Dialogues With A Christ - The Wisdom of Divine Anarchy

If you are ready to invite
and assist in ushering in a New
Consciousness on this Planet, then
welcome to our Spiritual Dialogue
Board


 

TOTAL AMOUNT OF DAMAGES TO DATE
FOR FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

SEPTEMBER 22, 2003

$28,620,000.00
(and accruing at the rate of $60,000.00 per day)

 
    The following was dictated to my by Ray in a telephone call from the Josephine County Adult Jail.
     Anita Karczewski

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  HERE TODAY -- GONE TOMORROW

September 14, 2003

    On this past Tuesday and Wednesday, September 9 & 10, 2003, I represented
myself, pro se, in a two-day criminal trial against bogus charges of "simulation
of legal process," otherwise known as "Paper Terrorism."  I was found guilty.
One court spectator was taking notes for an Internet story purportedly titled "The Piece, Ray Karczewski Found Guilty by a Brain-Dead Jury".  Sad commentary
about a contemporary jury, isn't it?

    With a "full court press" by our Federal government towards stripping away
our Unalienable and Constitutional Rights in their highly publicized battle against "terrorism," our Federal and State governments have successfully morphed into
an effective force now being used domestically against law-abiding American
citizens who have no ties to terrorist organizations or activities.

    Many, like myself, are finding themselves in jail for the first time in their lives.
I was sixty-four years old before I found myself in that predicament.  Stopped for traveling in my private automobile with my high beam headlights on has been unlawfully turned by the Josephine County authorities into two trials and my
being accused of being a "Paper Terrorist."

    How does one, a retired, pensioned police sergeant, become regarded by our
government as a "paper terrorist'?  It's simple -- you use your own God-given
gift of spiritual awareness and have the courage to write about the injustices
plainly observable in our society.  Then you seek to hold errant government
officials accountable for their actions.  You see, I write on the Internet and have
stepped on more than a few government toes with my spiritual and political views.

    Why the government's escalation into a trial prosecuting me for "paper
terrorism"?  Because I had the audacity to defend myself in court against bogus
charges arising out of the "high beam" traffic stop arrest.  You see, I used the
same identical procedures of employing non-judicial liens under the "Uniform Commercial Code" -- the code of International commerce.  I employed the same
laws and procedures the IRS and government uses when they strip away the fruits
of one's lifelong labor.  When government and the IRS employ liens, it's considered
by them to be "legal" because the lawyers tell them so.  When a citizen does it, it's considered a crime of "simulation of legal process"; i.e., "Paper Terrorism."  Why?  Because their lawyers tell them so.  Believe it or not, that was the government's
case.  They know, and the citizen does not know, the law, because their lawyers
tell them so.

    The law is for all, people and government alike, is it not?  There isn't one set of
laws for government and another set of laws for the people -- or is there?  My sad
discovery of the answer to that question came from my experience with the
Josephine County, Oregon justice system.  There, in Josephine County, Oregon,
one finds no law at all.  For they openly thumb their nose at the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions, suggesting that if one takes issue with their private corporate policies, which pose as law, one's only recourse is to appeal to a higher court.  In the
meantime, they violate your rights while pushing you through a trial that drains
assets and redistributes them to the judges, lawyers, police, and all other members of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System which derive direct benefit from
every conviction gained.

    The scam that is being employed by the State of Oregon is found in its use of its
courts and jails for an extremely unlawful revenue collection and undisclosed
taxation system.  You see, under American law, codes, rules, and statutes are only administrative in nature, and are not the actual Constitutional laws with proper enacting clauses.  Such codes, rules, and statutes applied as mandatory, obligatory conditions to the accused, in which the accused is placed under a legal disability,
over the objections of the accused, or through fraud and deception, is an act of
slavery.  And you thought slavery was abolished in this country?  This only works because of brain-dead slumbering masses who are unable to wake up to the fate
which awaits them.

    One may ask, how does one get convicted after a two-day trial when one has
never been arraigned, never in prior court hearings was given an
indictment/information outlining the charges against one, never was orally
advised by the court of charges lodged, and never was asked for a plea?  Sounds
crazy, huh?  That's exactly what happened in this case of "simulation of legal
process."  And they call that law, in Josephine County, Oregon.

    How can this be, you ask.  Our people live in fear as they watch like spectators
as their neighbors and friends are being picked off one at a time by a government
which no longer regards itself as a servant of the sovereign people.  It's happened
before in other countries.  Brain-dead desensitized people live in fear that they will
be singled out next and arrested.  It worked in Nazi Germany -- why not here in Josephine County, Oregon?

    In truth, we all get what we deserve.  That is spiritual law.  Spiritual lessons were
learned in the last century by Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.  Now it appears
it is Amerca's turn to learn the harsh lessons of spiritual law.  Indeed it is time to
learn, for we as a people have fallen far from the examples set by our forefathers
whose courage, integrity, adaptability, and indomitable spirit forged a nation out
of a wilderness.  A nation which rose to be the most powerful nation on earth --
but alas, look how far the mighty have fallen.

    Back to Josephine County, Oregon, with its pit of judicial vipers.  One only need
focus upon the microcosm to understand the macrocosm.  Indeed, the problems seen
in Josephine County, Oregon can be seen as the same problems experienced nationwide.  Here is the latest crime our black-robed Pharisees have committed -- every lien I have filed lawfully in the early months of this year and last have been deleted
from the files of the Oregon Secretary of State's Corporate Division UCC Section.
The law states that under the Uniform Commercial Code, the law of international commerce, only the person who files the liens can remove them.  They are private, non-judicial, and beyond the reach of private corporate courts.  At sentencing,
upon the request of the prosecution that the liens be removed, the judge,
William Purdy of Jackson County, stated it would be done.

    At no time was there a hearing, nor was I asked to consent to their removal.  I
have seen no court order to the effect of the lien removal.  Yet last night,
September 13, 2003, my wife, upon checking the Secretary of State's UCC web site, found that all records of my liens have been swept clean -- not a trace -- even before
the case has been appealed.

    Yes, folks, it's time for a reality check and to understand the nature of public
records which can be altered or destroyed at the whim by our public servants.
Public records that are here today can be gone tomorrow -- much like our U.S. Constitution and, soon to be, our country.  Can you say New World Order?

                                                          Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, Cell 703
                                                          Josephine County Adult Jail
                                                          1901 NE "F" Street
                                                          Grants Pass, OR 97526

   Any cards and letters expressing your viewpoints are welcomed by Ray.

   You might also phone the following number to express your opinion:

        Presiding Judge Gerald C. Neufeld
        (541) 476-2309

 
Reply

TO:

MRS. JAN MICHELS
PROBATION  OFFICER
JOSEPHINE COUNTY CORRECTIONS

September 13, 2003
 

Re:  ACTION PLAN DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2003

Dear Mrs. Michels,

    This communication, accompanied by affidavit, is to notify you that the
agreement to probation terms is hereby rescinded on the basis of lack of full disclosure of terms and lack of consideration, i.e., terms which were not disclosed:  Meaning of:

in addition, the agreement is rescinded on the basis that the private corporation known as the STATE OF OREGON, INC. has not yet proven jurisdiction over this living,
breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural private man.  The STATE OF OREGON,
INC. has not yet established proof of a superior security interest over my superior claim
over RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, the juristic person and debtor/defendant
named in Case No: 03-CR-0170 and 02-CR-0617.

    This matter of proof of jurisdiction, not yet established by the private court of the
STATE OF OREGON, INC., a private corporation, has been an ongoing challenge for the last twelve (12) months regarding Case No: 02-CR-0617 and this case, No: 03-CR-0170.

    The State has failed to prove jurisdiction in writing, as prescribed by law, nor has
it presented a superior claim over the debtor/defendant and/or this living, breathing,
flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural private man.

    I am not a surety or an accommodation party for the defendant/debtor
RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©.  Mrs. Michels, you note in the limited space
available on the Josephine County Action Plan form that I am the secured party/creditor, and therefore holder in due course and authorized representative for the debtor/defendant RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, and am held harmless and indemnified against all legal actions and judgments pressed against the defendant/debtor.  Until such time as proof of the superior security interest/claim, and/or jurisdiction can be proven and established by the limited jurisdiction private court representing the private/for-profit corporations of the STATE OF OREGON and COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE, plus full disclosure and meaning of all terms made clear by the probation department, any agreement made between the probation department and this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural private man is null and void and carries with it no force of law.

AFFIDAVIT

    Affiant, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, true name, Common-Law-copyrighted
autograph © 2002, the living, breathing, flesh-and-blood man, does swear and affirm that Affiant has scribed and read the foregoing facts, and, in accordance with the best of
Affiant's firsthand knowledge and conviction, such are true, correct, complete, and not
misleading, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 This affidavit is dated on the Thirteenth Day of the Ninth Month in the Year of
Our Lord Two Thousand and Three.

___________________________________________________
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course and Authorized Representative for the
Debtor/Defendant RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©

Reply


RAY'S  RELEASE  AND REINCARCERATION  TODAY
FRIDAY,  SEPTEMBER 12, 2003

 
    This morning, at about 9:30 AM Ray phoned me from the jail and told me that he
had signed an agreement to accept probation and to be released from jail.  This was such a radical departure from his call yesterday when he had said he would either walk out a free man or not at all, that it stunned me.

    When I asked him why he had changed his mind, he said he was worried about
me being alone and in poor health and he didn't want to cause me any further stress than I've gone through since his arrest (on a bench warrant issued by Judge Coon) last
September 12th, 2002.  (The forest fire last year exacerbated my long-standing heart
condition and resulted in trips to the emergency room where I was diagnosed with
emphysema and put on "rescue" inhalers, etc. and additional stress from being on 30-
minute evacuation notice and having to use a mask while outside because of the thick
smoke that settled in our particular area.  I've gone from a whopping 86 lbs. in weight to 81 lbs. which bothers Ray a great deal.)

    I asked him if he was really certain that that was what he wanted to do; that I
didn't want to be the cause of what would be seen as his "backing down" from his stand.  He replied that it was, and asked me to come and pick him up at the jail.

    I got to Grants Pass about 11 AM and Ray came out of the jail almost before I had
gotten out of our automobile.  We put his "property" in the trunk of the car and decided to have lunch.  After lunch we went to the courthouse where I ordered a copy of the trial.  We dropped in on Jack for a short visit and then went to have some prescriptions filled.

    Back in Cave Junction, we stopped at the post office to pick up our mail from the
box and headed home for what I thought would be some well-deserved rest and
relaxation for both of us.

    It was about 3:15 PM when we finally approached our home.  I had gotten about
half way up the driveway (it's long), when we saw two Sheriff's Department vehicles with
three deputies parked at the side of the driveway.  A deputy motioned for me to stop, and I opened the window.  The deputy was apologetic and informed Ray that they had been ordered by "the judge" to take him back to jail.  I couldn't believe this was really
happening!  I asked if it was Judge Purdy who had given the order.  The deputy said it
was Judge Lindi Baker who demanded that Ray be brought back to jail.

    The First Sergeant had released Ray because he felt Ray didn't pose a risk and
would appear for the sentencing (on the first trial) scheduled for September 22nd.

    It seems Judge Baker was highly perturbed by Ray's release and had threatened to
bring contempt of court charges against the First Sergeant if Ray wasn't brought back to jail immediately.

    Ray feels the Sheriff's Department has now been put in the middle of a political
"hot potato."  The question is why?

    What's going on here?  I'm thoroughly disgusted by the conduct of the judges and
the DA's office here in Josephine County over the past year and the State Department of Justice this past week.  It's unbelievable that a traffic stop for "failure to dim" and a simple request for proof of jurisdiction/claim could escalate into being arrested three times, a 33-day hunger strike, and being labeled "Felon" and "Terrorist"!!  If that's not insanity, I don't know what is.  Is this a sign of what's to come in our country?
Ray doesn't deserve this.  No one does.

    Perhaps some phone calls would elicit some answers or at least remind them that
notice is being kept of the incongruities that have dogged Ray's case for the last year.

                                                            Anita Karczewski

Judge Gerald C. Neufeld  (541) 476-2309
Sheriff Dave Daniel  (541)  474-5123
    OR email to:  jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us

Reply



 

    DRAFT OF APPEAL -- CASE NO: 02-CR-0617

9/01/03

     The following was dictated to my by my husband by telephone from the Josephine County Adult Jail on September 1, 2003.  This is not the final appeal, but will give readers an idea as to how justice is administered in Josephine County, Oregon and perhaps in other communities throughout our country.  Isn't it time we did something about it?
                                                            Anita Karczewski
 

 1.  I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, a natural born American citizen, am a common
man of the sovereign People arising under the original jurisdiction of the de jure
Constitution of the united States of 1789 as amended by the qualified electors of the
several States of the American Union and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 for the
Territories of the de jure united States, am the Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due
Course and Authorized Representative possessing Supreme Claim over the
Debtor/Defendant juristic person, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, named as
defendant in Case Number 02-CR-0617.

      I hereby exercise my Right to Appeal the substantial errors committed by Josephine
County Circuit Court Judge LINDI  L. BAKER in performing her judicial duties while
presiding over Case Number 02-CR-0617 on August 19th, 2003.

FACTS  AND  ERRORS

 2.  FACT:  I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, AM NOT the defendant.  I am the
Secured Party/Creditor/Authorized Representative for the debtor/defendant.  I am not an accommodation party nor a surety for the debts of RAYMOND RONALD
KARCZEWSKI©, the defendant named in this case, and am held harmless by
RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI© in HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY
AGREEMENT NO: RRK-050302-HHIA, dated the Third Day of the Fifth Month in the
Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Two, against all claims, legal actions, orders,
warrants, judgments, demands, liabilities, losses, depositions, summonses, lawsuits,
costs, fines, liens, levies, penalties, damages, interests, and expenses whatsoever, both
absolute and contingent, as are now due, and as might become due, now existing and as
might hereafter arise, and as might be suffered by, imposed on, and incurred by
RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI© for any and every reason, purpose, and cause
whatsoever.

     ERROR:  At pretrial motions, Judge LINDI  L. BAKER would not allow me to speak to my Hold Harmless status with the defendant/juristic person.

 3.  FACT:  I am not the defendant whose name appears on the information regarding
Case No: 02-CR-0617.  The prosecutor has not met the burden of proof showing that I,
this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man am the defendant
named in Case No: 02-CR-0617.

     ERROR:  Judge LINDI BAKER interrupted and prevented me from speaking fully to this issue.  I objected.

 4.  FACT:  This court, which tried Case No: 02-CR-0617, is a legal fiction.  It has
jurisdiction only over other legal fictions.  I am not a legal fiction.  The court held trial
over a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man without my
consent and despite evidence contained in court files as to my legal status which
precluded the corporate court's imposed jurisdiction over me.  I neither waived my Rights nor consented to doing business with this private corporate court at any time during the last twelve (12) months of this case.

     ERROR:  Judge BAKER refused to hear me, or respond regarding the subject of
"consent jurisdiction."  This challenge to the court was just one of many such challenges beginning with my first court appearance on September 12, 2002 and extending through eighteen (18) appearances to the trial date of August 19th, 2003.  I objected.

 5.  FACT:  During pretrial motions, the prosecutor moved to quash ALL of my
subpoenas.  I was not permitted to call upon witnesses: Judge ALLAN H. COON, District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON, Sheriff DAVID H. DANIEL, Deputy Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles LORNA YOUNG, Josephine County Traffic Violations Bureau clerk CATHY SCHILENS, and Oregon Attorney General HARDY MYERS.  Some witnesses were in court.

     ERROR:  Judge BAKER granted the prosecution's motion and quashed ALL of
my subpoenas, excusing all those who were in court.  By doing so, Judge BAKER's ruling seriously impacted my defense.  I objected.

 6.  FACT:  I asked Judge BAKER if she, or anyone else, personally, had a claim against me.  She refused to answer.  When I asked her for her name, she refused to give it.
Without a claim, supported by a sworn affidavit, pressed against me, the court had acted beyond the scope of its judicial authority in processing commercial claims attendant to criminal prosecutions as authorized by the U.S. Treasury Department in Washington D.C.  At no time in the last twelve (12) months has the court produced in writing, as prescribed by law, its proof of jurisdiction, without consent, over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man.  Nor have they produced anyone willing to testify under oath and upon their own personal, unlimited commercial liability, regarding any claims they have made, under oath, or affidavit

        CITES:
        "Where there is absence of jurisdiction, administrative and judicial proceedings
        are a nullity.  They confer no right, offer no protection, and offer no justification,
        and may be rejected under collateral attack."  Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7
        L.Ed. 381; Griffith v.Frazier 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471.

        "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven."  HAGENS v LAVINE, 15
        U.S. 533:

        "No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."  STANDARD v
        OLESEN, 74 S.Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sect 556 & 558 (b);

        "The law provides that once state and federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it
        must be proven."  Main v Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

     ERROR:  Judge BAKER, as have other Josephine County judges, prevented me from speaking to the jurisdiction and claims issues.  I objected.

 7.  FACT:  I am not a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, nor a corporate member of the
State of Oregon or Josephine County Corporations.  Therefore, the corporate rules,
regulations, and legislation, being limited only to corporate members subject to the rules of the corporation, do not apply to a sovereign standing in full legal capacity and in Common Law.  The law states:

        "There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.
        He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his
        consent."  CRUDEN V. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

     ERROR:  Judge BAKER would not allow me to address this important issue and
pushed forward despite my objections.

 8.  FACT:  During pretrial motions, Josephine County prosecutor NEIL C. MOREY
motioned that all references to arresting officer MICHAEL S. BURKE's recent firing
from his job as Josephine County Deputy Sheriff for excessive force in connection with a female in custody and in handcuffs, be excluded from the jury.  Such evidence would
have shed light upon the arresting officer's character and stability.  Deputy BURKE
falsely charged me with "Driving While Uninsured" on affidavit/citation #8890 while
proof of valid insurance was given to him, UNDER DURESS, with the rest of the
registration packet at the time of the roadside stop.  This charge of "Driving While
Uninsured" led to a subsequent conviction, by default, for nonappearance at traffic court on the specified date and time set for appearance while I was in the custody of the
Josephine County Sheriff's jail.

     ERROR:  Judge BAKER granted the prosecution's motion.  I objected.

 9.  FACT:  Prosecutor NEIL C. MOREY motioned the court to exclude all evidence as
"frivolous" concerning my Right to hold government officials accountable for their
participation in furthering an unlawful process and facilitating the prosecution of one
over whom the private corporations of the State of Oregon and the County of Josephine had neither jurisdiction nor claim.  The method used was Common Law Copyrighted Trademark/Trade Name.

     ERROR:  Judge BAKER granted the motion to exclude.  I objected.

10.  FACT:  My Rights under the U.S. Constitution and Oregon Constitution against
unlawful search and seizure were violated by Deputy BURKE in his securing of the
evidence through threat of arrest.  All evidence gained thereafter should have been
excluded under the "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine.

     ERROR:  I was prevented from bringing this up by Judge BAKER's imposition of
severe limitation of time.  It is this unrelenting assault upon one's freedom of speech in
defending oneself before the courts of Josephine County, Oregon in the last twelve (12)
months of this case, No: 02-CR-0617, that led to my frustration which prompted Judge
BAKER to issue two "Contempt of Court" citations against me.

11.  FACT:  After all of my attempts at being heard during pretrial motions in defense of myself were stifled and denied by Judge BAKER, I made an offer to the court wherein I stated on record that I would "Accept for Value" the presentments of the prosecution and was willing to plead guilty, pay the fine, go to jail, or comply with any directives of the court ON THE CONDITION that Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON, the chief architect of this bogus and malicious prosecution, in addition to the other equally bogus and malicious "Spin-Off" charges of "Simulation of Legal Process," i.e., "paper terrorism," (See Case No: 03-CR-0170) be called to the witness stand, be sworn in, and present Proof of Claim which establishes my personal liability for the performance of the State Statutes and Department of Motor Vehicles regulations, and how such liability was created as they apply to the charges lodged against the defendant.  And in addition, to finally answer the twenty-three (23) questions regarding Proof of Claim that he and other State of Oregon and Josephine County corporate agents have stonewalled and refused to answer.  By District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON's refusal to rebut the twenty-three (23) questions regarding jurisdiction, he has, by default, stipulated to the truth as it operates in my favor, thus removing any controversy for the court to adjudicate.  As such, the case should have been dismissed.

     ERROR:  Judge BAKER made no ruling, stifled me, and pushed forward with the
proceedings.

12. FACT:  My Sixth Amendment Right to a speedy trial was denied.  At no time during
the last twelve (12) months of this Case, No: 02-CR-0617, was I ever advised of, or asked to waive time for trial.  Inspection of the court record will show that I have yet to be arraigned. This case bogged down at the arraignment stage when I challenged the court to prove in writing its jurisdiction over a sovereign, living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man who stands in full legal capacity as Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course over the debts of the defendant in this case.  Neither the court nor the Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON has answered any one of the twenty-three (23)-question "Proof of Claim" challenge put to them, nor have they proven jurisdiction.

Surely, in twelve months, if jurisdiction could be proven by the court, it would have done so.  That is the primary issue.  It is this issue of "consent jurisdiction" that I ask this appellate body to focus upon.  For in that issue rests the future of this country.  Will it remain free by honoring, respecting, and protecting the Unalienable Rights of its
Sovereign People to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property, or will it be assimilated
into a "New World Order" of rigid tyrannical dictates?  As to exceeding the time limit for a speedy trial, one must look to the chicanery of Judges ALLAN H. COON and GERALD C. NEUFELD in their manipulation and renaming of court dates beginning with my release from custody on October 15th, 2002.  (See Notices to Appear.)

     ERROR:  Due to the narrowly limited time constraints imposed upon me by Judge
LINDI  L. BAKER, I was not able to express fully any pretrial motions and/or objections.  Nor was I able to introduce ALL of my motions for dismissal.  (See attached "JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON -- THE FACE OF TYRANNY".)

13.  FACT:  My U.S. and Oregon Constitutional Right to Due Process regarding an open and public hearing was violated by the Josephine County Court on three (3) occasions when it conducted three (3) secret arraignments, one of which was termed a
"Confidential Arraignment" by the court calendar clerk as well as being reflected as such on the case register for Case No: 02-CR-0617.  These "arraignments" were not published along with the other publicly announced arraignments held at the same time and place.   These secret proceedings prevented my wife, friends, media, and public from attending and witnessing the proceedings.  "No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered openly." -- Oregon Bill of Rights.

14.  FACT:  A court-appointed Public Defender was forcefully imposed upon me despite
my objections to such representation on September 23rd, 2002, October 10th, 2002,
October 15th, 2002, November 12th, 2002, July 21st, 2003, August 11th, 2003, August
14th, 2003, and August 19th, 2003.  (See attached copy of Attorney Severing Demand,
"JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON -- THE FACE OF TYRANNY.")

      ERROR:  Judge BAKER refused to remove Public Defender PETER J. SMITH from
the case despite both his and my motion for removal.  Judge BAKER followed the lead of Judges ALLAN H. COON, GERALD C. NEUFELD, STEPHEN L. GALLAGHER, and ROSS G. DAVIS.  This case would not have proceeded to the trial stage were it not for "go-between at-law" (PETER J. SMITH's self-description) PETER J. SMITH's repeated and unrelenting unauthorized representation of me, both in and out of my presence, during hearings at which I was not present.

15.  FACT:  I was prevented by Judge BAKER from addressing the jury regarding the
subject of jury nullification.

16.  FACT:  Judge BAKER granted ALL of the prosecutions pretrial motions while
denying ALL of mine.  This pattern of bias favoring the prosecution, although not
universal in application, continued throughout the trial.  I was facing a "stacked deck."

17.  FACT:  My rejection of forced legal representation by Public Defender PETER J.
SMITH was based on the fact that acceptance of counsel would have altered my present
full legal capacity of a common man of the "Sovereign People" to the lesser legal status
of that of a "ward of the court."  Such lessening of legal capacity would have, therefore,
impacted my rights.  Additionally, it would have allowed Public Defender PETER J.
SMITH, although unauthorized, to address the court on my behalf at hearings where I
was not present.  In his role as "go-between at-law" (his words), it relieved the court from the responsibility of calling the defendant's name before the bar.  The juristic person named as defendant in Case No: 02-CR-0617 is a Common-Law-Copyrighted
Trademark/Trade Name; and I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural,
private man am the holder of that copyright.  All Josephine County Courthouse personnel were noticed through Presiding Judge GERALD C. NEUFELD, on October 1, 2002, that the unauthorized use of my copyrighted personal property carried with it a substantial fee for its use.  It was then that Judge NEUFELD initiated the practice of having Pubic Defender PETER J. SMITH call the case up during subsequent hearings beginning on November 12th, 2002.

18.  FACT:  With respect to the charge of "Felony Eluding," it's a joke, but a very bad
one.  Deputy BURKE, a young officer, was challenged by one who demanded his Rights.  After asking Deputy BURKE if I were under arrest, on four (4) different occasions during the lengthy traffic stop, his answer on each occasion was "No."  BURKE's intent was to impound my automobile.  As my right to travel freely on our public highway was infringed upon since there was no victim, no harm done to anyone, no property damage, and I had not infringed upon anyone's right by my traveling, and I was not subject, via contract, to the terms of the drivers license, I told him that I was leaving (with my automobile).  It was then that BURKE stated that he would charge me with "Felony Eluding" if I left.  I returned to my automobile, started the engine and traveled 150 yards at approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) miles per hour.  Josephine County Reserve Sergeant LILLIAN MORGAN testified in court that, in her opinion, I was not trying to elude, but did so to make a "political statement."  Clearly, she saw my lack of intent to elude.  After approximately 150 yards, while watching the rear-view mirror to see what the Sheriff's units would do, I pulled over when I saw the red lights.  I shut off the engine and got out of the car to frenzied Sheriff's Deputies with guns drawn - the "Felony Elude" - a joke - a very bad one.

19.  FACT:  A legal maxim states: "One is not present unless he understands."  Nowhere
can that maxim be better illustrated than the hearing of July 21st, 2003, which was
termed both an "Appearance" and a "Confidential Arraignment" on the court case register for Case No: 02-CR-0617 and Case No: 03-CR-0170 ("simulation of legal process").  Both cases were scheduled for the same date and time.

I was arrested at my home on Friday afternoon, July 18, 2003.  I was transported some
thirty (30) miles, in handcuffs, from my home in Cave Junction to the Josephine County Adult Jail facility in Grants Pass, Oregon.  On arrival at booking, I was told that if I signed the booking form and submitted to booking, I would be immediately released to return home.  The court needed my signature on a voluntarily entered into contract to secure jurisdiction.  I refused.  I still sit in this cell on September 2nd, 2003, some forty-seven (47) days later and a total of eighty-two days (82) days of experiencing being a hostage of my own government, which is in search of jurisdiction or a valid claim over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man, and wonder to myself, "Is it time to be booked?  Has Hell frozen over?"

The next scheduled appearance after my July 18th arrest was Monday, July 21st, 2003.  I naturally assumed my appearance was tied to the arrest warrant for "Failure to Appear" issued by Judge WILLIAM J. MACKAY.  The confusion began prior to the in custody arraignments which were being held at the jail facility courtroom with a closed-circuit TV/Audio link-up with the courthouse in Grants Pass, Oregon.  All inmates awaiting arraignment received informations except for me.  All inmates were processed and left the courtroom, except for me and a couple of deputies who were left for last.  This pattern of leaving me for last, without any witnesses, was universal in its application in every in custody proceedings that I attended.  I never heard nor saw the charges brought against me that afternoon.  I was unable to hear the opening of the case, although Public Defender PETER J. SMITH was once again speaking for me.  I interrupted the proceedings by telling Mr. SMITH to sit down--that he didn't represent me.  I questioned Judge STEPHEN L. GALLAGHER as to whether he or anyone else had a claim against me.  Appearing somewhat frustrated as he looked through the court papers, Judge GALLAGHER admitted he could find no existing claims against me in the case at hand.  I assumed Judge GALLAGHER was referring to Case No: 02-CR-0617 regarding the "Failure to Appear" warrant served the previous Friday, July 18th, 2003.  Shortly thereafter the audio was deliberately shut off by someone controlling the voice transmission at the courthouse.  I was "MUTED OUT" according to one of the witnessing deputies at the jail courtroom.  The audio remained off for a considerable time as I watched the silent screen while unauthorized counsel and the court were deciding my future.  It was when the sound returned that I heard the Case No: 03-CR-0170 mentioned, but no mention of charges.  Later that evening I was advised by a jail deputy that I had been charged with seven (7) counts of "Simulation of Legal Process" and was asked again to submit to booking.  I refused.

To this day I have not submitted to booking, for when hostages begin to submit to
unlawful booking, we will have lost our country to the tyranny of the gun and handcuffs.  It is this type of chicanery by the Josephine County courts of creating confusion by combining two separate cases into one; of engendering confusion by not providing one with an information/complaint form prior to the hearing, which outlines the charges one is facing; of issuing a flood of appearance dates and changing the names of hearings from the original titles/time settings; of shutting off the audio in the TV link-up between the courthouse and jail courtroom while court-forced unauthorized legal counsel speaks on a silent screen with the court, deciding one's future.  It is the refusal of the District Attorney's office to respond to one's Motion for Discovery; it is the refusal of the District Attorney's office to answer any questions, whatsoever, regarding the politically dangerous questions which probe into the issue of Proof of Claim.

It is this kind of chicanery which I have experienced in these last twelve (12) months at
the hands of the Josephine County District Attorney's office and court system.  In
retrospect, it appears that the July 21st, 2003 hearing was to be an arraignment for Case
No: 03-CR-0170, "simulation of legal process," as I have had no other hearings as of this date, September 2, 2003.  No arraignments; no Preliminary Hearings; but I have received notice that I stand trial on September the 9th and 10th, 2003.

Much like Case No: 02-CR-0617, I have yet to be arraigned and/or enter a plea, yet trial
is being pushed upon one without any regard for due process.  By speaking with other
inmates, I understand this bypass of Preliminary Hearings to force trials on defendants is a common practice of the Josephine County court system.  How else are they going to fill all those jails and prison facilities they are building for the New World Order?  It is this type of judicial misconduct which has dogged this malicious prosecution and fraud
perpetrated by the District Attorney's office and complicit Josephine County judges over this person in the last twelve (12) months.

20.  FACT:  At no time since my unlawful arrest on September 5th, 2002 and the two
subsequent "Failure to Appear" arrest warrants had I considered any of the arrests to be a lawful arrest.  I viewed the unfolding events much like a kidnap victim being held
hostage and ransomed for the crimes/debts of another.  The two "conditional releases"
signed by me on September 6th, 2002 and October 15th, 2002 were signed UNDER
DURESS.  The later release was also signed under diminished physical and
psychological capacity due to my being in the 33rd day of a hunger strike I had embarked upon in protest of this "color of law" kidnap and imprisonment.  Neither contract was entered into voluntarily, but, rather, UNDER DURESS  and therefore was invalid, null and void, and carried no force of law behind them.  It can be likened to a kidnap victim being forced to sign an agreement to return to the custody of his kidnappers/hostage-takers at some time in the future.

Since the court refused to follow the law and prove jurisdiction or produce anyone with a valid claim against me, supported by affidavit, it is clear that the Josephine County court conduct ran counter to the U.S. Constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land," and therefore its judicial directives were null and void and carried no force of law behind them.  Since at no time since my release on October 15th, 2002, had I received an official summons which was accompanied by a judge's signature and/or court seal commanding me to appear, I regarded the signatureless form letters accompanied by a cover letter from "go-between at-law" Public Defender PETER J. SMITH, who was never authorized by me to represent me, but was forced upon me against my objections, by an unlawful court (not a Constitutional Article 3 court, but a private administrative court of the corporate for-profit  State of Oregon and County of Josephine), as merely an "invitation to appear" and thus carried with them no force of law.  I declined to accept the invitations.  To do otherwise would have conferred "Consent Jurisdiction" to the court.  Without the court's proving jurisdiction or producing a valid claim against me, supported by affidavit, all subsequent "Failure to Appear" warrants therein, lacking support of affidavit, were unlawful and fraudulent.

21.  FACT:  Throughout the pretrial and trial itself, the severe time constraints placed by Judge BAKER upon one facing Felony charges, was an extraordinary violation of one's Right to Free Speech in the defense of oneself, in addition to being unable to receive a fair and impartial right to trial under the "due process" clause.  I was not allowed to lay a proper foundation on the question of Rights versus Privilege in the area of one's Unalienable Right to Liberty, which includes one's Right to Travel freely and without interference upon the publicly owned highways in one's private automobile for private, non-commercial transportation and other private purposes without first seeking
permission from a servant government via the privilege of licensing.  Nor was I allowed
by the court to define basic legal terms such as "Automobile," "Motor Vehicle," "Driver," "Travel," etc.; legal definitions which have widely divergent legal meanings from the layman's normal usage.  The public has been confused and confounded by their elected and appointed public officials long enough.  It's time that they heard the real truth about the government scam of requiring licenses of those who use the publicly owned highways of our land for private purposes and are not engaged in using the public roadways for purposes of business, commerce, industry, or profit.

 A great deal needs to be changed in our present errant political and judicial
system operating here in Josephine County, Oregon and elsewhere in our country.  My
hope is that there are sufficient numbers of people left in positions of influence who have retained their integrity and common sense and remember what freedom was once like, so that it may be returned to the people.
 

____________________________________________________________
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course/Authorized Representative for the
Debtor/Defendant, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©

Reply


    The following was dictated to me by Ray in a phone call from the Josephine County Adult Jail.  As my husband's authorized representative, I signed it and filed it with the Josephine County Court yesterday, September 5, 2003

                                                                  Anita Karczewski

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY



            STATE OF OREGON            )                          NO. 03-CR-0170
                         Plaintiff                      )                  Affidavit/Judicial Notice of
                                                           )                  Simulation of Legal Process
                                                           )
                             vs.                          )
                                                           )
     RAYMOND R KARCZEWSKI©    )
                     Defendant                      )
                                                           )
 ________________________________)
 

 1. I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, am the Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due
Course and Authorized Representative for the defendant, RAYMOND RONALD
KARCZEWSKI©.
2.  I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, a natural born American citizen, am a common
man of the Sovereign People arising under the original jurisdiction of the de jure
Constitution of the united States of 1789 as amended by the qualified electors of the
several States of the American union and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 for the
Territories of the de jure united States.  I am the Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due
Course and Authorized Representative possessing Supreme Claim over the
Debtor/Defendant juristic person, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, named as
defendant in Case Number 02-CR-0617.

 3.  I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, AM NOT the defendant.  I am the Secured
Party/Creditor and Authorized Representative for the Debtor/Defendant.

 4.  I am not an accommodation party nor a surety for the debts of RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, the defendant named in this case, and am held harmless by
RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI© in HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY
AGREEMENT NO: RRK-050302-HHIA, dated the Third Day of the Fifth Month in the
Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Two, against all claims, legal actions, orders,
warrants, judgments, demands, liabilities, losses, depositions, summonses, lawsuits,
costs, fines, liens, levies, penalties, damages, interests, and expenses whatsoever, both
absolute and contingent, as are now due, and as might become due, now existing, and as
might hereafter arise, and as might be suffered by, imposed on, and incurred by
RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI© for any and every reason, purpose, and cause
whatsoever.
 5.  I am not a surety nor an accommodation party for the juristic person defendant.  Proof of my Legal Status as Secured Party/Creditor and Holder of Supreme Claim over the Debtor/Defendant, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, along with my being held harmless against all legal actions, judgements, and summonses brought against the
defendant has been submitted and is on the court record.  Yet this documented proof
which calls for an immediate dismissal of all charges has been ignored by EVERY
Josephine County Court judge whom I have appeared before in the last twelve (12)
months.  Their complicity in the unlawful pressing forward of this malicious prosecution
by Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON has been duly noted.

 6.  In the last twelve (12) months of this case, I have repeatedly challenged the court and prosecution to prove its jurisdiction, in writing, over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man, as is prescribed by law.

 7.  Thus far, I count eighteen (18) scheduled court appearances in the last twelve (12)
months.  In actuality, I have yet to complete an arraignment or submit a plea.  Instead of proving jurisdiction, as required by law, the courts unlawfully broke standard judicial procedure and, making up their own rules as they went along, pushed this matter to trial and to this present sentencing.  The question looms, if the courts actually had jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man, would they not have produced such proof by now?  Neither has the prosecutor's office, headed by Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON, followed the law in producing anyone who has pressed a claim against me by sworn affidavit, to testify to that claim, under oath, and upon their own personal, unlimited, commercial liability.  Without proving either jurisdiction or Superior Claim over the Secured Party/Creditor/Supreme Claim over the Debtor/ Defendant, this prosecution can only be considered a malicious prosecution.

 8.  Documents accompanied by affidavit were sent to District Attorney JOHNSON and
other agents representing the State of Oregon and County of Josephine Corporations.
They contained twenty-three (23) questions which concentrated upon the issue of Proof
of Claim, which would, if answered honestly and truthfully, show unequivocally that
neither the State of Oregon nor the County of Josephine had any jurisdiction over this
living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man without his giving
consent or contracting with them.  District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON has been
unable to prove my liability to the State Statutes and Department of Motor Vehicle
regulations for which the defendant was charged while I was, and still am, being held
hostage as an Assumed Surety/Accommodation Party.  Not one question of the twenty-
three (23) Proof of Claim questions was answered by District Attorney JOHNSON or the other agents for the State and County.  NOT ONE !!

 9.  I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient,
natural, private man, hereby charge Josephine County Judges ALLAN H. COON,
GERALD C. NEUFELD, WILLIAM J. MACKAY, STEPHEN L. GALLAGHER, ROSS
G. DAVIS, LINDI L. BAKER, Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON, Assistant District Attorneys NEIL C. MOREY, LISA M. TURNER, and Oregon Department of Justice Attorney DAINA VITOLINS with the crimes of conspiracy to commit simulation of legal process and official misconduct in the 1st degree.

10.  162.355 Simulating legal process. (1) A person commits the crime of simulating
legal process if the person knowingly issues or delivers to another person any document
that in form and substance falsely simulates civil or criminal process.  (2) As used in this
section: (a) "Civil or criminal process" means a document or order, including, but not
limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading or
subpoena, that is issued by a court or that is filed or recorded for the purpose of: (A)
Exercising jurisdiction; (B) Representing a claim against a person or property; (C)
Directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal; or (D) Directing a person to
perform or refrain from performing a specified act. (b) "Person" has the meaning given
that term in ORS 161.015, except that in relation to a defendant, "person" means a human being, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, or a partnership.  (3) Simulating legal process is a Class C felony.

11.  Official misconduct in the first degree:

        (1) A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct in the first degree
              if with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another:

               (a) The public servant knowingly fails to perform a duty imposed upon the
                      public servant by Law or one clearly inherent in the nature of office; or

                (b) The public servant knowingly performs an act constituting an
                      unauthorized exercise in official duties.

        (2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.  All officers
              of the court and peace officers, such as the sheriff and deputies and all
              municipal private peace officers, such as all people hired for that purpose by a
              public corporation, such as City and State Police, are deemed to have a duty
              to know and uphold the law and protect the rights of the people around them.

12.  For the last twelve (12) months of Case No: 02-CR-0617 -- Felony Elude/Interfering
with a Police Officer/Failure to Present a Drivers License -- and this Case,
No: 03-CR-0170, "Simulation of Legal Process," the courts and Josephine County
District Attorney's staff have violated my rights under Common Law and the U.S.
Constitution by refusing to follow the law and prove, in writing, its private, corporate
jurisdiction over this Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course over the debtor
juristic person, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, named as defendant in both
cases.  Nor have they produced anyone who has pressed a claim against this living,
breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man.

13.  The law must be obeyed by anyone who has a public servant job, and in particular,
any and all public servants who have taken an Oath to Uphold the Constitutions of this
state and the united States but shall not be avoided for lack of an oath.  Further
Authorities: Whereas, the exercise of a natural right needs no authority in America other than the  Constitution.

14.  Art. 1, Sect. 21 of the Constitution for Oregon states: "...nor shall any law be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution;...".  Since this is the underlying principle of all American law upon which I am standing, the issue of lawful authority over the body and other properties of this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man cannot be ignored.

15.  I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man reserve all
rights given him by God and protected by the Constitution for the Republican Union, and the republic of Oregon which places definite and unbridgeable limits upon the law
making and enforcement abilities of any government body or corporate entity operating
in accordance with and under color of American Law.

16.  If the STATE OF OREGON decides the claim against this living, breathing, flesh-
and-blood, sentient, natural, private man, I reserve and exercise my sovereign power to
demand that the STATE OF OREGON and JOSEPHINE COUNTY provide full
disclosure of the source of the authority upon which all actions were taken.  Full
disclosure means; absolute in detail from its source.

17.  Under American Law, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural,
private man recognizes that codes, rules and statutes are only administrative in nature and are not the actual Constitutional Laws with proper enacting clauses.  Such codes, rules, and statutes, as applied as mandatory obligatory conditions to me, in which I am placed under a legal disability over my objections, or thru fraud and deception, is an act of slavery.

18.  If the STATE OF OREGON operates upon some other system of law other than the
Constitutional Common Law in which I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man has Rights secure in the Bill of Rights, I demand to know the following:

    (A) Exactly what system of law is the STATE OF OREGON operating under,

    (B) What system of law is being used to limit my Rights, if different from (A),

    (C) What system of law I am being prosecuted for violating, if different from (A),

    (D) What system of law I am being prosecuted under, if different from (A), and

    (E) How that system of law(s) apply to me, who understands himself to be a Man
         with all the Rights given him by God and protected by the Constitutions for the
         republic of Oregon and the republican union known as the United States.

19.  The Corporate State is moving in its own name in a criminal action and not Ex Rel
on behalf of the People of Oregon under and in accordance with the common law.

20.  A percentage of every fine levied in Oregon, by a State of Oregon court, goes
directly into the PERS account.  As a result, the District Attorney's office and all of the
State of Oregon judges, every Oregon State Police officer, SOSCF worker, etc., have a
vested interest in assessing fines and using the State of Oregon's private corporate courts for finding people guilty, as they each acquire personal gain from every conviction.

21.  A percentage of all fines go into the State of Oregon, Inc. general fund upon which
the state plans its operating budget, and also, certain administrative agencies, such as the Oregon State Police, get a certain percentage of all fines placed directly into their
operating budget.

22.  The State of Oregon is involved in using its courts and jails as tools for an extremely unlawful revenue collection and an undisclosed taxation system.

23.  This court, therefore, is a private court representing the corporate interests of the
private, for gain, corporations known as the STATE OF OREGON and JOSEPHINE
COUNTY.  Its jurisdiction does not extend beyond its corporate membership.  I am not a corporate member of the STATE OF OREGON or JOSEPHINE COUNTY corporations.  I stand under the protection of my God-given Unalienable Rights, Common Law, and U.S. Constitution.  Indeed, by stepping beyond its Constitutionally imposed limitations of authority, this Josephine County court, along with the Josephine County District Attorney's office, and his staff members, have committed the crimes of conspiracy to commit "simulation of legal process" and "official misconduct in the 1st degree" by deliberately evading its duty to prove this jurisdiction/claims issue over the last twelve (12) months.

24.  I demand these charges be acted upon, and in doing so, let justice be served.

25.  I further object to the continuation of these proceedings regarding Case No: 02-CR-
0617 and 03-CR-0170, and I demand that they be suspended until such time as the court
is able to perform its duty and prove jurisdiction and/or provide anyone willing to testify, under oath, to any claim they have made against the debtor/defendant.

                                                AFFIDAVIT

 Affiant, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, Common Law trade-name/trademark,
copyright © 2002, a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood man, does swear and affirm that
Affiant has scribed and read the foregoing facts, and, in accordance with the best of
Affiant's firsthand knowledge and conviction, such are true, correct, complete, and not
misleading, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

This Affidavit/Judicial Notice of Simulation of Legal Process is dated the Fifth Day of
the Ninth Month in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Three.
 

By_____________________________________________Authorized Representative
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course and Authorized Representative for the
Debtor/Defendant, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©
 

Reply


 

PLEA  BARGAIN OFFER


This offer was presented to Ray by Deputy District Attorney CHRIS MECCA on
September 1, 2003.
     Anita Karczewski

    Attorney CHRIS MECCA has been assigned to the case by the court.  The Plea
Bargain was typed on the Josephine County District Attorney's stationery and dated
August 8, 2003.  It came from the Department of Justice.

    The STATE OF OREGON offered to drop five (5) counts of "Simulating Legal
Process," and to prosecute only two (2) out of the seven (7) original charges.

    The STATE OF OREGON is willing to go from the thirty-five (35) years possible
sentencing on the seven (7) original Class C Felony charges down to ten (10) days on
each of the two remaining charges -- a total of twenty (20) days on the condition that Ray agree to twenty-four (24) months probation and that he pay monetary obligations.  No amount was specified.

    It specified that Ray agree to have "no contact" with ALLAN H. COON, CLAY
THOMPSON; NEIL MOREY, LISA TURNER, MICHAEL BURKE, DAVE DANIEL,
JOHN JUSTEMA;

and that:

    "defendant may not submit any documents to any person, court or other Federal or
State government agency that purports to exercise jurisdiction, represents a claim against a person or property, directs a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or directs a person to perform or refrain from performing a specified act without the express approval of a member in good standing of the Oregon State Bar.  Gives a full, complete and truthful (to be determined by the Department of Justice) interview with Oregon Department of Justice investigators."

 It was signed:  DAINA VITOLINS, Special Deputy District Attorney

    Ray will reject the offer as simply being another way for the court to gain
"consent, a contract, an agreement, and then they've got jurisdiction.  He feels that
"they're looking for an out, and this is the way they're trying to do it."
 

Reply
 
 

 

To:_________________________________             Re:_______________________

From:  ______________________________             Date:______________________
 
 

NOTICE  OF RESERVATION  OF  RIGHTS

    This document serves as notice to the court, and all officers of the court, and all other public servants, and all other people and persons that are working for, or on behalf of any public trust corporation, that I know that I have Rights that I can Demand to have protected at all times, both by the court and the police departments who follow its policies.  This document serves as notice that I hereby reserve all my rights without prejudice and order all courts and related people and persons to recognize, honor, and protect All My Rights, both today, and forever, as is in accordance with the Constitutions.  Furthermore, a Quo Warranto is placed upon all actions that are taken against me that might cause me a legal disability, be it now or at any time in the future.

    This is official notice that I Reserve All My Rights Without Prejudice.  I refuse this or any other court, public servant or person, the Right to take any liberties with my Rights. I do not consent in any way to have my rights infringed upon.  I do not give permission to construe anything I say or do as permission to Prejudice any of my Rights.  Any lack of knowledge of the Law on my part at this time relating to My Rights shall not be construed as permission to take any liberties with any of my Rights.  Before God, I make and proclaim this statement of My Reservation of Rights as fact and order all public service people and persons to abide by it.

    Any infringement upon my Rights shall serve as prima facie evidence of Intent to Violate the Law.  If any action is taken against me that causes me a disability and it is later determined that said actions, lack thereof, or any part thereof, are based on policy and not Law, this document shall serve as prima facie evidence of intent to willfully violate the Law.  Each violation of my Rights shall created a separate claim for damages, which shall be deemed immediately due and payable to the injured party.

    The following are two STATE OF OREGON administrative laws relevant
to rights violations by public servants.

    162.355 Simulating legal process. (1) A person commits the crime of simulating legal process if the person knowingly issues or delivers to another person any document that in form and substance falsely simulates civil or criminal process.  (2) As used in this section: (a) "Civil or criminal process" means a document or order, including, but not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading or subpoena, that is issued by a court or that is filed or recorded for the purpose of: (A)
Exercising jurisdiction; (B) Representing a claim against a person or property; (C) Directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal; or (D) Directing a person to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. (b) "Person" has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.015, except that in relation to a defendant, "person" means a human being, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, or a partnership.  (3) Simulating legal process is a Class C felony 162.415 Official misconduct in the first degree. (1) A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct in the first degree if with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another: (a) The public servant knowingly fails to perform a duty imposed upon the public servant by Law or one clearly inherent in the nature of office; or (b) The public servant knowingly performs an act constituting an unauthorized exercise in official duties. (2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.  All officers of the court and peace officers, such as the sheriff and deputies and all municipal private peace officers, such as all people hired for that purpose by a public corporation, such as City and State Police, are deemed to have a duty to know and uphold the law and protect the rights of the people around them.

    Any violation of My Rights, or Failure to Stop Another from Violating Them, by a Public Servant Who Has the Legal Duty and Power to Protect Those Rights, Shall Constitute a crime.  Such crime shall serve as prima facie evidence that said Public Servant does intend to, and shall, create claims on behalf of the injured party(s), for damages as follows; 1. $100,000.00 or the maximum allowed by the Administrative Tort Laws of this incorporated State against any applicable performance or security bond the Public Servant is operating under and, 2. $3,500.00 or the maximum amount allowed by
the Administrative Laws of this incorporated State in a Small Claims Court. 3. Said Actions Shall Create a Claim for Damages That Can Be Collected by Filing a Suit under the Jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code for Violation of My Common Law Rights, in the Local or Federal courts. 4. It shall also serve as prima facie evidence that said Public Servant intends for the injured party to File Deprivation of Rights Suit, Directly in administrative (Federal) Court for the incorporated US Government for further redress of injuries.  All claims shall be valid and enforceable simultaneously as
allowed by Law.  Authorities that have not been overturned: Norton vs. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425  An unconstitutional act is not Law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

    Owen vs. Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398 Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional Right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the Law.

    Jackson, J., West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette 1943 319 US 624, 638 87L ed 1628, 1638, 63 S Ct 1178, 147 ALR 674 "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.  One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may
not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." JONES V. COUNCE, 7 F3d 1359 (8th Cir. 1993) BENITEZ V. WOLFF, 985 F3d 662 (2nd Cir. 1993)  Qualified immunity defense fails if public officer violates clearly established right, because a reasonably competent official should know Law governing this conduct.

    United State vs. Johnson, 76 Federal Register, Supplement 538 Rights are neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his Rights, nor to the one indifferent thereto.  It is a fighting clause.  Its benefits can only be retained by sustained combat.  It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor.  It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.  "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-207.4 "All Rights Reserved"  When I use "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-207 in connection with my signature, I am saying: "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.  And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."  "The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "Without Prejudice" (UCC-1-207-.4) or "All Rights Reserved."  "the making of a valid Reservation of Right preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7)

    This Document Is Law, and Must Be Obeyed by Anyone Who has a Public
Servant Job, and in Particular, Any and All Public Servants Who Have Taken an Oath to Uphold the Constitutions of this state and the united States but shall not be avoided for lack of an oath.  Further Authorities: Whereas, the exercise of a natural right needs no authority in America other than the Constitution.

    Whereas, Art. 1, Sect. 21 of the Constitution for Oregon, "...nor shall any law be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution;...".  Since this is the underlying principle of all American law upon which Accused is standing, the issue of lawful authority over the body and other properties of Accused cannot be ignored.

    Whereas, Accused reserves all rights given him by God and protected by the Constitution for the Republican Union, and the republic of Oregon which places definite and unbridgeable limits upon the law making and enforcement abilities of any government body or corporate entity operating in accordance with and under color of American Law.

    Whereas, if the STATE OF OREGON decides to mediate or decide the alleged claim against Accused, Accused reserves and exercises his sovereign power to demand that the STATE OF OREGON and JOSEPHINE COUNTY provide full disclosure of the source of the authority upon which all actions were taken.  Full disclosure means; absolute in detail from its source.

    Whereas, under American Law, the Accused recognizes that codes, rules and statutes are only administrative in nature and are not the actual Constitutional Laws with proper enacting clauses.  Such codes, rules, and statutes, as applied as mandatory obligatory conditions to the Accused, in which the Accused is placed under a legal disability over the objections of the Accused, or thru fraud and deception, is an act of slavery.

    Whereas, Accused objects to, and reserves the Right not to be subjected to slavery and reserves all Lawful Rights of redress for any act of slavery imposed upon their person and/or other properties.

    Further Notice:  Whereas, the STATE OF OREGON operates upon some other system of law other than the Constitutional Common Law in which Accused has Rights secure in the Bill of Rights, Accused demands to know the following: (A) Exactly what system of law is the STATE OF OREGON operating under, (B) What system of law is being used to limit the Rights of Accused, if different from (A),  (C) What system of law Accused is being prosecuted for violating, if different from (A), (D) What system of law
Accused is being prosecuted under, if different from (A), and (E) How that system of law(s) apply to Accused, who understands himself to be a Man with all the Rights given him by God and protected by the Constitutions for the republic of Oregon and the republican union known as the United States.

    Accused reminds the court that there is no "half-pregnant" in the law, and that to deny Accused access to the STATE OF OREGON's and JOSEPHINE COUNTY's law and thereby access to a defense, wherein an obligation such as a debt or service obligation is forced upon Accused is, in law, an act and declaration of slavery against Accused (42 USC, §1994 "...directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.")

    Accused further reminds the court that pursuant to law, actors engaged in any form of slavery lose all immunities from criminal prosecution and civil judgments, and any corporation, municipal or otherwise, that condones any act of slavery by any of its agents or employees is subject to civil judgments under the law.

Relief Demanded:
    If the court cannot, or will not comply with an American and internationally recognized 'in Law' and commercial law mandate for full disclosure, then Accused demands the court to dismiss its claim upon its own motion because JOSEPHINE COUNTY, thru its representative, failed to state a claim upon which Accused is obligated to grant relief and further failed to state a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction to grant obligatory relief.

Authority:
    The Corporate State is moving in its own name in a criminal action and not Ex Rel on behalf of the People of Oregon under and in accordance with the common law.

    In the mid 1990's, the State of Oregon, Inc., entered into a commercial enterprise with all of the other State of Oregon public corporations, such as the Oregon State Police, the Department of Transportation, SOSCF, etc. in which the retirement accounts/programs known as the Public Employee Retirement System, (PERS), were combined and invested in the stock market in a for-profit commercial enterprise.  As a result: (A) The State of Oregon is no longer operating in its lawfully mandated role as a non-profit public corporation. (B) The State of Oregon judges and the State of Oregon
District Attorneys, court administrators, clerks, etc. all have an interest in maintaining the same retirement account.

Furthermore:
    A percentage of every fine levied in Oregon, by a State of Oregon court, goes directly into the PERS account.  As a result, the District Attorneys office and all of the State of Oregon judges, every Oregon State Police officer, SOSCF worker, etc., have a vested interest in assessing fines and using the State of Oregon's private corporate courts for finding people guilty, as they each acquire personal gain from every conviction.

And Finally:
     A percentage of all fines go into the State of Oregon, Inc. general fund upon which the state plans its operating budget, and also, certain administrative agencies, such as the Oregon State Police, get a certain percentage of all fines placed directly into their operating budget.

Therefore:
    The State of Oregon is involved in using its courts and jails as tools for an
extremely unlawful revenue collection and an undisclosed taxation system.

    Accused states that being subjected over his express objections to such a system of codes, rules, statutes and the accompanying enforcement court system is an act of slavery.

    Accused again notices everyone that he reserves the God-given and Lawfully protected Right that is endowed upon himself and all Mankind not to be subjected to slavery.  Constitution for the united States Art. 3, Sect. 2, Clause 2: "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."
 
 

By____________________________________  Date:______________________
    Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
    Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course and Authorized Representative for the
     Debtor/Defendant RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©

Reply




The following Affidavit and Motion to Suspend Sentencing was dictated to me by my husband, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, via a taped telephone call from the Josephine County Adult Jail on August 31, 2003.


                                                                                   Anita Karczewski
 

        IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY
 
 

                   STATE OF OREGON                 )                                NO. 02-CR-0617
                                Plaintiff                         )                  Affidavit and Motion to Suspend
                                                                     )                                  Sentencing
             RAYMOND R KARCZEWSKI©      )
                               Defendant                      )
                                                                     )
 _____________________________________ )

 1.  I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, reserve all of my Rights at all times and waive
none of my Rights at any time.

 2.  I do not consent to doing business with this court.  My appearance here is special and
not voluntary, as I am in the custody of the Josephine County Sheriff's Adult Jail facility.
I have been brought here against my will and without my consent.

 3.  I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, the Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course
and Authorized Representative for the defendant, RAYMOND RONALD
KARCZEWSKI©, reserve all of my Rights at all times and waive none of my Rights at
any time.

 4.  I ask that sentencing in this matter, Case No: 02-CR-0617, be suspended until such
time as the State of Oregon and this court can both produce a valid proof of claim and
provide "consent jurisdiction" over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient,
natural, private man.

 5.  I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, a natural born American citizen, am a common
man of the Sovereign People arising under the original jurisdiction of the de jure
Constitution of the united States of 1789 as amended by the qualified electors of the
several States of the American union and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 for the
Territories of the de jure united States.  I am the Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due
Course and Authorized Representative possessing Supreme Claim over the
Debtor/Defendant juristic person, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, named as
defendant in Case Number 02-CR-0617.

 6.  I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, AM NOT the defendant.  I am the Secured
Party/Creditor and Authorized Representative for the Debtor/Defendant.

 7.  I am not an accommodation party nor a surety for the debts of RAYMOND RONALD
KARCZEWSKI©, the defendant named in this case, and am held harmless by
RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI© in HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY
AGREEMENT NO: RRK-050302-HHIA, dated the Third Day of the Fifth Month in the
Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Two, against all claims, legal actions, orders,
warrants, judgments, demands, liabilities, losses, depositions, summonses, lawsuits,
costs, fines, liens, levies, penalties, damages, interests, and expenses whatsoever, both
absolute and contingent, as are now due, and as might become due, now existing, and as
might hereafter arise, and as might be suffered by, imposed on, and incurred by
RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI© for any and every reason, purpose, and cause
whatsoever.

 8.  There can be no judgement or sentencing today regarding this case, 02-CR-0617.  As
case law states: "As judgement represents the combined factual and legal determinations
that the defendant committed acts constituting a crime, and there is no legal impediment
to so declaring."  STATE V McDONNELL, 306 OR 579, 582, 761, P 2d, 921 (1988).

 9.  There is indeed a legal impediment standing in the way of this sentencing.  The
primary legal impediment standing in the way of this sentencing is that I am not the
defendant who is named on the information of this Case, Number 02-CR-0617; nor have
I consented to doing business with this private court, as I stand under the protection of
my Unalienable Rights, Common Law, and the U.S. Constitution.

10.  I am not a surety nor an accommodation party for the juristic person defendant.
Proof of my Legal Status as Secured Party/Creditor and Holder of Supreme Claim over
the Debtor/Defendant, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, along with my being
held harmless against all legal actions, judgements, and summonses brought against the
defendant has been submitted and is on the court record.  Yet this documented proof
which calls for an immediate dismissal of all charges has been ignored by EVERY
Josephine County Court judge whom I have appeared before in the last twelve (12)
months.  Their complicity in the unlawful pressing forward of this malicious prosecution
by Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON has been duly noted.

11.  In the last twelve (12) months of this case, I have repeatedly challenged the court and
prosecution to prove its jurisdiction, in writing, over this living, breathing, flesh-and-
blood, sentient, natural, private man, as is prescribed by law.

12.  Thus far, I count eighteen (18) scheduled court appearances in the last twelve (12)
months.  In actuality, I have yet to complete an arraignment or submit a plea.  Instead of
proving jurisdiction, as required by law, the courts unlawfully broke standard judicial
procedure and, making up their own rules as they went along, pushed this matter to trial
and to this present sentencing.  The question looms, if the courts actually had jurisdiction
over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man, would they not
have produced such proof by now?  Neither has the prosecutor's office, headed by
Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON, followed the law in producing
anyone who has pressed a claim against me by sworn affidavit, to testify to that claim,
under oath, and upon their own personal, unlimited, commercial liability.  Without
proving either jurisdiction or Superior Claim over the Secured Party/Creditor/Supreme
Claim over the Debtor/ Defendant, this prosecution can only be considered a malicious
prosecution.

13.  Documents accompanied by affidavit were sent to District Attorney JOHNSON and
other agents representing the State of Oregon and County of Josephine Corporations.
They contained twenty-three (23) questions which concentrated upon the issue of Proof
of Claim, which would, if answered honestly and truthfully, show unequivocally that
neither the State of Oregon nor the County of Josephine had any jurisdiction over this
living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man without his giving
consent or contracting with them.  District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON has been
unable to prove my liability to the State Statutes and Department of Motor Vehicle
regulations for which the defendant was charged while I was, and still am, being held
hostage as an Assumed Surety/Accommodation Party.  Not one question of the twenty-
three (23) Proof of Claim questions was answered by District Attorney JOHNSON or the
other agents for the State and County.  NOT ONE !!

14.  I remind the court of the following Maxims of Commerce recognized by the
International Law of Commerce:
 

        1.  All are equal under the law (both natural and moral law).

        2.  In commerce truth is sovereign.

        3.  Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit.

        4.  An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.

        5.  An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgement in commerce.

        6.  A matter must be expressed to be resolved.

        7.  He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default.

        8.  Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.  (If one has neither been damaged
            nor incurred a risk, and is unwilling to swear an affidavit, i.e., "true, correct,
            and complete," the commercial equivalent of "the truth, the whole truth,
            and nothing but the truth" on his unlimited commercial liability for the
            veracity of his statements and the legitimacy of his actions, he has no credibility,
            and therefore no basis for asserting claims/charges, or claiming authority).

        9.  A lien, or claim, can be satisfied only through rebuttal by counter-affidavit,
             point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment.

15.  It is this legal default of District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON, in failing to rebut
the twenty-three (23) questions submitted to him on four (4) occasions, which stipulates
to the truth as it operates in favor of this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient,
natural, private man that has removed any controversy for the court to decide.  Yet this
malicious prosecution went forward with the help of complicit judges ALLAN H. COON,
GERALD C. NEUFELD, WILLIAM J. MACKAY, STEPHEN L. GALLAGHER,
ROSS G. DAVIS, and you, judge, LINDI  L. BAKER.  It is this injustice and unlawful
conduct which stands as the legal impediment to this sentencing.

16.  I ask that this sentencing be suspended until such Proof of Claim and jurisdiction be
established.

                                                AFFIDAVIT

 Affiant, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, Common Law trade-name/trademark,
copyright © 2002, a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood man, does swear and affirm that
Affiant has scribed and read the foregoing facts, and, in accordance with the best of
Affiant's firsthand knowledge and conviction, such are true, correct, complete, and not
misleading, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

This Affidavit and Motion to Suspend Sentencing is dated the Second Day of the Ninth
Month in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Three.
 

______________________________________________________________
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course and Authorized Representative for the
Debtor/Defendant, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©

 
Reply