On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Bill Shatzer wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Raymond Karczewski wrote:

rk: >> This letter serves as my Notice of Appeal to the Circuit Court.

bs: > No it doesn't, Ray.

bs: > Ya' wanna appeal, ya' gotta follow the rules and the rules say this ain't the way to do it.

bs: > Read ORS 138.057 for the -right- way to do it.

bs: > This information is provided free and at no extra charge.

rk: But I thought you said you weren't a practicing Oregon Attorney?

rk: But I digress!

rk: Bill, I originally was instructed by the Court Clerk's office in Roseburg, that appeals/motions to be made in justice court were to be initiated with the Justice Court Judge via a letter. From then on, I have appeared at my scheduled hearing and have since been following the specific instructions of Judge Carol Roberts of the Canyonville Justice Court as to the Douglas County Courts' appeal procedures.

rk: After your pointing it out, I read ORS 139.057, and you are correct in the discrepancies in method outlined for appeal

rk: Unless the filing fee has changed since the Oregon Revised Statutes - 1999 Edition came into effect, there is a rather wide discrepancy existing between the filing fee of $25.00 stated in ORS 138.560 and the $167.00 quoted to me by Judge Carol Roberts of the Canyonville Justice court.

rk: Could it be??? Nah!!!

Reply

Joe wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

Joe,

For what it's worth, I think you are making a mistake.

You see, Joe, my posts are not theoretical, nor do they come from a speculating sideline sitter who drones on about "coulda woulda, shoulda" solutions to world events. The world's problems cannot be laid at the feet of the "other guy." It lays at the feet of each and every one of us.

The attacks on me are very serious indeed, and that is not an exaggeration. They go to the very heart of controlling the flow of information on the net. That is why I spread these messages as far and wide as I can without running into the spam issue.

If you'll notice where all these attacks originate, you'll find that they don't come from me. How would you deal with persons who, without provocation, launch into an attack upon you, your wife, your kids, and generally your message of *peace*? Would you fall apart? Would you become agressive?

You probably have noticed that I have done *neither.* I just stand firm and point out the viciousness of the attack(s). I have learned the lesson of "Resist not Evil." You can see how it drives the attackers up the wall. In other words, I MIRROR the REAL source of the aggression, hatred and bigotry that is the cause of our world problems. I point out in an inescapable and inarguable way what the other is doing. I expose the real energy behind the masks that people wear on and off the Internet. So you're going to bar a "Mirror," eh, Joe? Without a mirror, Joe, how will you know what you look like to the rest of the world? At any rate, it's YOUR LOSS!

Consider seriously what I have said in this communication. You've just put a lid on the very thing that can wake people up to their coming "enslavement." If writing about ACTUAL events which transpire (i.e., mind control and Freedom of Speech) to chip away at our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms is inappropriate on a Patriot group, then, pray tell me WHAT IS?

You've just made your own contribution toward allowing an already sedated, apathetic American public under daily assault by vocal government/media provocateurs who hide behind masks of anonymity to go back to their hypnotic sleep.

Those who don't understand what I am talking about and have not the curiosity nor will to check out the entire threads are saying a great deal about their attention span and reading comprehension.

Our freedom is in jeopardy because of capitulators who "go along to get along."

With all due respect, Joe, your contribution to the Patriot movement is ringing a bit hollow right about now.

By the way, Joe, I am going to post this elsewhere on the net. Not everybody wants to slumber their way into slavery!

At 11:56 AM 7/29/01 -0400, you wrote:

Hi Ray,

I'm sorry to have to write this letter, but unfortunately, I wasn't left with too many acceptable alternatives. I responded to one of your posts recently and asked politely if you would try to stay a bit more on-topic and post news, current events, etc. and perhaps respond to the posts that others had contributed with your own views and personal opinions.

What you've chosen to do instead, is to repeatedly post off-topic responses that you've made to people apparently in other newsgroups to which you post. The result, whether you realize it or not, is very disconcerting to your readers. As I explained earlier, you're giving them the effect of coming in on the middle of a conversation to which they can make neither heads nor tails of-- having never been privy to those conversations to begin with.

Because of this, several people have written to me, saying that they would like to participate, but that your posts were making the board look bad, and that they didn't want to be involved with that sort of thing. You can see for yourself that the post count has dropped off quite considerably lately, and several posters who started off strong are either no longer contributing, or are posting very little now.

I've received complaints (insults) from lurkers who have not had nice things to say about the nature of those posts, and just today someone posted to the board that they no longer wish to participate because of not wanting to be associated with such odd behavior.

Ray, even though you seem to understand what it is you are saying, unfortunately no one else does. Obviously, I'd like to see this board have every chance to be productive and to succeed. To that end, I'm going to ask that you no longer post to the Freedom forum. It may be time for you to reconsider what it is that you are trying to say-- or at least come up with a better way to say it. --Just a suggestion, my friend.

I wish you well. Take care, Ray.

Joe

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

Take this man Joe to heart

Re: Freedom Board. (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 23:58:53 GMT

From: Stop playing games/fleeing responsibilit (unknown)

Your arrogance is blinding you to the fact you've become incoherent and thoughtless in your attacks. This is not the first time you've been ask to stop spamming boards, and in your meglomania you only take it for yet more proof your spiritual genius "threatens" people of lesser mettle. The fact you can't see the staggering irony in this only attests to how sick you've allowed yourself to become. Stop playing games, stop running away from your legal problems, and I hope they straighten you out. You've wasted enough of our tax money, judicial resources, and time with this traffic bust nonsense Raymond, and you need to be forced to get the psychiatric help you desperately need.

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

I don't think Hal is saying this.

Re: This isn't a question of capitulation (Ray doesn't understand history here)

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:41:57 GMT

From: Classic problem of adolescent behavior (unknown)

I think the point is that Ray has obsessed on such a minor issue, when there are real problems regarding judicial abuse and injustice that could be addressed instead. Problem is Ray is too self-centered and unthinking to tackle issues of real social import, and must settle for narcissistic little nonsense problems that make him out to the the center of the universe. The man never grew up past adolescence, which makes it very difficult to deal with him when he is demanding to be treated like an adult, responsible citizen. Rather like any teenager rebelling against his parents, only Ray has guns and has threatened to use them. What is to be done with people so sick they refuse all medical attention, and plunge themselves into sociopathic behavior instead?

Reply

Jane IP: 63.87.186.82

posted 07-29-2001 07:03 PM

j: I see a forum moderator who's losing users. The reason he gives is your off-topic, disruptive... and perhaps self-centered posts.

j: Yet, he gives you advice....find ways to stay on topic and become less self-centered.

rk: Topic? What topic? Have you heard what they *TALK ABOUT?*

rk: Were you listening to yourself as you wrote this?

j: At any forum I've moderated or hosted, it didn't matter to me if losers left because they did not "like" another user. Most could say what they wanted -- within the guidelines of the forum.

rk: So tell me, jane, aren't you really saying in so many words that without the outer direction of another who sets the guidelines and makes the rules for you and others to follow, you feel uncomfortable functioning in this world? Sounds like *mind control* to me. How does it sound to you?

j: There are limits on everything, even in a perfect society.

rk: Strip away the rules. Be balanced in all that you do. It is only when one is unbalanced that rules have such enormous impact and feed upon it, furthering one's conditioned corruptness. Jesus Christ was a Spiritual Anarchist, was he not? His balance was a threat to the unbalanced leadership who enslaved and exploited the unbalanced masses (the blind leading the blind) of His time. Much as exists today. They strung Him up for blasphemy. Let's see what they have in store for me and other "freemen."

j: I think this guy was being diplomatic.

rk: Diplomacy is violence, manipulation and exploitation with a "positive image." It's still Hell, isn't it?

j: He wants to keep his users but he doesn't really seem to want you to go either.

rk: Is that sorta like "damned if you do and damned if you don't?" Still sounds like Hell to me. What about you?

j: I see a control issue here under the guise possibly of freedom of speech. Sometimes even right-wing radicals such as myself know when to "compromise."

rk: Damn, another self-admitted compromising dualist??

rk: What more can be said about that but Hell, isn't it?

j: Just my unsolicited .02.

rk: And worth every penny, too!!

rk: Then along came snoop IP: 209.136.175.6 who wrote:

posted 07-29-2001 07:43 PM

s: I kinda wish the maestro would quote another cogniscenti who shares the christ form and content and is as alike to Ray as another pea in a pod.

rk: Well, snoop, how many Christs have you met in your lifetime? How many Buddhas? How would you recognize them if you met them? I can tell you this -- It wouldn't be through KNOWLEDGE!!

rk: All you know is what you know, isn't that true, snoop? The real question is WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND in life which exists beyond the technical realm?

s: How about it?

s: I figger if at least one other can master the art as you have, then there just may be more to it.

rk: There's your challenge, *civilized world!* WHO UNDERSTANDS what I am speaking of when I write of the CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS?

rk: Don't be bashful. Step right up and declare yourself a "non-ignoramus!" Let's see if there are enough of us to WAKE THIS WORLD UP!!

Reply

rk: Many are aware of the Rights vs. Privilege controversy growing in our land. What is one to do when he/she expects local governments to follow the same rules they, the public, are held to, yet at every turn of events are shown that in reality, such expectations are but mere fictions?

rk: What does one do when they see Unconstitutional statutes being imposed upon an unaware citizenry?

rk: What does one do when brought to court to defend against unlawful acts committed by their Public Servants, acts which create a financial drain that could well bankrupt an individual who stands firmly on principle?

rk: Why are vast numbers of the American public oblivious to the fact that they have been coerced and defrauded by their government, their public servants, into giving up their Rights and settling for the Privilege of a Driver's License in order to travel the public roadways in one's private automobile for private, non commercial use. This issue as it pertains to me goes back to August of 1999. To read the beginning of this issue of Rights vs Privileges, see the Google Archives under my name.

rk: For those who are not aware of the case, you may read up on the events as they have unfolded, either in Google or my Website Bulletin board at http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialchst.htm

rk: On June 5, 2001 at approximately 00:25 AM, I was stopped and cited for "No Operator's License" and "Unsignalled Turn." It was a *right turn* made with no one else on the road to signal to either in front of or behind me. Read details on my web site bulletin board mentioned above.

rk: Since that moment in Canyonville and continuing to the present day, I *have been fleeced* by one government agency, the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, and an "attempted fleecing" has been made by another government agency, the Canyonville Justice Court.

rk: Monies have been extorted from me by our police through the unlawful confiscation of the Loaner Automobile impounded by them without probable cause and through their criminal infringement upon one's Constitutional Right to Travel freely upon the public highways.

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

rk: I have been targeted as a subject for further fleecing by our courts and judges. I have attempted to hold my government responsible for their actions. However, in my personal experience, the police and courts do not seem the least bit concerned with holding to the same laws they expect a citizen to abide by. I'm sure that most of you reading this have heard the axiom "Those who make the rules (and enforce them with a gun) win the game."

rk: Since writing my "notice of appeal" (which I have now decided against filing) to Canyonville, Oregon Justice Court Justice of the Peace Carol Roberts (See: Re: Oregon Courts: The "Slick" Side of the Law http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=504c34f68e794263,40&start=20 Message 24.) my attention was directed by an Internet reader to the proper appeal procedure and rules for Oregon Courts. This person claimed that the directions given me by Judge Roberts for appealing her decisions were not correct and thus referred me to ORS 138.057. See: http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/138.html

rk: Here are the pertinent excerpts from Judge Robert's letter of July 18th 2001 as they applied to any appeal filed by me.

rk: In Judge Roberts' letter, she states "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."

rk: She states further, "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." (That's a new date for a NEW TRIAL, folks, and I am expected to pay for it even before my case is heard.)

rk: Keep in mind that the loaner automobile from my service repair shop was impounded against my will and over my objections on the spot at the site of the traffic stop made by a Douglas County Sheriff's Deputy. Why? Because I openly told him I was not required to have a driver's license. I asserted quite clearly to the officer my Right to Travel without seeking government privilege through obtaining a Driver's License. The officer had no probable cause for stopping me and was merely on a fishing expedition. I was stranded 80 miles away from home and it was more than 15 hours before I was able to return home after retrieving the illegally impounded loaner automobile in which I was travelling. That fishing expedition cost me $302 to get the car out of impoundment from the Douglas County Sheriff's Deputies contract impound yard. A clear case of unlawful confiscation/forfeiture of another's property without due process and a clear violation of the 14th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

rk: Hold those two figures of $409 and $302 paramount in your mind. That's a total of $711 that I, a retired police sergeant living on a fixed pension, would have to pay the courts in order to be given my *Constitutional Right* to a trial by jury. The jury would hear a case that if our US Constitution were still being regarded as the *Supreme Law of the Land* by our Public Servants/Government officials, the case would have been dismissed outright at the first appearance in Traffic Court.

rk: Understand, if you will, even to the time of this writing, I have YET to enter a plea to the charges that have unlawfully been lodged against me by a police officer and a Justice Court Judge, neither of whom have JURISDICTION to prosecute citizens protected under the Common Law and the U.S. Constitution. From my first appearance in court to this very moment, I have challenged the court's lack of jurisdiction in this case. The court has not sought to even respond to any of the challenges. Keep that in mind while you read further. You'll soon see why the Justice Court is indifferent to the pleas of those who lack funds to properly defend themselves against the hand of government tyranny.

rk: Today, July 30th, 2001, my wife Anita and I were on our way to Roseburg, Oregon (the County seat of Douglas County) -- the 3rd 210-mile round trip from our home in Cave Junction since this fiasco began -- to file our appeal to the Circuit Court over Canyonville Justice of the Peace Carol Roberts' default judgement made on July 27th, 2001.

rk: Suddenly I realized the OBVIOUS!!

rk: I WAS BEING FLEECED BY MY GOVERNMENT!!

rk: I have not yet had my day in a lawful court of Jurisdiction, one where my rights were/are protected under the US Constitution. And that by filing that appeal regarding a judgement of the Admiralty-Maritime Justice Court which has no Jurisdiction over me, I would be waiving my Constitutional Rights and would voluntarily be assenting to the Traffic Court's jurisdiction. Not only that, it would cost me another $167 + fines, to boot! According to Judge Roberts I would be out of pocket $711 just to have "a real, bonafide day in court."

rk: Think of that, folks, $711 stripped away, and I have yet to make a plea or have any part of my case heard before a jury of my peers. So what do you now think about an American Citizen's Constitutional guarantee to DUE PROCESS OF LAW? As for me, I personally see it as INSTITUTIONALIZED EXTORTION.

rk: Under ORS 138.057, the sections pertinent to my case are as follows:

138.057 Appeal from judgment involving violation.

(1) If a justice court or municipal court has not become a court of record under ORS 51.025 or 221.342, the appeal from a judgment involving a violation entered by the justice court or municipal court may be taken to the circuit court for the county in which the justice court or municipal court is located. An appeal to a circuit court must be taken in the manner provided in this subsection.

rk: To reiterate:

1. Canyonville Justice Court is not a court of record.

rk: As a Freeman with Unalienable and Civil Rights protected under the Terms of our US Constitution, I have objected to, and do not acknowledge the ASSERTED Maritime Court Jurisdiction of the Canyonville Traffic Court over a Freeman who refuses to waive his Unalienable and Constitutional Rights by entering into a contract for a Driver's License.

rk: I have made repeated challenges to Judge Roberts to prove her court's jurisdiction over one who is not engaged in any regulated activities of Commerce, business, and/or industry while using the *publicly owned* highways. I have further challenged the court to prove its jurisdiction over one who has not waived his Constitutional Rights by voluntarily entering into a contract with the State of Oregon for a Driver's License and thereby giving his consent to be prosecuted according to the terms of the "driving-privilege" contract.

rk: These challenges were routinely and summarily dismissed out of hand by Judge Roberts. At no time did Judge Roberts attempt to render any judicial ruling and/or offer proof of her Court's Jurisdiction in the matter before the court.

rk: ORS 138.057(e) states: "Upon filing of the notice of appeal, the justice court or municipal court shall forward all files relating to the case to the circuit court to which the appeal is taken."

rk: ORS 138.057(f) further states: "The circuit court shall treat a matter appealed under this subsection as though the case had been originally filed with the circuit court and shall try the case anew, disregarding any irregularity or imperfection in the proceedings in the justice court or municipal court."

rk: BINGO!!! Anybody see a red flag? Why wasn't my case originally heard in the circuit court, a court of record and a court "at law?" This jurisdictional matter would have been disposed of easily, instead of all of this delay and obstruction by a traffic court which has no force of law and can easily be seen as little more than a Collection Agency designed as an assembly line operation for the extraction of money from the pockets of the intimidated, and the unaware.

rk: Now do you understand how the judicial system is STACKED against a citizen who demands justice in his courts but instead is victimized by EXTORTION under the "color of office?"

rk: The language of ORS 138.057 (f) just told you that by " . . .disregarding any irregularity or imperfection in the proceedings in the justice court. . ." it attempts to absolve the Judge of the Justice Court from any liability accrued to her not following the "Supreme law of the Land" -- the U.S. Constitution.

rk: Had this citizen succumbed to the "irregularity or imperfection in the proceeding in the justice court," it would have cost me $711, and the meter would still be running. FOR WHAT -- an unlawful act committed by a police officer bent on interfering with the Rights of a Sovereign Freeman travelling lawfully and orderly upon our public highways.

rk: The ultimate question to be settled once and for all is, can the Oregon Legislation which penned "ORS 138.057 (f)" absolve the Justice Court or even absolve themselves from enacting and administering Unconstitutional law?

rk: Has not the Supreme Court already established that "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.

rk: In this Statute, has not the Oregon Legislature affixed the status of the Justice court not as a Court of Law but merely a bureaucratic collection agency funded by public tax monies to extract as much money as it can under "color of office" from the gullible, intimidated, capitulating sheeple ruled by fear?

rk: If you didn't catch it the first or second time, read that *fascinating* phrase again "...disregarding any irregularity or imperfection in the proceedings in the justice court...." To me it sounds like the construction of a double standard by the legislature. To the courts it says "Whoops," it's okay, we will disregard any "irregularity or imperfection" on your part. To the Citizen, the Legislation says "That'll be $711. Pay up or we'll put you in jail and/or confiscate your property."

rk: It says it all, doesn't it? The language of this section also proves that the Justice Court has no actual *force of law* behind it. That was my point to begin with. IT HAS NEITHER JURISDICTION NOR FORCE OF LAW OVER A FREEMAN WHO DEMANDS HIS/HER RIGHTS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!!

rk: Doesn't all this make you feel warm and fuzzy about our present state of Oregon government?

rk: As for me, I publicly state that I FULLY demand and will continue to demand ALL OF MY RIGHTS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND THE US CONSTITUTION at all times.

rk: Therefore, until the Oregon Courts can prove their Admiralty-Maritime Jurisdiction in a traffic matter over a Freeman who demands his Unalienable Rights and Civil Rights under the U.S. Constitution, and;

2: is not using the public owned highways while engaged in any regulated activities of Commerce, Business, and/or Industry when travelling in his private automobile for private purposes, and;

3: has not entered into a Licensing Contract with the State which would cause him to waive his Rights and consent to his being prosecuted according to the terms of such contract, I regard any actions taken against me by my government is this present issue to be Unconstitutional, unlawful, and therefore null and void and lacking "force of law."

rk: I therefore refuse to voluntarily submit myself to a court that demonstrates that it has no hesitancy in acting to unlawfully strip me of my money, property, and/or my freedom, while its actions and rulings run counter to Common Law and to the U.S. Constitution -- the "Supreme Law of the Land."

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

You brought it on yourself, Ray

Re: Court : Institutionalized Fleecing of Sheeple (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 02:55:06 GMT

From: Muck Cracker (unknown)

The first usage of the nonword "sheeple'' alerted anyone's rational sense of logic...So you went on to fight and got fined ...like that has never happened before to anybody who has ever gotten a gawdamm traffic violation? What makes you think you're so special anyways! Just because you think yourself a self righteous religious nutzoid whacko, if you think you get caught during a routine traffic violation all of a sudden it'd Ruby Ridge or Waco all over again?

Ray: you shoulda just told the offending cop who you were...then he would have let you off with a warning! After all, you're famous here on Townsquare! And the police are our friends...

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

` The traffic court had lawful jurisdiction

Re: Court : Institutionalized Fleecing of Sheeple (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:14:56 GMT

From: If you're a citizen, court has j/d (unknown)

You just are too retarded to understand basic legal concepts. If you want to get out from Oregon court jurisdiction, leave the state. If you want to get out of federal jurisdiction, get out of the country. As long as you enjoy the privileges of being a citizen, you assume the responsibilities as well. Period. Pay the fines you owe society and try and learn something from this. You don't understand the Constitution, you don't seem to understand anything except the fact you want to do what you want to do with no accountability or adult responsibility at all. That doesn't work in the real world Ray, only in your twisted little fantasies of being God. Grow up, and much mroe iimportantly, shut up. So sick of your constant, infantile whining.

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

Let's abbreviate all this nonsense

Re: Court : Institutionalized Fleecing of Sheeple (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:02:05 GMT

From: (unknown)

Ray, let's cut short this endless ranting. What court exactly would you acknowledge has jurisdiction over you? None I suspect, which is the source of your problems. You have delusional notions of your place in society, and this is causing your legal problems. I advise you to come to your senses, and get a lawyer. You're going to need one, given the way you've grossly mishandled this problem. It's stupid what you've done really, because the original problem should have been shut down with a m inor fine: you're liable, period. It's inappropriate and obscene to be wasting resources on such an inane issue.

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

I sincerely hope you do "bankrupt" you

Re: Court : Institutionalized Fleecing of Sheeple (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:39:44 GMT

From: Reality Check Time Ray (unknown)

The least you can do is pay back all the money society has squandered on this nonsense. I hope they drain every last possible penny out of you. If you want to make a disgusting show of your mental illness, and whine on and on about delusional "constitutional rights," I sincerely hope you are forced to reimburse society for the losses you have forced on it. I am not prepared to pay for this Ray, and neither is anyone else. I'd be perfectly happy if you had no money at all to live on. Perhaps then you'd get the reality check you so desperately need.

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

Fair warning about Ray's website

Re: Court : Institutionalized Fleecing of Sheeple (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:42:08 GMT

From: He monitors & denounces visitors to FBI (unknown)

Fair warning about Ray's website. Ray monitors all visitors to his site, and has turned over addresses and ISPs to various government agencies since he's convinced everyone is in on the "AFAB/SKEPTICULT/ROYBOT government/media organized/funded/supported conspiracy" against him. He has already done this to several Usenet patrons, turning over their information to the FBI, CIA, various Congressmen, etc., and demanding the people who visited his site be investigated. No government agency has or will take Ray seriously, for obvious reasons, but anyone logging on to Ray's site should realize he will in fact monitor them and release their names to various agencies when the mood strikes him as part of his extreme mental disorder. Given how unstable he is and that fact he's getting worse every day, watch out if you give him any information about your e-mail address.

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

Caught again in your own unending lies

Re: Court : Institutionalized Fleecing of Sheeple (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:48:19 GMT

From: You stipulated to the charge idiot (unknown)

rk: Understand, if you will, even to the time of this writing, I have YET to enter a plea to the charges that have unlawfully been lodged against me by a police officer and a Justice Court Judge...

Ray, Ray, Ray. In your extreme mental illness, you really don't seem to remember that you already admitted you committed the act you're charged with both here and in court. In your utter incomptence, you stipulated to the charge (DOH!!), fantasizing for some damned reason the court had no jurisdiction over you. Real no-brainer Ray. Of course it does, as anyone with even a day of civil procedure training could tell you. In other words, because you are completely ignorant of law, you shot yourself in the head as far as contesting the claim goes, and are now in the position of having requisite fines legitimately levied against you. You should have coughed up the money for legal counsel to begin with you cheap bastard.

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

Must be tough being mentally retarded

Re: Court : Institutionalized Fleecing of Sheeple (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:55:00 GMT

From: The world must seem out to get you (unknown)

Just about everything goes straight over your head, doesn't it Ray? You're way out of your league intellectually, and don't even have enough awareness to realize you have no case at all. The burden of proving you are not subject to jurisdiction in the place you broke the law is on you, and you simply cannot meet it. Nothing mysterious or complicated about this Ray:: you broke a reasonable law, one that is necessary for public safety, and one that the Constitution authorizes as a proper exercise of state police authority. I'm sure you cannot understand even this given your lack of thinking skills, so I'll just hope they get you off the streets and into psychiatric therapy as soon as possible.

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

Impotent, trivial games Ray

Re: Freedom Board. (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:59:29 GMT

From: Arrogant gasbag and misanthrope (unknown)

You can blow your own ego up to monstrous proportions, but you'll bnever makes these asinine games you play meaningful or potent exercises of thought or power. I am sorry to see a human being reduced to such a pathetic state as you embrace as a form of self-glorification. If I were you, I wouldn't want to "live" such en empty farce of an existence. No wonder your family will have nothing to do with your abuse and thoughtlessness.

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

Kooks killing off newsboard communication

Re: Freedom Board. (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:02:41 GMT

From: Thomas Rondy (unknown)

Christs with Amnesia > > > > by Raymond Karczewski

Why do you kooks shill for each other? > > F**kin' KOOOOOOOOOOKS!

No kidding. I've taken to reading TRNA of late, and I plonked bRay after tiring of his long, boring, repetitive, self-congratulating rants about this drama he's created around refusing to get a driver's license! -- TJR

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

Message for Raymond Karczewski

Re: Town Square (New Admin)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:32:03 GMT

From: I don't need no damned license (unknown)

I would like to perform a lobotomy on you as soon as possible. I don't have a medical license or anything, but believe me when I say I pose no threat to patients, and refuse to surrender my constitutional right to open people's skulls, only to settle for a contractual privilege to do so at the will of state-certified medical practitioners. When will you be showing up for your lobotomy? Reeking, obese hypocrite.

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

Dead on.

Re: So Ray, you're saying **you'll run away forever** (Always amazed)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:19:15 GMT

From: Washington and Idaho, be very afraid (unknown)

I sincerely hope Ray runs out of the state forever. That's how California got rid of him and his diseased family. Talk about grounds for a tax revolt: Ray can go straight to hell with his preposterous waste of government resources.

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

regarding your "unsignaled turn"

Re: Court : Institutionalized Fleecing of Sheeple (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:10:11 GMT

From: Barney Fife (unknown)

"rk: On June 5, 2001 at approximately 00:25 AM, I was stopped and cited for "No Operator's License" and "Unsignalled Turn." It was a *right turn* made with no one else on the road to signal to either in front of or behind me."

I have pasted below the relevant entry from Oregon Revised Statutes. You'll note that the law makes no allowance for the presence or absence of other drivers on the road. Now, perhaps the deputy was a little hard-nosed about enforcing that particular law, but I have no doubt that your attitude played into that somewhat. But the law is the law. You violated it, and he had every right (and duty) to cite you for it. So what's your beef?

811.335 Unlawful or unsignaled turn; penalty.

(1) A person commits the offense of making an unlawful or unsignaled turn if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person turns the vehicle right or left when:

(a) The movement cannot be made with reasonable safety; or

(b) The person fails to give an appropriate signal continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.

(2) Appropriate signals for use while turning are as designated under ORS 811.395 and 811.400.

(3) The offense described in this section, making an unlawful or unsignaled turn, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 s.623; 1995 c.383 s.59]

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

Ray's "beef"

Re: regarding your "unsignaled turn" (Barney Fife)

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:17:27 GMT

From: Why should God answer to mortals? (unknown)

Briefly put, Ray thinks he's God and is not accountable to mortals. Whatever he wants he believes is the law, and he really doesn't give a hot damn what kind of danger he puts other people in. At least he's dropped his threats of taking arms to the streets. I'm sure those posts really helped undercut his credibility completely, if he ever had any. At any rate, he's now learning an important lesson which he'll either internalize or keep paying for, both literally and figuratively.

Reply

Tue, 31 Jul 2001 07:52:48 -0700

"John Judy" (SPAMmegajudy@DONTSPAMMEhotmail.comSPAM)

rk: > >It was a *right turn* made with no one else on the road to signal to, either in front of, or behind me.

jj: > Sorry, you deluded old dipshit, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

rk: There was nothing illegal about what I did. You, like all opinionated spectators wallowing in your own conditioned ignorance, seem to have it BASSACKWARDS. The illegal act was that which was COMMITTED by Deputy Poe of the Douglas County Oregon Sheriff's Office. It was he who violated my Unalienable and Constitutional Rights by infringing upon my Right to Travel when he effected a stop on my automobile without *probable cause.*

rk: "There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty..." Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.

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

rk: It has been further stated that: "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. . . . 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.

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

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

3: Signalling is necessary when there is someone who may benefit from such signal. What purpose does a turn signal make in the vacuum of non-relationship? Such lack of signalling when there existed no one to signal to, did not cause any loss or damage to any other Natural Person's property or rights on the public highway; in other words, no violation of law or infraction occurred, as the element of relationship/intent is missing, thus probable cause is absent in Deputy Poe's act of stopping the "Accused" in his orderly travel upon the highway.

rk: Since there was no one on the Road either in *Front* of or *Behind* me to *signal" to, and I was travelling in an orderly and decent manner; was neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights (who was there to signal to?), and my Constitutional protections not only in my person, but in my safe conduct was infringed upon by the officer himself, it becomes clear to anyone with a semblance of intelligence as to who committed the "crime?"

rk: I'm talking *crime* here, not quibbling over some *unauthorized custom, color of office-based enforcement* of unconstitutional, bureaucratic-constructed *infractions* which apply to the regulated activities of those engaging in commerce, business, industry and/or to others who have voluntarily waived their rights in return for entering into a licensing contract.

rk: The simple fact is that I AM NOT ONE of the included class mentioned above, therefore I am excluded/exempt from the jurisdiction of Admiralty-Maritime court. That was the issue brought before the court when I challenged its jurisdiction and Judge Carol Roberts of the Canyonville Justice Court refused to prove it.

rk: Here is case law to that point: "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).

rk: Thus, existing case law establishes that when a court fails to prove jurisdiction, their proceedings are null and void, and carry with them no "force of Law."

rk: In violating my Unalienable Right to Liberty, Deputy Poe, is like many law enforcement officers who remain ignorant of the law in matters beyond their limited police academy training. This experience may well open his eyes to see his own vulnerability/peril when blindly enforcing the law from his "trained, rigid enforcement viewpoint."

rk: I can speak to that from personal experience, as I am a retired police sergeant from a California Police Department currently living on pension.

rk: The performance of today's cops in our society is radically different from that of the cops in my time. In my time, cops used judgement in dealing with the problems they faced daily. Today judgement appears to have no place in their enforcement makeup, only rigid adherence to department enforcement policies.

rk: Both Deputy Poe, and "Corporal Dave" indicated at the scene of the stop that they would be "IN TROUBLE" were they to not follow department policy.

rk: There you have it! FEAR!! Today's rigidly trained law enforcement officers are in fear of getting into TROUBLE should they depart from department policy and use their own JUDGEMENT.

jj: See if you can get this through your Alzheimer's ridden mind.. YOU BROKE THE LAW AND GOT CAUGHT.

rk: There is quite a schism between "A" Law, and "THE" law, isn't there?

rk: "THE" Law you refer to has no JURISDICTION over one who is not using the publicly owned highways while engaged in the regulated activities of Commerce, Business and Industry, nor has entered into a contract with the state for a driver's license thereby waiving his Unalienable and Constitutional Rights.

rk: I will leave you with these last two statements. They pretty well sum this issue up. Pay particular attention to #2, for only in a BASSACKWARD society are *delusions* regarded as NORMAL!!

rk: #1 "The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.

and:

rk: #2 "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke, 1784.

jj: Deal with it. Now please hurry up and die already.

rk: As to the spirit of Intelligence or lack thereof operating within your consciousness, your last comment does reveal wherein it abides. Hell, isn't it?

Reply

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) writes:

The following was written on September 15th, 1999, eight days before I allowed my Oregon Driver's license to expire and reasserted my *Constitutional Rights.*

I haven't heard word one from our Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers in answer to my questions regarding this Rights vs. License issue. It's coming up on two years now.

So much for the responsiveness of our Oregon Public Officials when asked to clarify legal questions which could save law abiding citizens from future protracted financially draining legal prosecutions and probable incarceration.

Here we are, nearly two years later. My questions have gone unanswered. I am in the midst of legal proceedings in which not even the courts will answer the question of jurisdiction. The present demand made by our Oregon Justice System is that I must pay $711 just to *stand trial* before I MAY get the questions answered that were asked of Attorney General Hardy Meyers two years ago.

How's that for Justice in OREGON?!! A question to ponder by ALL Americans -- How is Justice being dispensed in your state? What has happened to the U.S. Constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land?"

Mr. Hardy Meyers

Attorney General

State of Oregon

Dear Sir,

I am not a lawyer, but a simple man living in quiet retirement who still expects Justice in a time which such is regarded by many as a distant dream. The following is self explanatory. Subsequent to my upcoming birthday in 8 days, I will not renew my present driver's license contract with the State of Oregon.

Instead, I will reclaim my Constitutionally protected Inalienable Right to Liberty which includes a citizen's right to travel freely upon our nations highways via their privately owned automobiles for their own personal travel and transportation and do not use our roadways for commercial, or business for profit purposes.

Existing case law has defined a clear and definite distinction between an AUTOMOBILE and a MOTOR VEHICLE.

If need be, at the initiation of any arrest of my person by Oregon law enforcement officials, I intend to put to the test the Constitutionality of the State of Oregon's practice of licensing private citizens who drive their private "Automobiles" for private purposes and do not use their automobile for commercial or business for profit while travelling upon Oregon highways.

I say "if need be" because you, sir, as Attorney General of the State of Oregon can put a potentially embarrassing matter to the State to rest by answering the following simple questions: Does the State of Oregon have the right under the US Constitution to convert an Unalienable Right into a privilege? And is, in the view of the State of Oregon, an AUTOMOBILE when used for private transportation considered the same as a MOTOR VEHICLE which uses the public roadways for commercial purposes?

It is indeed a sad state of affairs when citizens must go to the courts and endure a protracted, finance draining ordeal in order to get simple answers out of their public servants. I am hoping you will see the truth of that and act accordingly.

The following information was secured from the driver's licensing section of Oregon Dept. of Motor Vehicles web site at: http://www.odot.state.or.us/dmv/opv_internl.htm

It States:

While driving a MOTOR VEHICLE on highways or premises open to the public in Oregon, you must have either a valid driver license or instruction permit in your possession.

Residents of other states operating vehicles in Oregon must be at least 16 years of age and have a valid out-of-state driver license, or be at least 15 years of age and have a valid out-of-state instruction permit. Out-of-state instruction permit holders must abide by the same restrictions as a person with an Oregon instruction permit. You must get an Oregon driver license or instruction permit when you become an Oregon resident, even if your out-of-state license or instruction permit has not expired. When DMV issues an Oregon driver license or instruction permit, you must turn in any driver license or instruction permit from another state.

As is clear in the State of Oregon Vehicle Code, its regulations are designed to control and regulate the operation of MOTOR VEHICLES, not AUTOMOBILES.

It is to that point that I wish you, as Attorney General of the State of Oregon to address.

Since no contact e-mail address appears on your website, I am posting this publicly on the Oregon Newsgroups and Public Forums, as the matter requires a timely response from your office.

Below I have posted my prepared remarks to the court requesting dismissal of charges of being an unlicensed driver based on lack of court jurisdiction should I be arrested in Josephine County for driving my automobile while asserting my Unalienable Right to Liberty.

To the Court:

I stand before this court and ask it to do its job. To render justice and administer the law according to the provisions of the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of our Land.

I ask that this matter now before the bench be dismissed for this court's lack of jurisdiction.

This court of equity falls under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction. It is charged with the responsibility of adjudicating matters which violate regulations of the Oregon State Motor Vehicle code.

While the state has the right to license and regulate those who use our nation's public roadways for purposes of conducting private business for gain, this court has no jurisdiction over private citizens who travel our roadways in the "usual and ordinary conveyance of the day," their private automobiles for private purposes and do not use the public roadways for purposes of commercial activities for profit.

Traveling our country's roadways by the usual conveyance of the day is our Unalienable Right to Liberty, promised citizens by the US Constitution in its preamble and in the XIVth Amendment.

Using the public roadways for commercial purposes is a privilege. Licensing of such Corporate and Business activity by the State is proper and justified through the medium of the State's Police Powers.

At the age of 16, some 46 years ago, I was told driving was a privilege. I was told I must have a driver's license to drive an automobile on the public roadways.

I later came to find out that such a statement was not true then, nor is it true now.

As no notice was given that I had a perfect right to use the roads without any permission as per my Constitutional Unalienable Right to Liberty, I was coerced into applying for and entering into a binding contract with the State in return for a driver's license which converted my Inalienable Right to Liberty, i.e., the RIGHT to travel into a PRIVILEGE to drive.

By accepting the terms of the contract I was fraudulently coerced by the State into unknowingly accepting the regulation system of licensure that comes with the regulation of Commercially driven Motor Vehicles.

On the 23rd of September 1999 my driver's license contract with the State of Oregon expired. I deliberately did not renew it. Instead I have chosen to reclaim my Unalienable Right to Liberty as stated in our US Constitution. Thus ended my 46-year, unbroken string of driver's licenses held by me since I obtained my first license at the age of 16.

Neither of my automobiles meet the legal definition of a "Motor Vehicle."

A Motor Vehicle has been legally defined by the courts as every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

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

The courts have said that the right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

I live in an upper elevation, some ten miles from the town of Cave Junction. To go to the store for provisions requires a 20-mile round trip, summer or winter. Am I to be required to walk that distance, backpacking my provisions? For if the court says that I am, then when will walking the public roadways as a matter of survival be declared a privilege and become a further infringement upon my Unalienable Right to Life and Liberty?

I use my automobiles for private travel and need them for the simple act of survival. That is my Inalienable Right--a right that cannot be surrendered, transferred, stripped away or converted into a privilege through government legislation. No state has the power to declare that one's survival must depend upon a State rendered privilege of licensing.

I am in good health, my automobiles are fully insured to meet my public responsibility; and I am competent to operate those automobiles as my 46 year-long drivng record will attest.

In the last century, to strip away a man's "usual conveyance," which was horseback, was to threaten his very survival. That has not changed in this century, especially in these rural areas. To do so was a serious crime, a capital offense punishable by one being hanged for horse theft. That is how serious this Unalienable Right to Life and Liberty was looked upon then. Unalienable Rights do not change. Nor can they be converted by government legislation into a privilege.

Your decision in this matter will tell the citizens of this land whether this government and judicial system is still operating under our Country's original Constitution or not.

I submit to the court the following legal brief on this matter of Driver's Licensing vs the Right to Travel. It is a position upheld in the courts of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, resulting in charges being dropped against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.

May justice in the courts of Oregon equally prevail!

Reply

Always amazed wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

Wed Aug 1 16:22:41 2001

aa: Attorneys General can't do this by law

aa: Ray, again you show you didn't even begin to inform yourself before launching your latest screed. Attorneys General are the chief legal officers for their states, and issue opinions to elected state officials only. They cannot, by law, give out free legal advice to private citizens.

rk: Let me get this straight!! You ARE SAYING that a public official whose title is the ATTORNEY GENERAL of the State of Oregon and whose office is funded and supported by public tax monies HAS NO responsibility to the PUBLIC, the PEOPLE, the REAL GOVERNMENT of this Constitutional Republic called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!! You are saying that his full and unshakeable loyalties and responsibilities are solely to protect and defend the INSTRUMENT of GOVERNMENT -- THE PUBLIC SERVANTS now ensconced in secure bureacracies -- who use TAXPAYER MONEY against the Taxpayers themselves?!!.

rk: Aren't you only corroborating what I have said in past posts? Your smooth language is unable to gloss over the fact that government uses OUR OWN TAX MONIES AGAINST US?!! Is that why our Oregon Court system is requiring me to pay $711 before I can get my "Constitutional Right" to a Trial by a Jury of MY peers?!! Has the world gone NUTS? Am I the only SANE one here?

rk: Yes, I hear a lot of talk, a lot of mumbling, grumbling and moaning and groaning about the events unfolding in our nation, but I also SEE NO ACTION being taken by the MOANY GROANY public to change things.

rk: The time for IDLE TALK is over! I don't know what it's going to take to WAKE Americans up, but they DAMN WELL better WAKE UP soon!

rk:See my writings on GOVERNMENT BOYCOTT as a PEACEFUL, BLOODLESS solution to the taxpayers who have the power within them to take back control of our country and their lives -- all without firing a single shot.

aa:Why are you attacking someone simply because you didn't bother to inform yourself about the law before posting your latest assault?

rk: Someone once said or wrote (I don't know who) "THE LAW IS AN ASS." As I observe man's law in operation in our Country today being used to exploit and enslave, I am becoming more and more reluctant to argue that point.

aa: Obviously if a private citizen wants to bring action against the state, he can't look to the state's chief lawyer to give out free legal advice.

rk: Then why should taxpayers support him with tax money? Either the "State's chief lawyer," being paid with public tax money, is employed to act on behalf of those who pay him, the taxpayer, or something strange and sinister has caused our Government to no longer be an instrument "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE," but has undergone a slow, incremental, malevolent metamorphoses into an exploitive Corporation independent of, and bent upon the ENSLAVEMENT of the People. Harsh words, are they not? What else would YOU call it?

aa: Why would he want it anyway: the AG is part of the entity he's trying to attack. Or did this very basic fact never even occur to you?

rk: Ah!, although said in ignorance, you have unknowingly blurted out TRUTH. I wonder if you can observe your own BASSACKWARD elitist view at play here. In effect, aren't you really saying -- let the slaves continue to pay their masters more and more, and receive less and less in return? Is not your skewed view supportive of a government which strips away freedoms, smothers the will of a people, renders them impotent and inert so that new and better chains may be placed upon them until the grave becomes their only deliverance?

rk: Patrick Henry spoke well and prophetically when he said: "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Reply

Reaction from Oregon wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

Wed Aug 1 19:34:27 2001

rfo: It's called an adversarial system

rfo: You lies you went to law school looking even more transparent than usual here Ray..

rk: How so? It's a matter of record that I went to law school for a time after my disability retirement from the Police Department. Yet you continue to hide in anonymity and continue this defamation campaign without checking the facts.

rfo: In our system of justice, we have an **adversarial** system, which means the state prosecutes violators of criminal law, and defendants GET AN ATTORNEY.

rk: So what you are saying is that "man's law" is set up by a *good ole boys'* network of experts who have constructed an exploitive system based in rhetoric (legalese jargon) not universally understood, so that the confusion it wreaks in the limited, conditioned consciousness of "average" intellects allows for the redistribution of wealth from one class of ignoramuses to another class of ruling ignoramuses. So what's your point?

rfo: The function of the AG as counselor to state government is crystal clear, it was right on the web page you obviously never even bothered to read, and you should have informed yourself before throwing another asinine public tantrum.

rk: A sighted man, not blinded by societal conditioning, cuts through all the illusion and sees the simple truth for him/herself. Misdirecting rhetoric which weaves the hypnotic spell which binds most into submission does not have the power to "pull the wool over" the eyes of the spiritually sighted as it does over the dimmed down (dumbed down) consciousness of conditioned ignoramuses.

rfo: The Attorney General is simply NOT a dispenser of free legal advice every time some psycho member of the public takes it into his head his "constitutional rights" have been violated.

rk: Are not our Constitutional Rights paramount to a free society? What's wrong with the picture you are attempting to place before the eyes of a gullible public? Any public servant paid by the public owes a duty to the public. Otherwise the relationship is a parasitical one based on obtaining money through fraud and deception. Are our government servants who fail to live up to their *Oath of Office* to support and defend the U.S. Constitution living a parasitical life of fraud and deception? Is that the point you are trying to make about our present state of government and its relationship with the public?

rfo: Do you have any idea of what kinds of things some people take for their "constitutional rights?"

rk: Your misdirecting point is noted and quite moot, is it not? My actions are my own, based on my own understanding.

rfo: Just about everything under the sun, depending on the nature and intensity of the mental illness.

rk: You make my point don't you? The present BASSACKWARD world of man is insane, as it is composed of "civilized" individuals who have been conditioned to doubt themselves in favor of blind acceptance of the "expert opinion" of others. Are not the "others" of the same Satanically (Opposer) directed, dualism based, Intellectually bound class? Is this not the essence of Truth communicated in the statement of the "blind leading the blind?"

rfo: None of your real constituional rights have been violated, yuo were busted because you're incomptent to drive and got caught, and you are just too ignorant and reeking arrogant to get that through your concrete head.

rk: I've been driving for 48 years, some of those as a Police Sergeant operating patrol cars while *serving the public.* Where does "incompetent, ignorant, and arrogant" come into the equation but for an anonymous disinformation "mind controlling" agent seeding defamatory suggestions in the the minds of an already primed hypnotically controlled public? Was not Hitler's technique of mass mind control based on the "Big Lie" -- If a lie is repeated (reinforced) often enough with sufficient force, the lie soon becomes regarded as Truth by an unwary, passive, conditioned public.

rfo: Get a legal aid lawyer and stop your infantile whining up already.

rk: Who is doing the whining in these posts of yours? Certainly not me.

rk: You and all of the other cowardly, anonymous posters who have exhausted your/themselves in these past six years trying to find a single "Contradiction in Essence" in all of my writing, must face the simple fact that you have all wound up "with egg on your face," embarrassed by your failure to undermine the simple Truth of my message.

rk: How have you gotten away with it for so long? Isn't it done by using multiple aliases, handles, and sockpuppets and haven't most inert, intellectually bound readers been *educated* into possessing insufficient awareness to spot the obvious.

rk: What is obvious about this continuing defamation campaign against a simple man of Truth?

rk: Why would so few use so many deceptive devices -- so many masks, expend so much time and energy to discredit another's writing when no one is FORCING them to read my posts, let alone respond to them?

rk: Again, only the IGNORAMUSES will not get the obvious answer to that question. To those who do, sign the petition at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RayNita1/petition.html

rk: Isn't it time you folks WOKE UP to what your government/media is doing to 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

We have an adversarial system here you idiot

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Justice? In Oregon?!!)

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:26:43 GMT

From: You lies about law school are ludicrous (unknown)

I though you said you went to law school.

In our system of justice, we have an adversarial system, which means the state prosecutes violators of public law, and defendants GET AN ATTORNEY. The function of the AG as counselor to state government is crystal clear, and you should have informed yourself before throwing another public tantrum. The Attorney General is simply NOT a dispenser of free legal advice every time some psycho member of the public takes it into his head his "constitutional rights" have been violated. Do have any idea of what kinds of things people take for their "constitutional rights?" Just about everything under the sun, depending on the nature and intensity of the mental illness. None of your real constituional rights have been violated, you are just too ignorant and brain-dead to get that through your concrete head.

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

Overuse of caps doesn't help anything

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Justice? In Oregon?!!)

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:38:29 GMT

From: Always amazed (unknown)

Yes Ray, why not scream a little more. If you have no substance to what you are saying and people are challenging you on the merits of your "argument," try screaming them down by overusing caps throughout your posts. Better to rethink what you're saying and why, as opposed to simply screaming the same screeds over and over again.

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

I call it JUSTICE

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Justice? In Oregon?!!)

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:44:07 GMT

From: You broke our law and will pay for it (unknown)

aa: Obviously if a private citizen wants to bring action against the state, he can't look to the state's chief lawyer to give out free legal advice.

rk: Then why should taxpayers support him with tax money? Either the "State's chief lawyer," being paid with public tax money, is employed to act on behalf of those who pay him, the taxpayer, or something strange and sinister has caused our Government to no longer be an instrument "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE," but has undergone a slow, incremental, malevolent metamorphoses into an exploitive Corporation independent of, and bent upon the ENSLAVEMENT of the People. Harsh words, are they not? What else would YOU call it?

I call it JUSTICE you a**hole. You broke our law, we want you sanctioned, and the state is doing its job. You still don't understand even the basic givens of your predicament, do you Ray? **You violated our social code,** one we legislated by our vote, and precisely no one here supports your absurd claims you have the right to do whatever you damned well please on our roads with impunity. You don't, and you're being made accountable. I am glad to pay for state prosecutors and cops to get disease like you the hell off our roads. They can have my money for that prupose. What I resent is feeding your obese, tax-parasite gut decade after decade while you waste your entire life making an gross display of your violence, hatred, and mental illness. In other words, AG is money well spent. You on the other hand are an obscene waste of public funds.

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

Yeah Ray

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 17:45:48 GMT

From: AG 's not your personal lawyer (unknown)

I can see where the AG would take time out of his insane schedule to asnwer your asinine questions. Do you even understand what the job of the AG is? Apparently not. Hire a lawyer you cheap SOB. The AG is not a public information officer. Why would he put aside his important work to play games with you?

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

Ray old friend, one small recommendation:

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 17:52:49 GMT

From: Dad (unknown)

why don't you try stomping your feet and pulling your hair while screaming, "it's not fair mommy, it's not fair". Then drop to the floor and beat it with you fists. After that you will need to put your nose in the corner, and go to bed without supper...

GET OVER IT YOU CRY BABY !! how frickin' pathetic!

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

You only worked as a cop for a very short time

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 19:40:58 GMT

From: You were then forcibly retired. (unknown)

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

This goes well beyond simple ignorance

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 20:31:54 GMT

From: Always amazed (unknown)

This is by far the strangest claim you've tried to make yet Raymond. So now you're saying you personally received legal training at a law school, despite the fact you have no college degree, obviously have no knowledge at all about the subject you claimed to be professionally credentialed in, and no law school says it admitted you? What law school did you attend? It looks like you're cross-posting material from more bizarre fights on other forums where you've refused to actually name the law school you say trained you. Why would that be? This goes way beyond simple ignorance, and well into mental illness. There's nothing easier than to check your professional claims: what law school do you claim trained you to behave and think the way you do?

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

A brief explanation of the adversarial system for you

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 21:42:53 GMT

From: Your totalitarian bent is showing again (unknown)

Raymond, your hatred for the adversarial system is way beyond me. It is vastly more sympathetic to people contesting the government than is the system used in civilian code countries (e.g., Western Europe). All these nonsensical claims about you going to law school aside, here is what you need to know in a nutshell.

In a civilian code country, the person running the show and making all decisions is the judge. There is no jury at all in a civilian code system. The accused does not argue his case in court, his lawyer does not make a courtroom argument either, and there is no debate back and forth about how duly enacted law applies to specific fact patterns at hand. You are **much more at the mercy of whatever judge you get than you are in our system,** where the accused has a LICENSED, trained attorney argue his or her postiion as hard as possible, and the lawyers basically run the courtroom activities according to the arguments they need to make on behalf of their clients. The judge under our system is there only to make rulings about possibly inappropriate assertions made in court, and to instruct the laypersons of the jury as to how they need to understand germane law so as to decide the case before them.

So it looks like you are attacking the best way we know how to accord the accused his day in couirt, including the opportunity to have his say, whatever it is, at that time. You seemingly prefer an ultra-authoritarian system where some black-robed judge calls all the shots, and you meekly accept whatever he rules. Your problem is your little traffic case has no merit under either system, and you're just pissed off. That has nothing to do with the adversarial system per se, and you ought to be able to distinguish your own psychological problems from legitimate criticism of our judicial system.

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

Hey Ray, I checked you out in California

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:09:29 GMT

From: The ball's in your court. (unknown) at the websites of the 25 or so law schools in that state. They all have an alumni list. You ain't on any of them.

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

Give us your state bar I.D. # , and the issue state

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:44:34 GMT

From: Old lawyer calling your hand. (unknown)

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

YET YOU DON'T NAME THE LAW SCHOOL LIAR

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:15:01 GMT

From: So Simple to Check your Claims Idiot (unknown)

You forgot already? I checked personally on your claims a little while back, and did the research myself. You claimed you went to law school in California in the early 70s. THIS IS A LIE, AND THE FACT YOU WILL NOT SIMPLY GIVE THE NAME OF THE LAW SCHOOL PROVES WHAT I AM SAYING. Your lies will not be allowed to continue Ray. Just like I revealed your lies about being in all those volumes of Who's Who by contacting Who's Who at the source, there is nothing easier than to verify you are in fact lying about having gone to law school as well. If you had, some law school there would have a record of your admission, of your grades, and whether or not you graduated. THERE ARE NO SUCH RECORDS ANYWHERE. Further, you have been called on this repeatedly, and can't stop your incessant threats and spam to actually name the school. What are you afraid we'll find: NO ADMISSIONS RECORDS? Further, at that point the school could drag you into court since it would have an actionable claim of fraud against you.

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

There aren't that many law schools in California a**hole

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:19:55 GMT

From: Put up or shut the f**k up already (unknown)

They could all easily be contacted in a couple of hours. Easily. Just name the name you fraudulent a**hole and be done with this latest fit of psychosis.

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

Completely without value or import.

Re: Why do they let you live, Ray? Are you that good? (or are you that unimportant?)

Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 20:50:20 GMT

From: Wait until he starts shooting though (unknown)

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

More ancient cases?Where'd you say you went to law school

Re: Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 20:49:45 GMT

From: O yeah, You refused to say. LIAR. (unknown)

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

Ray: why refuse to name a school?

Re: More ancient cases?Where'd you say you went to law school (O yeah, You refused to say. LIAR.)

Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 22:02:04 GMT

From: Ignoring your own fraud helps nothing (unknown)

What in your mind do you think you're accomplishing by insisting on such obvious lies? If you did attend law schhol ,even for a day, that can be easily verified with a simple call. Do you think just ignoring it when you're caught in more fraud helps your already non-existent credibility?

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

Even the militias condemn Ray as a kook

Re: Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 22:43:07 GMT

From: You've got no "friends" at APFN fvckhead (unknown)

Ray, why didn't you get it the first several times? No one cares about your mental illness, or the asinine fights you have with scores of people elsewhere. No one. This has nothing to do with the Constitution or anything this board exists to exchange ideas over, only the extreme mental illness of an obviously disturbed, hate-filled man. It doesn't take much insight to see you desperately need psychiatric attention, now.

Reply

Thu Aug 2 14:39:37 2001

Reaction from Oregon wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

rfo: The law schools say you're lying

rfo: Ray, do you really think constanting repeating lies the law schools already denied will make anyone believe you?

rk: Obviously, the "law schools" are not saying that I am lying. You, who are an anonymous shadow dwelling coward is making that baseless assertion. Your lack of research skills are really what is being revealed by such baseless assertions.

rfo: This in addition to your painful lack of knowledge about law? Where did you go to law school? WHY THEN DO YOU REFUSE TO NAME THE LAW SCHOOL.

rk: If you are intent upon defaming another, you had better learn how to swim in this ocean of life, for you are "way over your head" on this one. Most people are trained to focus on the letter of the word, the level of empty rhetoric. The spiritually sighted see both the letter and spirit of the word in an instantaneous holistic grasp.

rk: Shadow dwellers such as yourself, can only function in secrecy, in anonymity, in order to carry out their intrigues. Duplicitous hypocrites like you must have access to multiple fictitious identities, as they come to the end of their short-lived fictitious personnas when their illusory bubbles are burst by a well placed arrow of Truth. Such is the nature of LEGION, the MANY ruled by the tainted spirit of the "god" of Intellect. Most of you know who that is.

rk: The simple fact is that it is your own lack of integrity which you expose in these unsuccessful attempts at Character Assassination.

rfo: Every single law school in California says THEY NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO YOU WITH YOU, EVER.

rk: "Every single law school in California?" Isn't that what you've just said?

rk: Here's a simple thing you can offer to the readers in order to establish your integrity, or lack thereof. Why don't you list the actual names of the law schools and the dates they were contacted by you and/or your equally dark spirited, shadow dwelling cohorts, along with the results of your/their inquiry (so we can put it into the impressive evidence file)?

rk: The first thing that would be determined by such a simple task would be to determine the length and breadth of your research, which would enable you to substantiate the comment that EVERY SINGLE LAW SCHOOL IN CALIFORNIA was contacted.

rk: You see, flinging out libelous statements hoping that something will stick is a far cry from dealing with the simple facts, are they not?

rfo: The point is IT IS NOT A MATTER OF RECORD. THERE ARE NO RECORDS WHATSOEVER THAT SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS. You are lying, as always.

rk: Aren't you "in essence" really saying there are no records that you have been able to "discover" so far. Of course, that is even dependent upon whether any actual research was undertaken by one who hasn't even the integrity to back up his assertions with his true identity.

rk: Although most people reading this interchange for the first time, having no prior knowledge of the momentum currently unfolding, would regard this issue as simply a petty squabble between two posters, one who stands behind his words with his true identity and a petty, shadow dwelling, malicious, cheap shot ambusher who, with every unfounded thing he writes, demonstrates his lack of integrity. The casual reader is not equipped with the fact that this momentum has been going on, repeating itself on the Internet newsgroups/forums almost on a daily basis for 6 years. They do not See the "BIG PICTURE" hidden "in plain sight" from their unaware, conditioned consciousness.

rk: That is why I have been adamantly EXPOSING this issue of Government/Media Internet Mind Control continually, without letup, to the "seemingly" immense ignorance of a "hybernating public," waiting for them to WAKE UP.

rk: This has reached the point where the INSANITY of the way civilized men live their lives has been unequivocally exposed. It can easily be brought to an end, yet it continues on. Ask yourselves why our government leaders have allowed it to continue. Consider that even the most cursory of investigations conducted by the FBI could connect the dots, establish the, identities behind the masks, do a background check, establish the connections with high level Government, Intelligence Community, and Nationwide Radio broadcast executives and put all this to rest once and for all.

rk: The fly in the ointment is that this government/media mind control issue would spell the end of the present political regime.

rk: It is that which accounts for the Government/Media Stone Walling campaign, and it is that which which the ignorant have been kept from seeing!!

rk: Now, again I ask, Isn't it time for you folks to WAKE UP and take back control over your Country and your Lives?

Reply

rk: Many are watching the feeding frenzy going on regarding my comments about attending law school.

rk: Below is the article "Re: Rights vs Privilege: An Oregon Anniversary" which contains the statement that started it all. (See first paragraph)

rk: From that humble beginning arose the present disinformation-generated character assault. Now perhaps the reader may understand why I allow these word twisting hypocrites to stew in their own contaminated juices.

Attn: Webmaster at AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK - bulletin board APFN@apfn.org http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html,

rk: On this day, Aug. 3, 2001, you removed some posts regarding this issue of government/media sponsored/supported disinformation/misdirection from your board, while commenting to your readers that "enough was enough." This is the second patriot board from which my posts have been removed (see Friends of Liberty International Discussion Board below: http://www.friendsofliberty.com).

rk: What is it about my peaceful resolutions to stopping of the New World Order momentum dead in its tracks that Patriot Boards such as yours do not want to share with their readers?

rk: Is it that YOU FOLKS are Hell bent for a SHOOTING WAR with our government? Are you only the other side of the coin of POWER, waiting to "throw the rascals out and take over yourselves?" Is it as simple and as devastating as that?

rk: It is observable that your board encourages "pie in the sky" theoretical discussions and/or gossip as a release valve for pent up public anger and frustration, but when an actual "nuts and bolts" disinformation operation is being exposed as it unfolds, you suddenly take the position of "enough is enough" and censor information vital to a clear understanding of how the computer-using American public is being manipulated. The primary thrust of my posts has been to expose the use of mind control and disinformation as it is ACTUALLY being implemented on these Internet Newsgroups/Forums to control the flow of information. Have you not played into the hands of those who with money and power control both sides of a conflict?

rk: Note: All of the following have stripped my posts from their sites at some time in the past. Some have resumed showing my posts, others have not. Look at the forums that have censored my posts. It speaks volumes, does it not?

USENET newsgroups

Google Archives http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

MSNBC Religion & Ethics Forum http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-faith/index.asp

MSNBC Political Forum http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-politics/index.asp

NEO-TECH Forums http://www.neo-tech.com/front/

Medford Oregon Mail Tribune Newspaper Forum http://www.mailtribune.com/

Oregonian Newspapaer Town Square Forum; http://www.oregonlive.com/forums/townsquare/

**Bendnet Electronic Community Forum http://www.bend.com/bendnet/index.php *** Friends of Liberty International Discussion Board (Patriot Movement) http://www.friendsofliberty.com

The POWER HOUR http://www.gulfwarvets.com/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=The+Power+Hour&number=5

progun1's Freedom Board, http://members3.boardhost.com/progun1/

and now:

AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK - bulletin board http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html,

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:29:57 GMT

From: Ray, you and Anita are complete frauds (unknown)

unk: Ray you're a liar

rk: It was sufficient to gain admittance into law school, even though it didn't take me long to understand that what was being asked of me in return for the acquisition of a "LEGAL MIND" was something I was not willing to part with. Now there, I must tell you, was a real act of Intelligence in operation, i.e., the day I walked away from law school.

unk: You're a liar Ray. You cannot get into law school until you've completed college.

rk: Tell that to the Law School.

unk: Where were you admitted?

rk: Do you mean, you are going off half-cocked in this post and don't even know what you are talking about?

unk: Which school did you leave?

rk: It'll all come out at the government/media sponsored mind control/disinformation trial. Have patience.

unk: A quick call will verify everything.

unk: If you had attended even one day, you wouldn't be spouting all this psychotic crap about the Constitution you're always trying to peddle. Your ignorance of the law is overwhelming: even if you had a case against anyone, it wouldn't be a criminal case, and it couldn't be brought in Federal court, you fool.

rk: I beg to differ with you. The issue of a government/media sponsored supported illegal internet mind control/disinformation operation used against the citizens of this country is indeed a criminal offense. The conspiracy to libel although criminal in itself, is but an included offense.

unk: So again Ray, given even these most basic of law mistakes, where exactly do you claim to have been at law school? Where for that matter where you admitted to college for a bachelor's degree. Hypocrite!

unk: As for Ark Enterprises, of course it's you: this Anita crap is simply a front. Anyone looking at the web site will se YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU...

unk: You're nothing but lies Ray, and your pathetic attempt at covering them up nauseates me.

Remove the 1 1/2 year-long White House, Congressional, and FBI STONE WALL of Silence erected over this issue of utmost importance. Before you vote, make sure you get a specific answer to it from ALL of the Presidential Candidates on the Campaign Trail.

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski )

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 04:46:00 GMT

From: The ball's in your court Ray. (unknown) schools all have websites that list alumni. You ain't on any of those lists.

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

There aren't very many law schools in California

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski )

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:09:27 GMT

From: Don't lie Ray and you won't get caught (unknown)

Again, this shows you have no awareness of what you're lying about. It's easy to check your cliams through ALL the law schools in California in only a couple of hours. You're lying, you got caught, and now you're furious. Too bad. Don't lie to begin with if you don't want to ger caught.

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

Give us your state bar I.D. # , and the issue state

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:44:34 GMT

From: Old lawyer calling your hand. (unknown)

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

YET YOU DON'T NAME THE LAW SCHOOL LIAR

Re: Justice? In Oregon?!! (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:15:01 GMT

From: So Simple to Check your Claims Idiot (unknown)

You forgot already? I checked personally on your claims a little while back, and did the research myself. You claimed you went to law school in California in the early 70s. THIS IS A LIE, AND THE FACT YOU WILL NOT SIMPLY GIVE THE NAME OF THE LAW SCHOOL PROVES WHAT I AM SAYING. Your lies will not be allowed to continue Ray. Just like I revealed your lies about being in all those volumes of Who's Who by contacting Who's Who at the source, there is nothing easier than to verify you are in fact lying about having gone to law school as well. If you had, some law school there would have a record of your admission, of your grades, and whether or not you graduated. THERE ARE NO SUCH RECORDS ANYWHERE. Further, you have been called on this repeatedly, and can't stop your incessant threats and spam to actually name the school. What are you afraid we'll find: NO ADMISSIONS RECORDS? Further, at that point the school could drag you into court since it would have an actionable claim of fraud against you.

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

You are correct, this does speak volumes

Re: Disinformation & Character Assassination on Net (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 20:17:38 GMT

From: Always amazed (unknown)

Ray, you are correct. The sheer quantity of problems you've created for yourself on other boards through attack, threats, and fraud speaks volumes. But none of this makes your remarks any more compelling or pertinent to the true patriot cause. In other words, I'm very sorry for you that you have become so unwell and unbalanced, but none of your many, many problems with other human beings has anything to do with the Constitution or the proper exercise of participatory government. It is the result of medical disorder and misanthrophy. I also notice you still refuse to name the law school you said trained you to behave in such a bizarre, aggressive fashion. I have no doubt why your refusal to deal in facts is the case.

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

Is this drug abuse?

What explains this behavior Ray?

Re: Disinformation & Character Assassination on Net (Raymond Karczewski)

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 21:39:11 GMT

From: You should be institutionalized (unknown)

You seem like you could be a danger to yourself or to others. Probably to others, judging from your hate-filled tone and content. Either way, you should be hospitalized before you hurt someone with those guns you're always posting about. Why not take to the streets like you've long been threatening to do, and force the police's hands? In any case, you have nothing whatsoever to contribute to any meaningful adult discussion of politics or spirituality. You're a waste of band space.

Reply

Next Page

Return to Home Page