Portland Oregon Courts
Running AMUCK in their Destruction of the
American Justice System.
BOBT12 wrote:
Raymond Karczewski
wrote:
Hello Ray,
bt: > I
would like to see the charges. I hope that this gentleman will confront
the error of the charges, and make the error clear to the jury. Why
should he stand on one procedure?
rk: Because
the charges are IRRELEVANT. They are all based on Legislative
Corporate Policy, not Common law or God's Law, the law upon which
William stands and is protected.. No Victim, No Crime. That
is why the courts must prove Jurisdiction before they can
prosecute.
rk: Private
Corporate Courts (such as the Portland Oregon courts) operate on
contract law and deal with offenses considered to be:
MALA PROHIBITA. Those
things which are prohibited by law, and therefore unlawful. Bouviers
Law Dictionary.
rk:
MALUM IN SE. Evil in itself.
rk: 2. An
offence malum in se is one which is naturally evil, as murder, theft,
and the like; offences at common law are generally mala in sese.
rk: 3. An
offence malum prohibitum, on the contrary, is not naturally an evil,
but becomes so in consequence of its being forbidden; as playing at
games, which being innocent before, have become unlawful in consequence
of being forbidden. Vide Bac. Ab. Assumpsit, A, note; 2 Rolle's Ab. 355.
rk: William stood
on his Unalienable Rights under God's Law, and Common law. The
court prosecuting him stood on fictional Corporate Legislative Policy
(MALA PROHIBITA)
rk: Any attempt
of William to argue the charges would have placed him within the
Jurisdiction of the the Corporate Administrative Court, a
UnConstitutional, non-Article III court.
rk: Their own law
state that Corporate administrative rules, regulations, and legislation
do not apply to non-corporate natural men and women who stand in Common
Law and in full legal capacity as one of the sovereign people.
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.
rk:
Their own courts further have said that "Once jurisdiction is
challenged, it must be proven" HAGENS vs LAVINE, 15 U.S. 533
rk:
" No santions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction. Standard
v.Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sect 556 and 558 (b).
rk: "
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: Williams
question of the Court was "Do you a, fictional court created by the
Sovereign People (Of which William Is) have jurisdiction over this
Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man" one
who is not subject to the Corporate Rules which pertain to Corporate
"persons" ONLY?
rk: Without the
court PROVING jurisdiction in writing when challenged by William and
CEASING all legal proceedings until they did so, , any verdict,
judgment,sentence is NULL AND VOID. Carries with it no FORCE OF
LAW. The courts statement to William when challenged was that
they HAD jurisdiction over him but such statement does not meet the
burden of proof, but remains an untested presumption. HENCE from that
moment forward, the Portland Courts committed FRAUD.
rk: All that
William has to do now IS REFUSE their offer of contract/Sentencing
based on their lack of proof of jurisdiction, which would have
bound him contractually, Otherwise the Portland Courts will be
forced to release him, just as the JOSEPHINE COUNTY COURTS were forced
to release me when I REFUSED to accept their offer of sentencing.
As it turned out, The Portland Courts HAVE COMMITTED the Crime of FRAUD
in railroading him through a Trial.
rk: So you see
bob, the rest of your article is quite irrelevant.
rk: WELCOME TO
LAW!
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©