Date: 12/10/02 06:20:07 PM

Name: Liberty Creed  Email wrote:

Name: Tom... Email wrote:
 

lc:        Notice how these case cites use the lower-case nounals on there rulings. True Rights are always presented in  upper case as the Federal and State "Rules of Punctuation and Usage" demand. This is also true when they refer to True Law.

lc:      Example: When one sees the word 'law' with a lower case "l" used within the BODY of a cite it means one of two things; it is either 'adjective in nature' or refers to a lessor 'body of law' that DOES NOT recognize Unalienable Rights. Get the manual on "Rules of Punctuation and Usage", do a Little reading so that you can understand.

lc:     Whats the difference between the following:

    Citizen vs citizen
    U.S. vs u.S vs U.S.A. (Blacks Law)
    Law vs law
    Right vs right
    person vs individual vs corporation vs human being vs 'a monster' Bouvier's Law
    Lawful Christian vs man

lc:     Legitimate PUBLIC use equals commercial activity, vs legitimate Private activity. A flagrant contra-distinction. Going to Grandma's for dinner is NOT commercial activity.

lc:     Motor Vehicle,: a conveyance used to conduct a commercial activity. Their definition

 lc:    True, to engage in regulated commercial activities is not 'a fundamental personal right. (neither is there any  listing or reference to a 'personal' right that has a binding legal/lawful meaning. But the courts play this game  with the ignorant all the time.

 lc:    Society bestowed this 'power' on the governments. This power is to regulate commercial activities. You  misread the cite.

lc:     Notice the cite did NOT attempt to restrict the 'Lawful Christian Sojourning upon the LAND'. The reason it didn't is because the Highest LAW GRANTS MAN 'me' dominion over the Earth as long as I do not harm another.  American Jurisprudence, 'if there is no injured Party, no Crime has been committed'. In your, so called, criminal action in your, so called, traffic court, where is the Man I injured when I got a parking ticket. Traffic Courts are    only Revenue gatherers. There is nothing found in traffic court that could not be accomplished in Courts of  Common Pleas, IF the goal was really Societal Wellbeing. But thats not the reason for traffic courts. Traffic courts will have only nominal impact on DUI's stats for a number of reasons. Infractions are their life blood and if they raise the consequences to the point of stopping speeding, DUI's, etc. they would be wiping out their own  jobs. The old True Courts would patiently wait until there was an Injured Party and them put them in Prison. Problem solved for 5, 10, 15, years, one by one. The system you support is an IDIOT system and can't work  because it was only designed to 'milk' revenue.

lc:     You still haven't answered my test question, why is the District of Columbia not 10 square miles today as the Constitution calls for it to be.

lc:     The answer will change your mind but you must find it. I will not do it for you

    LC

    --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

    Replying to:

t:     Statutes requiring a driver's license, proper vehicle registration, and a safety inspection do not  unconstitutionally deprive citizens of any claimed "right of locomotion," due process, or equal protection of  laws. See State v. Stevens, 718 P.2d 398 (Utah 1986). See also Ex parte Cardinal, 170 Cal. 519, 150 P. 348  (1915); Lite v. State, 617 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1993); State v. Stuart, 544 N.W.2d 158 (N.D. 1996); Price v. Reed,  725 P.2d 1254 (Okla. 1986); Hanson v. State, 673 P.2d 657 (Wyo. 1983)
 

t:     Operating a motor vehicle on the public thoroughfares, under any circumstances, is not a fundamental personal right, but instead is a mere societally-bestowed privilege, granted by the grace of the state, which an adult citizen must earn, and which the government can restrict or invalidate, even administratively, in the rational furtherance of a legitimate public purpose. U.S. v. Kingsley, 241 F.3d 828 (Tenn. 2001).
 

Reply

"David G. Baugh" (dgbaugh@fidnet.com) wrote:

Greetings:
 

This is interesting.
 

I have not checked out the site, but I wanted to tell you what I learned
about the extremely limited power and authority of the Missouri State
Highway Patrol in Missouri.
 

This has to be the same in every state of the Union.  The "excuse" for
establishing a state police was to apprehend bank robbers.  The bank robbers
of course, were a direct result of the debauched money system imposed upon
us by the antichrist international banksters through their fraudulent
debt-money-usury-system called the "Federal Reserve."
 

In Missouri, the State Highway Patrol is a division of the Department of
Public Safety.  This is a de facto, extra-constitutional corporate creature
of the Missouri Legislature.  As such, its powers are strictly limited to
within the scope of the fiction of law upon which it was established.  In
order to govern the administration and enforcement of the de facto statutory
regulatory revenue schemes, the Director of the Department of Public Safety
is required by law to draft up implementing, promulgating rules/regulations.
These rules/regulations must be examined and approved by committees and
subcommittees of quisling, pettifogger, shyster lawyers, appointed by the
Senate.  Once they are approved, they are then to be verified as approved,
and published in the Code of State Regulations (CSR) under the auspices of
the Secretary of State.  These regulations are then supposed to be made
public by placing them in the public libraries, in order that the general
public may be made aware of the legitimate intent and purpose of the
statutory requirement, and also for the enforcement officers to be made
aware of same, preventing misapplication of law.
 

As a matter of law, a de facto, extra-constitutional statute, such as the
requirement for a drivers license, is a "naked statute," unless it is sited
as being violated along with its essential, implementing, promulgating
rule/regulation, which establishes the probable cause essential for a
"criminal" charge for alleged violation of the statute.  It is private in
nature, requiring such nexus before it can be lawfully enforced.
 

When one examines the CSR in the several states, one finds that there is no
essential, implementing, promulgating rule/regulation for the statutory
requirement for a drivers license, for the exercise of unalienable right of
ordinary locomotion, in use of one's private property (automobile) as a
"place travel device."
 

The ONLY legitimate government control is over a specific class of
"persons," engaged in a specific class of privileged occupational, business
or commercial "driving" activities, in use of a specific class of "things"
or "motor vehicles" (See Title 18, USC, Section 31), used exclusively for
profit or gain upon the highways.
 

The state legislatures do not possess the political power to arbitrarily
compel each and every citizen to first get its permission prior to using the
public roads owned by the people for the purpose of locomotion (freedom of
mobility) in use of their private property (gains of their own industry), no
matter what type of mechanical conveyance it is.  The simple reason for this
is, the people, who are the "civil-body-politic" or "state," do not possess
any political powers to grant to their inferior political trustee
legislators any powers they themselves do not possess, which would deprive
anyone of their antecedent, unalienable rights, liberties and freedoms, and
therefore they have not done so.
 

So-called "public safety" has never had anything to do with it, although
this is the false premise expounded upon by the antichrist owned/controlled
media, which has convinced the woefully ignorant and deceived people that
they are incapable of being responsible for themselves and their actions
when using their automobiles, so somehow their own corporate creature
government and mere humans they allow to run it for them, have to be
responsible for them through their antichrist regulatory revenue schemes.
 

This is nothing more than a proptection racket of legalized plunder and
extortion!  That is all it has ever been!  It exists and perpetuates itself
only because of the woeful ignorance and cowardice of the American people!
 

As soon as these so-called "law-enforcement" officers learn that they are
being used as armed thugs perpetuating the protection racket of legalized
plunder and extortion, which is actually enslaving them and their families
too, perhaps we can put an end to the tyranny and oppression being imposed
upon us.  It is simply misapplication of law, because the law, being private
in nature, may be applied only upon those to whom it was written for, who
are engaged in the specific, privileged, occupational, business, or
commerical driving activity which requires the license, or tax for the
privilege.
 

Public safety and security is nothing more than the creed of tyrants and
oppressors.  The law is in place to punish the rare individual who conducts
himself irresponsibly in use of his automobile.  It is civil law, and
everyone is held directly responsible for his actions, whereas under the
wrongfully imposed criminal law, the "STATE" assumes responsibility, and
everyone is made a criminal, unless he pays for the "protection."  What
comes along with such "protection?"
 

    "Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem"
 

    "Protection draws with it subjection, and subjection protection.  The
protection of an individual by government is on condition of his submission
to the laws, and such submission on the other hand entitles the individual
to the protection of the government" (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition,
Page 1100).
 

This is contrary to the original intent of the founders of America, as it
pertains to de facto, extra-constitutional regulatory revenue schemes such
as the drivers license, vehicle registration and related statutory
requirements.  Liberty, with freedom to exercise and enjoy it comes with
individual responsibility.  When the peoples' corporate creature, and mere
humans they allow to run it assumes this responsibility, the people are no
longer free, and liberty is lost under the phony guise of "public safety &
security."  The corporate "STATE" becomes a god, and the mere humans who run
it become corrupted with usurped power and authority.
 

Americans need to make a choice:  false safety & security offered by their
own corporate creature government and mere humans they allow to run it?  Or
Liberty, with freedom to exercise and enjoy it with responsibility under the
Laws of our Creator/Savior.
 

David G. Baugh
 

Reply

Date: 2002-12-10 23:42:55 PST

Tom (tom@nosleep.net) wrote:

From: Chris (chrishavelREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com)

Oregon State Police Called In to Investigate Josephine County
JURISDICTION
                              By Raymond Karczewski©

rk: > >      Dec. 10, 2002, 4:20 PM: Received a phone call from a male caller identifying himself as "Griff Holland" of the Oregon State Police, badge# 672 -- commission # 1072-01, who stated he was working in Salem with the Oregon Department of Justice.

t:  > My best guess is, the person you spoke with is a psychologist for the state  and they are about to lock you up with people just like you, for all our safety. I'll be sure to direct this person  "Griff Holland" to this newsgroup.

c:   There is no person by that name working for either the ODJ or the OSP.  There are three Hollands working for the Judicial Department, and all are women (one in Eugene, one in Portland and one in Oregon City).

--
Chris
 

Reply

"Peter Sparacino" (primrose@budget.net) wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:
 

rk:  Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:29:52 -0800  I received the following  email this morning.  It sheds some light on the phrase "simulation of a legal process" as used by Officer "Griff Holland" of the Oregon State Police.

rk:  KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON THE FREEDOM SUPPRESSING EVENTS NOW UNFOLDING IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON  --- WHO KNOWS, YOU MAY BE  NEXT!!!

                                           Raymond Karczewski

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

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:V9XF4obv73EC:nwcitizen.com/publicgood/reports/spectrum/+%22simulation+of+a+legal+process%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
 

(excerpt from above link)> Right Wing Strategies

Leaderless Resistance is a terrorist strategy. The movement splits itself into two components: an aboveground leadership of propagandists and an underground network of terrorist action cells. Individual cells may be prosecuted, but Leaderless Resistance networks are virtually immune from law enforcement activities.

"Paper terrorism" is a resistance/terrorist strategy. The name is misleading, but widely used. Properly speaking, the activity is barratry, the fraudulent *simulation of a legal process.* (My Emphasis rk) Most barratry* consists of harassing lawsuits, filing frivolous documents in support of tax resistance and phony liens against public officials. Widely tolerated by prosecutors and county clerks. No significant enforcement activity has occurred, though many states' Attorneys General have drafted numerous opinions on right-wing barratry for the last two decades.
 

                        *Barratry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Barratry: legal concept with two meanings, one in criminal and civil law, the other in admiralty law.

ps:   In the first case, barratry is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass.  Usually, the actions brought lack merit. This action has been declared a crime in some jurisdictions.

ps:  Ray, it seems to me that their (law enforcement) general drift is to label any effective, activist, strategy as domestic terrorism so that certain elements of the draconian Patriot Act http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html can be broadly misapplied to silence annoying American citizens. Moreover, the Bush Administration is now pushing http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/01/1038712831001.html
the so-called parallel legal system . Fascism is moving with lightening speed.  In Nevada casino guys used this phrase: putting a jacket on him, when they wanted to destroy someone's good reputation.  It appears to me that tactic has been adopted by Oregon's public officials.

Reply

Dec. 12th, 2002.....Here it is, 10 days after my REFUSAL TO APPEAR on Dec 2nd, 2002 before Judge ALLAN H. COON'S unlawful court.  My REFUSAL TO APPEAR before the court conveyed the message "EITHER ARREST OR DROP THE CHARGES."  Yet no warrant has been served upon this SOVEREIGN, living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person.

Rather than responsibly answer the Conditional Acceptance/Proof of Claim served upon Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON on Nov. 8th, 2002, SEE: http://www.arkenterprises.com/prfclaim.html#Claim
and bring this matter to closure,  our District Attorney's tactic has been to  cover up his inability to establish such proof of jurisdiction  by calling in the OREGON STATE POLICE to intimidate and suggest that an individual who holds government officials responsible for their duties is somehow considered to be engaged in "Terrorist Activities."
See:  http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch67.html#Police
         http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch68.html#Insight

This is the actual state of government manifest in our community and country today.

It did not get that way overnight.  It can be traced to the inertia and conditioned unawareness of a once Free People who have lost sight that THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT and their hired public servants are just that -- HIRED PUBLIC SERVANTS.

ISN'T IT TIME AMERICANS WAKE UP?

                                          Raymond Karczewski©

Reply

Clay E. Johnson
District Attorney
Josephine County, OR
DA@co.josephine.or.us
                                                                                December 14th, 2002
Mr. Johnson,

    As District Attorney of Josephine County, you are charged with the responsibility of  prosecuting those persons, whom after diligent investigation by support organizations and staff,  you as chief prosecutor for the county of Josephine, have determined to have committed crimes within the jurisdiction of Josephine County Oregon.

   On September 8th, 2002 and November 14th, 2002, I submitted two separate criminal complaints to your office regarding the criminal activitiy of Josephine County Sheriff's Deputies in the performance of their duties. See references below.

   Please state in writing the present status of those specific complaints.

     On November 8th, 2002,  you were served notice through your receptionist of my Conditional Acceptance -- Request for Proof of Claim.  In your non-response within 10 days to the questions contained therein regarding the proof of claims which apply directly to the Jurisdictional issue brought before the courts in  Josephine County Court CASE  NO. 02-CR-0617  you have defaulted and as such, have not established proof of  jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, natural person.

    Yet instead of dismissing charges in the "Interest of Justice", I have learned through contact by Officer Griff Holland of the Oregon State Police that you have sent my request for proof of claim to the Oregon Attorney General Office for the purpose of seeking possible prosecution of one for "simulating a legal process."

    Is this the type of administration of Justice which Josephine County Taxpayers can expect to receive at the hands of their elected officials?

   This letter, as the previous others,  is being posted publicly on the Internet so that all may stand in the same light of Truth equally, and thus be held accountable.

   I do expect your response to this communication in writing.

                                                        Yours truly,
                                           Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
                      Autograph Common Law Copyright. All Rights Reserved

SEE:
Criminal Behavior by Josephine County Sheriff'sDeputies. September 8th, 2002  http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch64.htm#Deputies

Josephine County Prosecutor:  Prove Claim or Dismiss!! November 8th, 2002,   http://www.arkenterprises.com/prfclaim.html#Claim

A Letter to Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E.
JOHNSON -- BRING THE REAL CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE!! November 14th,
 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch66.html#JUSTICE

Oregon State Police Called In to Investigate Josephine County JURISDICTION December 10th, 2002,
 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch67.html#Police
 

Reply

From: svanier (svanier@qwest.net) wrote:

Raymond Karczewski© (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:

Date: 2002-12-22 08:30:43 PST

 *****SPV.......How come the police don't arrest him yet?

rk:  Now there's the question which begs to be answered?

rk:  Even in the foggy drug and alcohol-soaked consciousness of  a chemically affected human intellect of the questioner, the question SHOUTS to be answered.

rk:  Yet what is unerringly observable and indeed promoted on these newsgroups is the basest form of mind control exploitation of human ignorance by Satanic Leadership, the shadowy elite who derive their power and control through psychological manipulation of enslaved, civilized, ignoramuses.

rk:  Since "Man's fall from Grace" they have ruled civilizations through tactics of force of  arms, imprisonment, fear, intimidation, character assassination, libel, and the lowest form of human compensatory entertainment -- a seemingly innocent but in fact deadly time-consuming occupation -- GOSSIP!!

rk:  Such is the curse civilized man has drawn upon himself.  His conflicted outer world is but a reflection of his inner conflicted consciousness.  He revels in his own "self-condemnation." The Truth is, he has become so mired in his own ignorant, dimly perceived perceptions that he is unable to escape the consequences.

rk:  In the last seven-and-a-half-plus years of expressing Truth on these Internet newsgroups/forums, I have exposed a LEGION of Satanic ruled ignoramuses who revel in this spiritually destructive behavior.

rk:  I have stood solidly on Truth -- the eternal lightning rod which draws to it the destructive forces of nature -- and have dissolved such energy, rendering its waves of vicious attacks harmless and impotent.

rk:  In doing so, I have drawn the ire, the hatred of perverse intellects. I have soaked up the accumulated vitriol of corrupted, cowardly, anonymous entities who lack the courage to back up their Hell-bound libelous attacks with their True Identity and have dissolved it.

rk:  I have exposed Government Corruption from the highest to the lowest of  offices in this land, but to what effect?  Who IS THERE to listen?

rk:  Millions and millions of Satanic-ruled ignoramuses in our land are only now beginning to see the destruction they have set into motion through their ignorance and inertia.

rk:  STILL, millions remain immobilized, unable to act, to function as intelligent spiritual beings.  They are pushed, prodded into a corner, their liberty, their freedoms incrementally stripped away.  They capitulate to their fears.  They retreat and REDRAW their "line in the sand." They have sacrificed their God-given Sovereignty as Sons and Daughers of God to don the chains of slavery for the Satanic promise of security.

rk:  Hell, isn't it?

rk:  This momentum of SELF-DESTRUCTION can be dissolved in an eternal "blink of an eye."  It is the blink which precedes the opening of hypnotically heavy-lidded eyes of those in the process of AWAKENING.

rk:  Divine Intelligence calls for the collective action of "RESIST NOT EVIL."  Resistance always feeds the opposition in a dualism-ruled consciousness.  WITHDRAW your own support for war  and the collective insanity of WAR stops instantly.

rk:  War is BIG BUSINESS.  It cannot be waged without the support of LEGIONS of mind controlled IGNORAMUSES who produce the weapons of war through their own life's blood and energy: i.e., MONEY.

rk:  The Solution:  BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT!!

rk:  That is the INTELLIGENT way to stop this present momentum toward a NEW WORLD ORDER ruled by the consolidated power base of  MONEY HANDLERS (Bankers) and RULEMAKERS (Politicians).

rk:  One can trace the progress of the HUMAN SPECIES since the earliest of civilizations and see for themselves what such momentum has wrought upon this earth.

rk:  Oh, yes, the original question of this article "How come the police don't arrest him yet?

rk:  How many Christs (simple men/women of Truth) need be sacrificed on the Satanic altar of *Man's Law* before ignoramuses awaken to the divinely inspired simplicity that is life lived beyond the Satanic intellect?
 

                             Raymond Karczewski©

Reply

Date: 12/23/02 07:55:41 AM

Name: Liberty Creed Email:

  Earlier in these posts one of you posed a 'query' that I wasn't sure about. So, contrary to what others do in this    'Forum', I went and looked. I have been studying the License Cases, along with about 300 other related cases.  I can't find one instance where the gov. can impose travel restrictions on a person in the excercise of their Private Activities, only Commercial.

  The Rule of Specifity does not allow a general assumption. If the issue is defined as Commercial, one cannot assume Private.

  Assuming the blithering idiots are right, and Ray is in violation of the 'law', and, assuming, (as stated) that Ray    is dangerous because of his mental condition, WHY ISN'T RAY IN JAIL ?????????

  I know for fact that the Courts can institute a 'mental hold' on someone in a VERY SHORT period of time.

  WHY ISN'T RAY IN JAIL ?????????

  If the Courts have Jurisdiction, as the Talking Heads allege,
WHY ISN"T RAY IN JAIL ???????

  As I have said before, there is a singular point in RAY's 'concept' whereby the court can impose Jurisdiction BUT, in doing so they can be forced to declare 'show juridiction' on this 'singular point' and the courts are NOT willing to do that. If any Court of Record did, the 'Cat would be out of the bag'. One of the critical points of Due Process in Amerika is the 'establishment of jurisdiction'. Right now, Oregon's jurisdiction is 'imperfect and wanting', and they know it, except of the aforementioned 'point', which they dare not use.

 WHY ISN'T RAY IN JAIL ?????????

  If what you say is true,,,,,

  WHY ISN'T RAY IN JAIL ?????????

  The FACT that he isn't brings into question every contrary allegation that has been made on this 'forum'.

   LC

Reply

Date: 12/24/02 11:15:02 PM

Name: Liberty Creed Email: garmin@tds.net wrote:

    This is a message that I posted earlier. Got serious 'flak'.

    In the Letter to the Romans, it states a choice that. 'one will Render unto Ceasar, OR, one will render unto God'. Do some research and check the transliteration, and the translation out of the old texts. You will find something very interesting. Also, it states in the BOOK that 'government shall rest on the shoulders of Christ (GOD). A Good Lawful Christian cannot be    bound by (and must resist) any body of law that is Contrary to God's Law. ( the exceptions are where one finds God's Law codified. i.e. Murder, Stealing, etc.) All, I repeat, All law in effect today; Statute, Municipal Codes, Regulations, Ordinances, etc., are Anathema to God's Law. These last itemized areas were Codified 2000 years ago. They have different names, all about equally correct. The names are, The Code of Justinian, the Lex (law) Romana, The law of Ceasar, Roman Commercial Code, etc. As a salient point, do you remember Ray  talking about the all CAPS. name issue?? Roman law invented that. It is called a 'Persona', don't go by what  you THINK that word means, look in a Law Dictionary, I recommend 'Bouvier's'. (the Supreme's use it along    with Blacks) The meaning in there is exactly the meaning in the Legal Arena. I paraphrase, 'A persona is a  fictonal creation having the outward attributes of a human being BUT with no Standing in True Law'. Hmmm. Further, 'Novation' 'a process by which one in Lawful standing (a True Christion) takes on a 'Fictional Persona'  and in so doing, transits Juridisctions. Hmmm!! (leaves one juridiction (God's) and enters another (man's))

    You made some numbered points about 'insurance'. Insurance is under Maritime Law, has been since the idea  came into being. Under Maritime/Admiralty (Lex Romana) law, the secular authority gets to apply High Seas  Prize Rules. If you doubt me, search the Denver papers, find the one that is the lagal notice paper, and then do a search for cases involving 'car seizures', read the 'legal statement'. It openly states that the cases will be heard under Maritime/Admiralty rules. What does this all meaan?? The Good Book says 'not to worship false God's'. All of the numerous, previously mentioned, aspects of 'man's created law' have one thing in common.  Com'merc'e, Com'merc'ial. See the commonality?? 'Merc'ury is the God of Traders, Thieves, and Speculators. (what does it say about speculators in the Bible?? check on the other side of the translation and you will find that you are being warned away from insurance.) Mercury is also the brother of Mars, the god of War, hence, 'Commercia Beli'-War Commerce. All secular authority today IS Commercial Law. This is the Common Thread.    Any Christian that 'transits Jurisdiction' from God's Law to'mans law'. is screwed. Salvation IS NOT a singular  event.

    If you truely want to learn, go to Kolona,Iowa, find an Amish Elder (all elders are teachers) and show him this. He will smile and say that you have finally asked the Right question. He, or another, will begin you  enlightenment. He will know, and soon you will too, that you stand before the First Viel.

    Ask yourself to find the answers to the following questions;

    Why was there no attempt by the gov. to impose an Income Tax prior to 1861.??  Why was there no attempt by any gov. to impose vehicle licensing before 1861.??  Why can you now be 'forced' to give up 4th and 5th Amend. protections when paying your taxes.??    Why is it you still don't own your car even after you have paid it off.??  Why is it you still don't own your house even after you have paid it off.??  Why is it you still don't own your land even after you have paid it off.??

    Friend, do not doubt me. The factual allegations contained in the questions ARE FACTS. Remember what I said about the Miasma of Information, DO NOT mistake that for Wisdom or Knowledge. It isn't.

    Today, by the Lord's Grace, I am one of 30 million in this Nation who know part or all of what I am trying to empart to you. The numbers are growing faster all the time. There is a building outrage across this land and the feeble attempts at distraction by the gov. cannot stop it.

    I am old and tired. My time and tasks are about done. Maybe it was meant that I could have one more small success, in bringing you across. We shall see.
 

Reply

12/20/02 08:50:51 AM

Name: Duncan Philp Email wrote:
 
 

Peter J. Mancus Attorney at Law Victorian Square 876 Gravenstein Ave. So., Suite 3 Sebastopol, CA 95472   Tel. 707) 829-9050 October 22, 2000

    Aaron Zelman Founder, CCOPS [Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States] Hartford, WI 53027
 

    Dear CCOPS:

    I live in Sebastopol, California, which is approximately 60 miles north of San Francisco and approximately 8 miles east of the Pacific coast line. Sebastopol is a bedroom community of approximately 8,000 people. It is in  Sonoma County. Sebastopol and Sonoma County have repeatedly voted for Clinton, Gore, Feinstein--champions of more victim disarmament laws. Sonoma County has one major daily newspaper, The    Press-Democrat, which strongly supports more victim disarmament laws.

    What follows is true. The date was late 1999. The scene was a beautiful, sunny day, in a neighborhood at Dowd Drive, in Sebastopol, California.

    I was walking my dog when I saw a man, in civilian clothes, walking his dog, coming toward me. When this man  and I crossed each other's path, I started a conversation with this man. The following is a faithful, paraphrased,  recreation of this conversation, not an exact quote.

    In the dialogue that follows, PM stands for me, Peter Mancus, and RS stands for Robert Smith, who was the  other man walking his dog.

    This Robert Smith is a white male; approximately 5'9"; approximately 145-150 pounds; approximately 50-55  years old. He is wiry; athletic, trim looking; he has a flat abdomen; medium brown hair; bushy mustache; a  gaunt look; and tight facial skin with deep smile lines [diagonal lines along nose, above mouth.]

    PM: Excuse me. May I please talk to you briefly?

    RS: Yes.

    PM: Are you a Sebastopol Police Officer?

    RS: Yes.

    PM: I thought so. I normally see you from the chest up, in blue uniform, behind the steering wheel of a patrol  car.

    RS: [No comment.]

    PM: What's your name?

    RS: Bob Smith.

    PM: Have a question for you. How do you feel about gun control?

    RS: I don't have any problem with most people having guns. It is a mistake to over rely on the police. We  cannot be every where. You have a right to guns. You should get proper training. I own guns. I like to shoot. I  can understand how others would like to keep their guns. I think some people in Sebastopol might be unsafe with guns, but it is their right. They make me nervous about how they handle their guns.

    PM: Have another question for you. If civil authority gave you an order to go house to house to disarm law- abiding citizens who never misused their firearms, what would you do? And why?

    RS: Don't worry about that. I do not think that will ever happen. I've been a cop for 25 years. I do not anticipate  receiving that order before I retire. I do not believe our chief [recently retired Dwight Crandall] would ever give that order. I think the chief would be extremely reluctant to issue us that order. I just don't think he would do it. I  am very confident that I will retire before I ever get that order.

   PM: Thank you for sharing that with me, but please do not avoid the question. The question is [and I repeated  it.] If you were given that order, what would you do? Assume that you were given that order, what would you  do? [For several minutes Officer Smith gave me evasive, non-responsive answers, while I did my best to keep  him focused on giving me a direct answer responsive to my specific question.]

    RS: [Eventually] I would carry out the order.

    PM: Why?

    RS: Because it is an order?

    PM: Any other reasons?

    RS: Yes. I've been a cop for 25 years. I have worked hard. I have put up with a lot--stress, danger, heartache, etc. I would not like doing it but I would do it [enforce the order].

    PM: What if the home owner citizen [who is otherwise law-abiding] tells you something like this, "Officer. I  respect your title. Thank you for your service. But I am not going to give you my guns. Society and the courts have gone off the deep end. They are wrong. I have rights. My rights limit your duty, regardless of what society says. I am going to stand up for those rights. I am not going to let you cross the threshold into my home to confiscate my guns. I have never misused my guns. I am not responsible for what criminals do with their guns. I am not a criminal. I wish you well. I harbor no animosity toward you. Please. Just leave in peace, without my guns. Stay on that side of my door, and you are a peace officer. Cross the threshold to my home to confiscate my guns, and you are a government goon. I will support and obey a peace officer. I will not support and I will not obey a government goon," what would you do then?

    RS: I would not leave. I would enforce the order.

    PM: What if the citizen then made it politely and tactfully clear to you that if you want the guns, you will have to use lethal force because he [or she] is willing to use lethal force to resist? What would you do then?

    RS: In that case, the situation is no longer academic. I would not leave without that citizen's guns. I would enforce the order.

    PM: Even after the citizen warns you of the personal physical risk you take? Even after the citizen urges you to leave in peace?

    RS: Yes!

    PM: Why?

    RS: I have received an order. I am a cop. It is my job to enforce the law. This hypothetical citizen you've  described is a gun nut. He is willing to risk his life and his freedom for his damn guns. When it comes down to his guns and my retirement benefit, I am not going to give my department any excuse for terminating me, for keeping me from retiring and collecting my retirement benefit. I am not going to let my fellow officers down. I will carry my weight. I will do my job. If necessary, I will become a vicious bull dog to enforce that order. I want to  collect my retirement. I want to keep my job. My wife and I are counting on me keeping my job. We need the  money. I am not going to let my family or my department down.

    PM: So, would you be willing to kill that otherwise law-abiding citizen to disarm him? To enforce your order?

    RS: Yes!

    PM: And, assuming you did that and that you survived that encounter, would you then go to the next house hold to enforce your order?

    RS: Yes!

    PM: And what if that citizen told you the same thing as the other one that you just killed? What would you do  then?

    RS: I would enforce my order.

    PM: Including using lethal force to kill that citizen, too?

    RS: Yes!

    PM: And after you do that, would you then move on to the next house? And the next?

    RS: Yes!

    PM: Is that how you treat citizens who paid your salary via their taxes for 25 years? Would you really do this? Shift after shift until Sebastopol was a gun free zone?

    RS: Hey! Do not get upset with me. I would just be doing my job. If anyone has a problem with me doing my job, they should obey my command to surrender their guns to me and then take it up with a judge. They have a legal duty to obey my order. If they threaten me with lethal force, I will take care of myself, which will be bad for whomever resisted my order.

    PM: Have you ever heard of the "Nuremberg Principle"?

    RS: Yes.

    PM: Do you know what that principle is?

    RS: No. PM: Have you ever received any training about the "Nuremberg Principle"?

    RS: No.

    PM: So you would just continue going from house to house, shift after shift, day after day, enforcing that order, killing everyone who refused to surrender their guns?

    RS: Do not get upset with me. I am just a small cog in a big piece of machinery. If the citizens want to stay alive, they simply just have to surrender their guns, as ordered.

    PM: Is there any order you would not enforce to keep your retirement benefit? To protect your income?

    RS: I do not want to continue this conversation. [Officer Smith then walked away.]

    Almost a year after this exchange with Officer Smith, I am still disturbed. The implications of this exchange are alarming. I did not like how quickly Officer Smith was willing to reduce me, and people like me, to gun nut status. I do not like Officer Smith's mind set that his retirement benefits are more important than the rights and lives of gun nuts.

    Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith exists. I did not make him up. It is a mere coincidence that his last name is Smith. I described him with particularity on purpose. Good citizens need to know what Officer Robert Smith told me, and they need to know what he looks like so they will have a fighting chance to stay alive and remain free.

    Peter J. Mancus
 

Reply

September 24, 1999

Raymond Karczewski<arkent@internetcds.com> wrote:

rk:  The following is a reply to Josephine County District Attorney Tim Thompson's response to my original communication.

From: "TIMOTHY THOMPSON"
District Attorney, Josephine County Oregon
To: <arkent@internetcds.com>
Subject: Response to Questions re Motor Vehicles

Dear Mr Karczewski:

tt:  I am in receipt of your e-mail inquiry re driver's licenses and motor vehicles.  Your inquiry to me contains three questions.  The first deals with an "unalienable right to liberty being converted into a privilege" by the State of Oregon.  The second question refers to possible distinctions between automobiles and motor vehicles for licensing purposes.  The third question relates to possible distinctions between non-commercial versus commercial uses of motor vehicles for licensing purposes.

tt:  I do not have the time to adequately research, brief, or explore the intricacies of constitutional law with you, but I will try to provide some guidance.

rk:  Mr. Thompson, why don't you have the time to research this Constitutional question which has such far reaching ramifications for the people of Josephine County and of this Country?  You have the office, the facilities, the researchers, and certainly the time (your job) to answer this important Constitutional question.  The question is: Does the State of Oregon and Josephine County have the ability to overide the U.S. Constitution and convert a Constitutional Unalienable Right into a privilege and through such action therefore convert a Constitutional Unalienable Right  into a crime?

rk:  Mr. Thompson, all passages below which are enclosed in quotation (") marks are excerpted from the legal brief at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html  sent to your office in a previous communication.  I am not a lawyer, but I certainly understand Truth when I see it.

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

tt:  If you proceed upon your stated course of action, perhaps the opportunity will arise to develop some appellate law in this state.

rk:  Is it the sole duty of the County District Attorney to prosecute citizens and garner convictions without regard for the rendering of  justice, then let the appellate courts sort out the mess?  That, sir, does not best serve those constituents who put that District Attorney into office.

tt:  As a matter of historical background, the right to travel is not expressly addressed in the US Constitution, though its nature has been recognized through various analytical processes in a variety of cases.

rk:  "The courts have held that There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
That's pretty clear language, is it not?

tt:  Its source has been discussed in connection with the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause, among others, depending upon the precise issues raised.

rk:  I am not concerned with legal opinions regarding the Commerce Clause.  I am, however, concerned with your official position regarding The Unalienable Rights of private Citizens to "travel" upon the roadways of Josephine County and of this Country in their private "automobiles" for their own private transportation and survival needs and who are not using the roadways for the purposes of engaging in commercial or business for profit.

rk:  Let us cut to the chase, shall we?

rk:   After all, the courts have further held that: "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.

and

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to  travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

rk:  These, Mr. Thompson, go to the heart of the matter, not the tangential peripheral opinions dealing with the "commerce clause."  I'm talking about plain folk, taxpayers of Josephine County who utilize for their private transportation and survival needs, the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, in other words, their own private "automobiles."

rk:  Have not the courts held 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.

and

rk: "Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles."

and

rk: "The essential elements of due process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to defend." Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.

rk: "Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty."

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

and...

    "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).

rk:  "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.

rk:  "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."

tt:  All powers not exclusively delegated to the federal government, or expressly prohibited by constitutional limitations, are reserved to the states (per the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution).  Since the federal government has not passed uniform national legislation re driver competencies and rules of the road (i.e. the federal government has not "occupied the field") and constitutional prohibitions are not express, all fifty states have adopted legislation impacting motor vehicles and driver competency standards to promote public safety and welfare on their public roads.

tt:  With regard to your first question, I am not sure what your precise question is, since you are blending phrases from the Declaration of Independence with those from constitutional sources..  In the context of your letter, however, I am assuming you are questioning whether or not a state can adopt regulations or pass legislation which can impact what you characterize as an "Unalienable Right to Liberty."  If you are referring to a right to travel, the answer is "yes."   The issue, and similar licensing issues, have been raised in many jurisdictions and most reported decisions have supported limitations on the right to travel.  Appellate decisions addressing these issues can be found in decisions from many state courts, the various federal courts, and the US Supreme Court.  Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610  (1915) is an early US Supreme Court case recognizing the "privilege" of driving a motor vehicle on the public roads of a state.  The case further recognizes the state's interest in regulating, and even restricting, the "privilege" of
driving in order to promote the safety and protection of the public on its roads.  In accord are a 1938 Opinion of the Oregon Attorney General, at page 632,  City of Salina v. Wisden, 737 P2d 981 (1987)( Supreme Court of Utah),  Berberian v. Petit , 374 A2d 791 (1977) (Supreme Court of Rhode Island), and City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P2d 945 (1986) ( a Washington Court of Appeals decision), to name a few.  The privilege of using public highways and roads can be regulated by requiring driver's licenses, competency testing of drivers, proof of financial responsibility, minimum equipment standards for vehicle safety and operation, etc.  There is no constitutionally recognized right to travel by motor vehicle on public roads without complying with a state's legislatively created regulatory process. If you disagree with the decisions of your legislators, you should contact them.

rk:  Why?  If Unalienable Rights are, in fact, held as Rights which cannot be Infringed upon, surrendered, transferred, stripped away, converted, or legislated out of existence, the issue of peripheral legislation concerned with regulation of commerce on the highways of our land is moot, is it not?

tt:  Your second question (generally) asks whether or not Oregon law considers use of a private automobile for non-commercial purposes to be the same as use of a motor vehicle for commercial purposes.  The answer is "yes."  with regard to licensing issues and restrictions.

rk:  Now that appears to be the focus of this issue, does it not?  That appears to be the government's deviation from our original U.S. Constitution and its guaranteed protection against government infringement upon a free people's Unalienable Rights.

tt:   First, the Oregon Motor Vehicle Code defines "motor vehicle" to mean " a vehicle that is self- propelled or designed for self -propulsion."  ORS 801.630.  "Automobile" is not part of the lexicon, nor is it defined,

rk:  Isn't the absence of a clear definition of "Automobile" rather convenient for a system that operates on the "letter of the law"?

tt:  but an automobile certainly falls within the definition of a motor vehicle.  Definitions exist for "commercial driver license," "commercial motor vehicle," " commercial vehicle," "driver license,"  "driving privilege," and "vehicle"  in Chapter 801 of the Motor Vehicle Code.  In general, the commercial aspects of driving activities result in more stringent regulation than private, non-commercial activities.  Each driving activity, however, is subject to legislative and administrative regulation.

rk:  But, I see you fail to include definitions for a private person's use of their own private Automobile for private travel upon the roadways while not engaging, in any way, in commercial activities.  That, sir, is the issue that needs clarification.

tt:  The answer to your third inquiry is "yes" for the same reasons as specified in the previous paragraphs.  The policy reasons are set forth in ORS 801.020.  Exemptions from coverage of the Vehicle Code are set forth in ORS 801.026 and ORS 801. 030.  These exemptions do not appear to apply to your hypothetical situations.

rk:  Would not such legislation itself be viewed by the higher courts as unconstitutional and be struck down for vagueness?

tt:  If you choose to let your drivers license expire, your right to travel in this state will not be impacted so long as you choose to travel on foot, by horse, by bicycle, as a passenger in a vehicle operated by a duly licensed driver, by common carrier, or in or upon some other conveyance not requiring you to have a valid license to operate that conveyance.  Your right to travel is only impacted when using a motor vehicle on public roads.

rk:  In other words, you are saying that the State of Oregon and Josephine County arbitrarily restricts a citizen's mode of travel by using the ordinary and usual conveyance of the day, i.e. his private "Automobile," and thus converts his/her Unalienable Right to Liberty into a crime?  Am I mishearing you?

tt:   If you choose to drive a motor vehicle in this or any other state, it appears as though you will be subjecting yourself to the applicable licensing requirements of that state.

rk:  Or, in the process of exposing legislation which runs counter to our U.S. Constitution, this issue may well cause a realignment of  present governmental practices which do not confine themselves within the original parameters of the U.S. Constitution.

tt:  I hope this response has been helpful to you.  I apologize for the brevity of the response, however, time constraints and the press of other matters limit the time I can justify spending on such issues.

rk:  Sorry, Mr Thompson, I don't buy your apology.  This is a matter of utmost importance to the Citizens of Josephine County and the American People.  What other "pressing matters" could possibly overide this?

rk:  Since I am not a lawyer, I seek neither to argue nor compete with your considerable verbal talents.  In this communication I have attempted to examine the Constitutional Issue of Unalienable Rights of Citizens.  In my view such rights are inarguable and cannot be reduced to petty squabbling via dualistic debate.

rk:  My response to you will be posted publicly on the Internet Oregon newsgroups and other pertinent newsgroups.  This issue, sir, will not go away.

                                     Ray Karczewski
Very truly yours,
Timothy R. Thompson
District Attorney

Reply

    Internet Readers have recently been made aware of the attempt to place the label "paper terrorism" via "simulation of a legal process" upon this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood NATURAL person by the Oregon State Police via the Josephine County, Oregon District Attorney's Office

     Why?

     Because he has the audacity to ask questions his government officials intentionally and pointedly refuse to answer.  See:
http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch67.html#Police
http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch68.html#Insight

    I acknowledge that many reading these articles lack the attention span and/or are either too blind or dumbed down through  extensive, incremental, long, subtle, psychological conditioning to grasp the obvious but glaring self-damning message of a corrupt political and judicial system which rings out loud and clear to those who possess the "eyes to see and the ears to hear."

     The Oregon Attorney General's office has not responded to the questions posed below either in 1999 or today.  The same publicly-funded office, however, displays no hesitance in threatening one with prosecution for seeking clarification and accountability in his public servants.

     Read on.  You will see what I mean.

                          Raymond Karczewski©

Reply