through blind ignorance. Hell, isn't it?

Reply

7/22/2001, 12:30 pm

Quinton (qwojedwa@webtv.net) wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

q: I've laid pearls out before swine.

rk: Have you really? The fact is, you have done nothing but talked to the image you see staring back at you when you face a "mirror of Truth, a Christ."

q: Of course you own nothing. You hide behind others, sticking a finger to point out the problems of the rest of the world but realize not the fingers pointing back.

rk: Are you unable to rise above the level of voicing trite cliches? If so, it stands as further proof of your limited consciousness bound to reactive conditioning. I understand you feel uncomfortable when your resentments get out of hand and overwhelm you, but therein lies the real lesson to be learned by you in this relationship.

q: You still have not provided your so-called sacrifice for your cause. I susp[ect there are no sacrifices.You won't even take responsibility for the land you live on.

rk: The simple fact, quinton, is that, at the present time, you are not capable of understanding the true meaning of what is being communicated to you. Your prideful ignorance stands in the way of a deeper intelligence within you that presently you are not capable of accessing. Your expressed sentiments offered in these few posts are what may be considered normal in this civilized world of ours. Perhaps the greatest contribution you are making to the world in these posts via the Internet is in demonstrating to others how such "normalcy" is responsible for the present corrupted state of the world, even though all ignoramuses would rush to excuse their part in its collective creation.

q: Let someone else deal with the taxxes and such. Quite frankly, you are a waste of time.

rk: Are you ready for a real jolt to your conditioned beliefs?

rk: Your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ lived as I do. So did Buddha. Where does the record show that they were landowners? I'm sure the ignoramuses in the time of Jesus, who were threatened by the words of an holistic man, felt just as frustrated and angry as you do now when dealing with a simple Man of Truth (did He not say He was the "Truth, the Life and the Way?), one who mirrored their ignorance and corruption back to them. His mission in life was to "raise the living dead," as is mine today.

q: All this typing and all you've done is attack my statements and forwarded very little to support your own.

rk: I've attacked nothing. I have simply mirrored your statements back to you. You don't like what you see. That's the simple fact of it.

q: I must therefore presume you have made none. Your arguments are wordy but carry no substance since it is "Do as I say, Not as I do." My suggestion would be 1. Get off your ass! 2.Start supporting yourself and quit leaching support of others.

rk: My, my, such sour grapes!! How do you perceive I am leaching off others? I am retired. I paid into the system when I worked. I now receive what is due me -- no more, no less.

q: 3. Post again once that judge lets you out of jail because I'm very curious just how long a judge can give a moron for contempt of court!

rk: Mighty *Christian* of you, isn't it? See what I mean about the hypocrisy of religious believers? They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. None make that statement more plainly than you.

q: As far as my child... Not every child grows up to hate their parents. Just the abused ones. A child raised in love and righteousness will follow the correct path, if shown that path. He who does not provide for the care of his family is worse than an infidel.

rk: I suggest that you have fallen victim to the 6-year-long Internet libel campaign launched against me by government/media sponsored/supported mind control/disinformation agents. You see, NONE OF IT IS TRUE -- NONE OF IT! But then again, that is why not one of the anonymous posters are willing to back up such libelous statements with their true names. Think about it, quinton. It's been 6 years of unrelenting, almost daily attack, and they have not been able to bring down a simple man of Truth through finding a single "contradiction in essence" without manufacturing it themselves. That is why they labor so long and hard with such misdirecting libels.

rk: Not to worry, though. After I finish up with this Constitutional issue of Rights vs Privilege, I am sure the fence-sitting public will come to understand that all along I have revealed the shocking Truth of how they have been, and are being controlled through Satanistic mind control techniques by their government officials and will demand the FBI release its Investigative results into the Mind Control complaint I filed on November 2nd, 1997. Make no mistake about it. They have looked into "Pandora's Box" and the contents they have discovered leave them no option but to STONE WALL the American public.

q: Now if you would kindly remember to opern with your sacrifice to your cause I will consider ypour next words, otherwise I will consider you a relic of a bygone era. An era I have great respect for beause men had rights, but in a post-constitutional era,(which bothers me greatly) we have the rights we are allowed to have.

rk: Your words "....we have the rights we are *allowed* to have" really is the self-indictment of an Ignoramus who doesn't understand "rights" at all. To "allow" is to dispense "privilege." You've got it all BASSACKWARDS, don't you?

q: In closing, I'm gonna rub your nose i it. I can go to the local gun store, purchase a handgun and walk out with it right then. Can you say as much? No wait, no background check. I did it July 9th.

rk: I have no comment to make to that bit of insanity. You've said it all. WOJ

q: In my efforts to not lower myself to your level of name calling and mean spirited banter, I forgot one thing. I HAD a friend that had your same outlook on work and such. He was this fat black bastard that couldn't work a full day to save his life.

rk: If you call your friends "fat black bastards" what do you call your enemies? Yep, you're a practicing Christian, that's plain to see!

q: He is no longer my friend because he is unreliable, in a word. I'll leave it at that.

WOJ

Reply

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:26:41GMT

From: Dr. Freud (unknown)

To Dr. Freud (unknown)

rk: It would seem that you have failed to read my last Internet published motion in the court procedure/rules portion regarding the disposition of my case now before Traffic Court Judge Carol Roberts of the Canyonville, Oregon Justice Court. You'll find it below.

rk: The upshot is that I have not entered a plea in the matter. There is no evidence in any of the communications I have received from Judge Roberts that she has entered a plea over my objections. There certainly has been no proof offered by Judge Roberts which overcomes my direct and unequivocal challenge to the court to prove its jurisdiction over a freeman who is exercising his Unalienable/Constitutional Right to Liberty, and is adamant in his refusal to waive his rights and accept Government privilege in its stead. This issue goes to the very core of our Constitution-based Judicial System. The very continuation of our Constitutional Republic is at issue. I am being denied my rights as guaranteed all citizens under our *Bill of Rights.*

rk: That is the issue, and that alone is the question which has been put to the court.

rk: Without the court's proof of such (challenged) jurisdiction, it is violating the law. By failing to follow existing case law which states jurisdiction MUST be proved by the court before further proceedings may take place, actions or directives do not carry with them *force of law* and are nonjudicial in scope. Read the communication below for further details. Notice of my non appearance in future proceeding was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Judge Roberts on this date, July 23, 2001.

rk: In it I have advised Judge Roberts, that I DO NOT recognize her court's jurisdiction in this matter, and therefore I will not participate in this fraudulent government action any longer.

rk: As traffic court judge, Judge Roberts must either swear out a valid arrest warrant to bring me before her court, or dismiss the charges. The problem is Judge Roberts lacks the capacity to issue arrest warrants. It's just more evidence as to her lack of jurisdiction over a man insisting upon his Common Law Rights according to the U.S. Constitution.

rk: For those members of the media and/or Internet readers who intended to observe the meeting on July 27th, 2001, save your time and gas.

rk: As to the comments below of the cowardly, libel-slinging, shadow dweller "unk," -- In your dreams, unk, in your dreams!!

unk: ssssh.....Don't tell Ray Karczewski but...

unk: as we know he is to have a hearing this Friday. Poor Raynoid thinks it's going to be a hearing for a Traffic Citation, but I am betting it turns into a commitment hearing.

any takers??

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

July 19, 2001

Carol Roberts

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

Justice Court

Canyonville, Oregon 97417

Your Honor,

As I have repeatedly stated in all my past motions made to the court, I assert all of my rights under the Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights of 1787, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I waive none of my rights at any time.

I have repeatedly challenged the court to prove its jurisdiction in this matter and the court has refused to do so. "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., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

I reassert my objections and ask that this case be dismissed as you have failed to prove jurisdiction. 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)

I bring your attention to your letter of July 2, 2001. It says:

Dear Sir,

Your motions are denied. Your hearing is scheduled for july 27, 2001 at 9:30 AM. Please have all witnesses and evidence present at that time.

Yours Truly,

Carol Roberts

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

I do not recognize in your letter, the language as that of an official summons which compels one to appear before the court and stand trial. Any appearance on my part on that date and time in response to the absence of an official summons would be a voluntary appearance on my part and would cause me to waive my Rights and submit to the Jurisdiction of the court.

"When a judge exceeds his/her jurisdiction and grants or denies that beyond his lawful authority to grant or deny, he has perpetrated a "non-judicial" action." (Civil Rights) Yates v. Hoffman Estates (1962, DC Ill.) 209 F. Supp. 757

I consider such absence of an official summons as reflected in your letter to be a "non-judicial" action and therefore carries with it no force of law.

Your jurisdiction in this matter has been challenged repeatedly. Until such time as you are able to prove the traffic court's regulatory Jurisdiction over a freeman/natural person who is merely asserting his Unalienable Right to Liberty by travelling the public highways in his private property for private purposes and has not entered into a contract with the state seeking privilege of a driver's license nor having given his consent to be regulated as though he were engaged in using the public highway in the regulated activity of trade, commerce, business, or industry, I do not recognize the court's jurisdiction in this matter

I therefore will not respond to your invitation to appear, but will await either your issuance of a proper summons or your dismissal of this matter.

Reply

Bill Shatzer (bshatzer@OregonVOS.net) wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

Date: 2001-07-23 16:27:16 PST

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Raymond Karczewski wrote:

rk: >> Without the court's proof of such (challenged) jurisdiction, it is violating the law.

bs: Sheesh, Ray.

bs: ORS 131.215.

bs: "Except as otherwise provided(1) ..., a person is subject to prosecution under the laws of this state for an offense that that person commits by the conduct of the person ... if:

bs: [1] Either the conduct which is an element of the offense or the result which is an element occurs within this state..."

bs: (1) It ain't nowheres else "otherwise provided".

bs: Show up at yer friggin' trial. The police officer will be happy to testify, under oath, that yer driving without a license occurred within the State of Oregon. He will also happily testify that it was you who done it. Thus providing yer requested "proof of such (challenged) jurisdiction."

bs: Sheesh.

bs: Peace and justice,

rk: Bill, your a practicing Oregon Attorney, are you not?

rk: What would cause a practicing Oregon Attorney to make such a feeble misdirection -- force of habit?

rk: As a practicing Oregon Attorney, you well know that legal meanings of words differ widely from the normal vernacular of lay persons. Without that difference, the legal profession would lose its mystique, and a great deal of a lawyer's power to deceive, confound and confuse the lay person via legal jargon foreign to the lay ear would be lost.

rk: What a concept eh? The demystification of the legal profession -- can you even ponder the consequences of that!!

rk: At any rate "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." For the purposes of making the point of Jurisdiction in this post, although I am not an attorney, I'll play by your rules.

rk: In quoting ORS 131.215. above, you say "..., a person is subject to prosecution..." The key word is *subject*

rk: Bouviers Law Dictionary defines the word "subject" as follows:

"SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights.

2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch. Vide Body politic; Greenl. Ev. Sec. 286; Phil. & Am. on Ev. 732, n. 1.

SOVEREIGN 2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people. Vide Rutherf. Inst. 282.

FREEMAN One in the possession of the civil rights enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556:

rk: As a sovereign freeman I am guaranteed, under the common law and the U.S. Constitution my Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property/happiness, in addition to my civil rights stated in the "Bill of Rights."

rk: "A freeman cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.

"...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use..." [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

"If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right? "

rk: I may waive my rights when I choose to enter into a contract with the State for the privilege of obtaining license. At that point my Rights have been converted into Privilege in which case I then become SUBJECT to all of the terms of the limited contract under the jurisdiction of Admiralty-Maritime law.

rk: Traffic Court is a Maritime Court and thus has JURISDICTION over Contracts, torts, etc.

rk: The traffic court's sole responsibility is the arbitration of "vehicle code" infractions and collection of fines and fees within the limited venue of regulated activities which fall under the State's Police Powers. These Police Powers given the States by our U.S. Constitution are limited to regulating the use of public highways for those engaged in the regulated activity of TRADE, COMMERCE, BUSINESS, and/or INDUSTRY and/or other citizens who unknowingly have waived their God given Unalienable/Constitutional Rights. The latter give up their rights when compelled by their government to enter into a binding contract holding them to the enforcement terms of such contract. Without a Driver's License contract existing between the State of Oregon and myself this traffic court HAS NO JURISDICTION over this sovereign freeman.

rk: I have no contract with the State of Oregon for a driver's license, and have not been subject to the terms of a licensing contract since September of 1999, when I allowed my previous driver's license to expire and did not renew it. I reclaimed my Unalienable Rights to Travel in my personal property, my private automobile.

rk: Case law states:

"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.

rk: Further:

"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.

rk: As a practicing Oregon Attorney, I'm sure you are familiar with the landmark Miranda ruling which states:

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

and...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

and...

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

rk: Yet you, a practicing Oregon Attorney so readily threw out the above moot misdirection (ORS 131.215.)

rk: Tse, tse, tse!! Shame on you.

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

Justice will be served, never fear

Re: So Who's Nuts -- Patriots or Capitulating Sheeple? (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 05:07:07 GMT

From: Vanilla Gorilla (unknown)

Re: Oregon Courts: The "Slick" Side of the Law > >Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:26:41GMT > >From: Dr. Freud (unknown) > >To Dr. Freud (unknown) > >rk: It would seem that you have failed to read my last Internet published motion in the court procedure/rules portion regarding the disposition of my case now before Traffic Court Judge Carol Roberts of the Canyonville, Oregon Justice Court. You'll find it >below.

Hey, SupreTroll! How's it hangin'? Look, Dude, your best bet, at this point, is to go for an insanity plea. It's a slam dunk, man!

You are one seriously non-compus mentis motherf**ker, FatBoy.

A brief search of the 'net told me that other people had tried insanity pleas in traffic court, but you'll be FAMOUS, as the first person to ever have one accepted!

See, you may consider Judge Carol to be "only" a traffic court judge, but she's still an officer of the court, and you'd be well advised not to piss in her Wheaties, if you get my meaning. A judge, traffic or otherwise, has the power to f**k up your life in ways you cannot even imagine. Hell, even more than you, yourself have done, and that's saying something!

Imagine, Jesus in an orange jumpsuit! How's THAT going to look on your resumé, huh?

Justice will be served, never fear. --

V.G.

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

No wonder you couldn't go to law school

Re: An Oregon Attorney comments: "Sheesh" (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:50:46 GMT

From: You are REALLY bad at thinking Ray (unknown)

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

This explains his obvious hatred for lawyers

Re: No wonder you couldn't go to law school (You are REALLY bad at thinking Ray)

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:32:27 GMT

From: Screaming, raging jealousy (unknown)

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

Can you spell P_A_T_H_E_T_I_C?????

Re: An Oregon Attorney comments: "Sheesh" (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:51:59 GMT

From: What a shameful display of ignorance (unknown)

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

Either you are really stupid or really sick

Re: An Oregon Attorney comments: "Sheesh" (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:13:18 GMT

From: Undoubtedly both. Get some help. (unknown)

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

A truly unkind way to treat a man who's obviously suffering

Re: Either you are really stupid or really sick (Undoubtedly both. Get some help.)

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:07:23 GMT

From: Just ignore his posts then (unknown)

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

You are neither...just a malingering fruitcake.

Re: So Who's Nuts -- Patriots or Capitulating Sheeple? (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:00:33 GMT

From: all this over a drivers license! LOLOL! (unknown)

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

Your sickness blinds you to your own bad thinking

Re: So Who's Nuts -- Patriots or Capitulating Sheeple? (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 05:02:40 GMT

From: You make a show of your disease (unknown)

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

What a dipdunk argument.

Re: An Oregon Attorney comments: "Sheesh" (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:32:48 GMT

From: IceNine (icenine@locnet.digitalchainsaw.com)

You simply CANNOT be this stupid.

rk: In quoting ORS 131.215. above, you say "..., a person is subject to prosecution..." The key word is *subject*

rk: Bouviers Law Dictionary defines the word "subject" as follows:

"SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. 2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch. Vide Body politic; Greenl. Ev. Sec. 286; Phil. & Am. on Ev. 732, n. 1.

So, you are saying by your interpretation "..., a person is individual to prosecution..." "..., a person is citizen to prosecution..." "..., a person is one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch to prosecution..."

That's about as nonsensical as anything I've seen you write.

May I make a suggestion? CHUCK the LAW Dictionary and pick up a regular Dictionary, and you will find the following definition for 'subject'

sub·ject (sbjkt) adj. Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others: subject to the law. Prone; disposed: a child who is subject to colds. Likely to incur or receive; exposed: a directive subject to misinterpretation.

You are subject to prosecution. You are in a position or in circumstances that place you under the power or authority of another or others. Namely, the prosecution. You are prone to get your butt kicked by the prosecution You are likely to incur or recieve a buttkicking by the prosection.

By the way, I found another little tidbit on your Jurisdictional Fringe Argument on the Militia Watchdog site.

http://www.militia-watchdog.org/suss4.htm#eagle

"Back in 1925 the US Attorney-General relied on the opinion of the predecessor to the US Army's Institute of Heraldry that the fringe was not an addition or alteration of the flag, and therefore not illegal, and moreover had no symbolic meaning. Currently the Institute of Heraldry and the non-government Flag Research Center both issue fact sheets debunking this militia myth about the fringe on the flag. There apparently has NEVER been a successful challenge to a court's decision or jurisdiction based on the absence of a correct flag or the presence of an "incorrect" flag in the courtroom. }"

Still sucks to be you, Ray.

i9

Reply

boots 7.5 wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com

Tue Jul 24 07:34:34 2001

rk: For a full understanding of the thread which precipitated this post, see: http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html

b: Linda, please read the response I gave to Patricia and consider it for you also.

b: OK?

b: Lets not let anyone ruin this site.

b: God Bless and keep you strong.

b: God Bless the Patriots.

rk: Boots, I have to disagree with you on this one. Your approach stops the momentum of Truth from fully manifesting at ALL levels of consciousness -- from the subtle to the gross, from the sensitive to the insensitive, from the intelligent to the ignorant.

rk: The first thing one comes to understand if one does pack it in and scurry away with resentment, or ratchet up the attacks is that TRUTH CANNOT BE MANAGED.

rk: Truth has a life of its own, and no management of "symbols of truth" can touch TRUTH ITSELF in its pristine vibrational essence. That is why Truth raises such Hell within the Intellectual realm of the Hell-bound.

rk: My approach which disturbs LEGIONS on the Internet is to SPEAK THE TRUTH and let THE DEVIL TAKE THE HINDMOST.

rk: You can see its effectiveness. People begin to see themselves as they actually are, and not as they "THINK" they are.

Reply

Next Page

Return to Home Page