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

SEPTEMBER 22, 2003

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

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

THE "HEARING"


   On Monday, August 11, 2003, I attended a Hearing regarding my husband in
Courtroom 4 at the County Courthouse.  Judge Ross G. Davis presided.

   Ray's court-appointed attorney, Peter Smith was there.  Ray was not there, neither in
person nor by closed-circuit TV from the jail.

   When Smith announced Ray's name, I stood up in the spectator's section and said to
Judge Davis that Court-Appointed Public Defender Peter Smith does not speak for my
husband, that my husband has never accepted Peter Smith as legal counsel nor has he
ever authorized Mr. Smith to speak in his behalf.

   Judge Davis asked me where my husband was, and I replied that he was in jail.

   Judge Davis queried Mr. Smith, and Peter Smith replied that Mr. Karczewski prefers to speak for himself.

   Judge Davis said that it appears that Mr. Karczewski "has something to say," and then Judge Davis "rescheduled" the hearing until the following Monday, August 18, 2003 to allow Mr. Karczewski to be heard.  A trial was to follow the next day, Tuesday, August 19, 2003.

  Late Wednesday evening, August 13, 2003, I went to the court calendar on the Internet
and discovered that there was to be a "Hearing" the next day, August 14, 2003 in the
"Hearing Room" at the jail at 3:30 PM with Judge Davis presiding.

   I was taken back by this new date and immediately emailed several persons who have
taken a great deal of interest in Ray's case.

   I phoned the court calendar clerk early the 14th to confirm the date and time of the hearing.  She did confirm it.  She also informed me of new dates for a "Status Hearing," a "Docket Call" and a "Trial" for the new "simulation of legal process" charges.

   When Ray phoned me that morning, Thursday, August, 14, 2003, I informed him of the hearing that day.  He was completely unaware of it.  He had not been informed by anyone that it was to take place.

   Ray had already sent a letter to the court demanding that Peter Smith be removed as
counsel as he had never accepted Mr. Smith's services since Mr. Smith had been
appointed by Judge Coon on September 23, 2002.

   Ray has consistently demanded Mr. Smith's removal as counsel in open court and in
closed hearings/arraignments, yet each time there has been a hearing/arraignment Mr.
Smith has been there, speaking as counsel.

   In open court before Judge Neufeld on November 12, 2002, Peter Smith himself asked
to be released from the case and Judge Neufeld refused him.

   I went to the jail on Thursday, the 14th, and at 3:30 was ushered from the lobby down a hall and into the jail courtroom by a deputy who informed me that I was to take a seat in one of the blue chairs just inside the door of the courtroom.  I had been directed to leave my purse in a jail locker, but was allowed to take note paper and a pen into the
courtroom.

   Other than Ray, deputies, attorneys, Judge Davis's assistant and the judge, I was the
only so-called "civilian" there.  Two investigative reporters who were interested in
witnessing the hearing had been banned from the jail previously and were not there.

   At 3:30 PM Judge Davis entered the courtroom and said that he had received a motion from Ray to remove court-appointed attorney Peter Smith as counsel.  Judge Davis was informed by Mr. Smith that Smith had also filed a motion to be released as counsel.  Judge Davis said he "denied" both of them, and Mr. Smith would remain as counsel "in an advisory capacity."  Judge Davis directed Mr. Smith to attend the trial, but not to sit at the defendant's table with my husband.  Mr. Smith was directed to sit behind Ray.

   Judge Davis then announced that the "Hearing" was recessed.

   Ray said he demanded to be allowed to speak.  Judge Davis said "No," that he refused to hear him.  (So much for Judge Davis's seeming concern the previous Monday that Ray "had something to say" and would be allowed to speak on the 18th.)

   The same deputy who had led me into the courtroom then tapped my shoulder and
asked me to leave the courtroom.  A deputy unlocked the door to the lobby.

   After I retrieved my purse from the jail locker in the lobby, I checked my watch.  It was 3:37 PM.

Anita Karczewski

Reply

 

JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON

                  THE FACE OF TYRANNY
 

The following was dictated to me by my husband, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, via a taped telephone call from the Josephine County Adult Jail on August 11, 2003.

                                               Anita Karczewski


NOTE:  This message was amended by Ray via a taped telephone call from the jail on
August 16, 2003.  It has been amended because the court will not allow Ray to speak at all.  See my report on the hearing (above).

This amended message will be presented by Ray at the trial scheduled for Tuesday, August 18, 2003 at 9:30 AM.

                                                                                Anita Karczewski
RAY'S MESSAGE:

       Monday, August 11, 2003.  Once again the Josephine County Court snubbed their
    noses at the U.S. Constitution.

       A Status Hearing was held today without my presence in court.  Josephine County
    Public Defender Court-appointed attorney Peter J. Smith, although unauthorized by
    me, was again still speaking for me.

        This is how innocent men are railroaded by the justice system here in Southern
    Oregon.

       The following is a letter to the Circuit Court demanding the removal of Public
    Defender Peter J. Smith as a court-appointed attorney to represent me.

       Smith was never accepted nor authorized by me to represent me from the very
    first of his appearances on October 15th, 2002 when Judge Allan H. Coon attempted
    to forcibly impose Smith's legal representation upon me.

       Smith was rejected by me and stated so on the court record of that date.  In
    addition to Judge Coon, Smith has been rejected by me in court hearings before
    Judge Gerald C. Neufeld on November 12, 2002, and then again when Smith was
    still talking for me, in my absence, in Judge Stephen L. Gallagher's court on July
    21st, 2003.  Since spoken demands to the court during official hearings reflected
    upon the court records appear to be powerless, the written Attorney Severing
    Demand was written by me and given to Sgt. Howard Banks of the Josephine
    County Sheriff's Office who was asked to deliver it to Judge pro tem Ross G. Davis.
    When I asked Sgt. Banks for the first name of Judge Davis, he indicated that such
    information was denied him.  It is a sad day in America when judges who have the
    power of life, death, and freedom in their hands, see a need to rule in shadows.

       The following is a copy of the letter and the prepared address that I had expected
    to deliver myself, fully believing that a man in America still has the right to represent
    himself in court without binding himself to an attorney.  Apparently not so in
    Josephine County, Oregon.

    ATTORNEY SEVERANCE DEMAND:

                                                                     August 11, 2003

    Circuit Court
    State of Oregon
    County of Josephine

       ATTORNEY SEVERING DEMAND

       I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, third party intervener, Secured Party and
    Creditor over debtor RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, named as defendant
    in case number 02 CR 0617 and case 03 CR 0170, am held harmless in all legal
    actions brought against the defendant.  The Hold Harmless agreement may be found
    in court records in case number 02 CR 0617.

       I hereby refuse to waive any of my Inherent Rights by allowing court-appointed
    forced representation status upon myself.

       I ask that Josephine County Public Defender Peter J. Smith be removed as counsel
    from the two cases as I have repeatedly refused to accept him or authorize him to act
    on my behalf as counsel from the very beginning of these legal matters.  I further
    demand that all court utterances on my behalf, made in court by Peter J. Smith,
    either in or out of my presence, be stricken from the court record.

                                           Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, Cell 701
                                           JOSEPHINE COUNTY ADULT JAIL

    ADDRESS TO COURT:

       Before I get into the eleven (11) reasons why this case must be dismissed, I
    ACCUSE Josephine County District Attorney Clay E. Johnson of Malicious
    Prosecution and Fraud along with Josephine County judges Allan H. Coon,
    Gerald C. Neufeld, William Mackay, and Stephen L. Gallagher who are complicit
    in this cover-up of how justice is perverted through its corrupt administration
    by this Court and District Attorney's Office as reflected in this case, 03 CR 0170,
    and the primary case, 02 CR 0617.

       Because of my limited access to outside communication due to my being held
    hostage for the alleged crimes of another, I wish to state on the court record that I
    ask for a full investigation by the Commission of Judicial Fitness and the Oregon
    Department of Justice Attorney General's Office into the judicial misconduct and
    criminal actions perpetrated by the Josephine County District Attorney Clay E.
    Johnson and the Josephine County judges in these two cases.

        At my request and authorization, my wife has already filed a complaint with the
    Treasury Department in Washington D.C. requesting a full investigation be
    launched into the fraudulent manner in which this rogue court is acting, well beyond
    the scope of its authority delegated it by the Treasury Department in the processing
    of commercial claims attendant to the cases brought before the court; that is, the
    prosecution of cases without a valid affidavit and/or a sworn testimony of one who
    presses a criminal complaint against another.  By carrying out this unlawful process,
    the court perpetrates a fraud upon the people of the State of Oregon and the County
    of Josephine.

Here are my eleven (11) objections to the continuance of this case, and my request for dismissal of all charges:

   1.  This court is a legal fiction.  It has jurisdiction only over other legal fictions.  I am
    not a legal fiction.  This court has no jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-
    and-blood, sentient, natural, private man.  I have not nor will I confer jurisdiction to
    this court through consent or contract.

    2.  I am not the defendant whose name appears on the information.  I have never
    been, nor shall I ever be.  The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that
    I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man am the
    named defendant in this case.  If the prosecutor cannot prove that, this case must be
    dismissed.

    3.  In the last eleven (11) months of case number 02 CR 0617 and this case, 03 CR
    0170, in seven (7) of my last ten (10) appearances before the court, I have repeatedly
    challenged the court to prove in writing, as required by law, its jurisdiction over this
    living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man.  This Josephine
    County court has repeatedly snubbed its nose at the law and refused to do so.

    Case law has said:

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

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

  "No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."  Standard v. Olsen, 74 S.
  Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 and 558 (b)

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

    4.  I have been denied my right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under the U.S.
    Constitution.  At no time was I ever advised of or asked to waive time for trial.  This
    court may not continue, as the time for a timely trial under the statutes has expired.
    On these grounds alone, this case, 02 CR 0617, must be dismissed.

    5.  I am not a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, nor am I a corporate member of the
    State of Oregon or Josephine County corporations.  Therefore, its corporate rules,
    regulations, and legislation do not apply to the sovereign standing in full legal
    capacity 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." CRUDENT V. NEALE. 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2  S/E/70/

    6.  I have sent five (5) requests for Proof of Claim documents.  Three were
    accompanied by affidavit to agents representing the State of Oregon and the County
    of Josephine.  Three such documents were sent to District Attorney Clay E. Johnson
    of Josephine County, one to contract attorney acting as investigator/negotiator,
    agent Allen B. deSchweinitz representing Josephine County Risk Management,
    and one to Michael B. Baird, Claims Manager for the Oregon Department of
    Administrative Services Risk Management Division.  Not one of the twenty-three (23)
    questions were answered by these agents for the state or county.  NOT ONE!

       Commercial law states that an unrebuted affidavit stands as truth.  In commerce,
    an unrebuted affidavit stands as judgement.  In their collective silence and refusal to
    rebut the affidavit, point-by-point, our District Attorney Clay E. Johnson of
    Josephine County and the other two agents for the state and county have, by the law
    of commerce, stipulated to the truth and facts contained therein as they operate in
    favor of this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man.  They
    stand in judgement.  District Attorney Clay E. Johnson, by stipulating to the truth,
    removes any controversy for this court to adjudicate.  On that basis alone, these two
    cases must be dismissed.

    7.  On September 23rd, 2002 and July 21st, 2003, Judge Allan H. Coon and Judge
    Stephen L. Gallagher, respectively, were asked during my court appearance to
    produce anyone who had a claim against me so that they may come forth and testify
    under oath to such claim.  Although Judge Coon stated that the State of Oregon was
    pressing the claim, he could not and did not produce anyone from the State to testify
    to that fact.  Judge Stephen Gallagher, on the other hand, after searching through
    his court files, indicated he could find no claims made against me.  That also should
    have been cause for immediate dismissal of all charges.  Yet Judge Coon sent me
    back to my cell for twenty-two (22) more days, and on July 21, 2003 Judge
    Gallagher did likewise, extending my unlawful incarceration from July 21st, 2003 to
    the present day--thirty-three (33) days.

    8.  My right to due process was violated on three occasions by the Josephine County
    Court when it conducted three secret private arraignments, one was termed a
    "Confidential Arraignment" by the court calendar clerk.  These arraignments were
    not published along with the other publicly announced arraignments held at the
    same time and place.  Such secret proceedings prevented my wife, friends, media and
    interested members of the public from attending and witnessing the proceedings.

    9.  At the July 21, 2003 arraignment proceedings, I was thoroughly mystified as to
    what was going on.  I did not understand the prodeedings.  All inmates, some ten        (10)+ of them, received an information.  That is, all of them received informations, except for me.

       I was arrested on Friday, July 18, 2003 for a Failure to Appear Warrant issued
    by Judge William Mackay regarding case number 02 CR 0617 --Felony Elude,
    Interfering with an Officer, and Failure to Present a Drivers License -- all bogus
    charges.  Since I did not receive an information like all the other inmates being
    arraigned, I assumed it was for the Failure to Appear Warrant.  I did not hear the
    charges at the opening of the arraignment, conducted via closed-circuit TV and
    audio hookup with the judge in the courthouse and me at the Josephine County
    Jail facility courtroom.  Josephine County Public Defender Peter J. Smith, appointed
    to represent me by the court, against my will and strenuous objections, was there
    once again.

       Judge Coon was told by me that I rejected counsel on October 15, 2002.
    Again, Judge Neufeld, on November 12, 2002, was advised likewise.  Yet both judges
    would not remove Smith at my demand.  Public Defender Peter J. Smith was once
    again told by me to sit down, that he was not authorized to speak for me.  The court
    was told once again that I did not and would not accept the court's imposition of an
    attorney as I was there, standing in full legal capacity and capable of defending           myself.

       This unlawful imposition of a court-appointed public defender and the court's
repeated refusal to remove him despite my repeated demands, is, I perceive, the     court's attempt to reduce my present legal standing/status to that of a "ward of the state," thereby conferring jurisdiction to the state that it now lacks.

      As I have repeatedly and vigorously rejected legal representation forced upon me by
 the court from the beginning to the present date without letup, my right to self-
 representation has been infringed upon by this court.

      Josephine County Public Defender Peter J. Smith has been used by the court as a "go-between at law" (these are Mr. Smith's words, not mine), a conduit to open court
 proceedings by announcing the name of the defendant since Judge Gerald C. Neufeld
 and subsequent judges have refused to utter the name of the defendant due to being
 noticed of the Common Law copyright consideration involved in the unauthorized use
 of such Common-Law-copyrighted private property/trademark/trade name.

Despite my repeated admonitions to Attorney Smith not to represent me or speak for me, he has continued to do so, both in my presence and at hearings where I was not present.

An example of that is found in the Notice to Appear for hearing on August 11, 2003 given to me by the jail guard.  It said, in an isolated paragraph, "defendant must be present."  Yet while I lingered in my jail cell awaiting escort to the court proceedings, the hearing was conducted without me, but through the unauthorized "go-between at law" Public Defender Peter J. Smith.  It is these kinds of malicious and underhanded tactics that have sent many an innocent man to prison.

    It is clear that these proceedings could not have progressed to the present stage of
facing a trial when I have yet to be arraigned, as that was the point where the original
challenge was made to the court to prove its jurisdiction in writing.  A challenge the
court has refused to prove in writing.  Without Public Defender Peter J. Smith acting as
"go-between at law," we would not be here in court today.  I therefore ask that all
statements made by Public Defender Peter J. Smith on my behalf, both in and outside my presence, in hearings where I was not present, be stricken from the record.

       This whole issue before the court is a matter of proof of JURISDICTION,
JURISDICTION, JURISDICTION from my first appearance on September 12, 2002 to
the present day.  Surely, if the court has jurisdiction over this living, breathing,
flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man, it would have presented the necessary
proof in writing by now.  However, for the last eleven (11) month, this court has
refused to do so.

       At one point, for a considerable length of time, the audio was shut off at the court's
end of the closed-circuit TV linkup, as I helplessly watched while others were
discussing my fate.  One of the deputies commented that I had been "muted out."  This
glib phrase indicates to me that this tactic is used quite often by the court system in    Josephine County.  When the volume returned just prior to the ending of the
appearance, Public Defender Peter J. Smith was still talking to the court despite my
earlier admonition to him to cease speaking for me.

       It was then I heard the new case number 03 CR 0170, but did not know what it
 refered to.  Later in the evening, a jail deputy showed me a document advising me that I had been charged with seven (7) counts of Felony "simulation of legal process."  The court register shows that both cases, 02 CR 0617 and 03 CR 0170, were combined into one hearing on that date, July 21, 2003.  It was this kind of chicanery by the courts
which has plagued this case from the very beginning.

    10.  Regarding the two of three false arrests endured by this living, breathing, flesh-
    and-blood, sentient, natural, private man, neither of the Failure to Appear Warrants
    were valid as they were not supported by an affidavit regarding any claim made
    against me.  At no time had I received a lawful summons to appear, supported by a
    judge's signature and/or court seal.  Instead, what I received were signatureless
    form letters extending an invitation to attend the proceedings.  I declined the
    invitations as they carried no force of law behind them.  If my response to the letters
    was to voluntarily attend the proceedings, such response would have constituted
    consent, and therefore confered jurisdiction to the court when in fact it had none.

   It is my position that until the original arrest made in the early morning hours of
September 5, 2002 is held to be a lawful arrest, supported by an affidavit of claim by dint of contract or consent, which establishes my personal liability to the state statutes and DMV regulations for which I was arrested, I maintain that I was kidnapped by armed agents for the corporation of Josephine County and held hostage for the perceived alleged crimes of the defendant.  Such is the nature of an unlawful arrest.  Thus any appearances of agreement for "Conditional Release" made under duress of such unlawful imprisonment are not valid contracts.  Such contracts are therefore null and void and carry with them no force of law.  It can be likened to a kidnap victim being forced to consent and agree with his kidnappers by promising to return to their unlawful custody at some future time should ransom negotiations fail.  This county, state, and country is not ready to endorse such insanity arising from its justice system.

    11.  The key to understanding the charge of "simulation of legal process" lies in
    District Attorney Johnson's frenzied attempt to cover his butt from all of the fatal
    flaws to his baseless prosecution of case 02 CR 0617.  The tactic of the court, in
    conjunction with the District Attorney's Office, was to do nothing with the case until
    the statue of limitations for filing a law suit ran out on 02 CR 0617.

       When I filed the liens against the State of Oregon and the County of Josephine,
    jointly, with the UCC Division of the Oregon Secretary of State's Office in Salem,
    based on the affidavit unrebutted by District Attorney Johnson and the other agents
    for the state and county, District Attorney Johnson had to do something.

       By District Attorney Clay E. Johnson's malevolent action of falsely conjuring up a
    phony charge of "simulation of legal process," District Attorney Johnson revealed
    his lack of integrity and exposed his malicious prosecution and fraud to the people of
    Josephine County who have put their trust in him as chief prosecutor for the County
    of Josephine.  One only need look at the case register for the court regarding case
    number 03 CR 0170 to see the fictional case created by District Attorney Johnson.
    Look to the date of incident, stated as "9-01-02."  It is a completely fictional date,
    having no relevance to anything whatsoever.

       I did not come to the attention of the Josephine County authorities until the early
    morning hours of September the 5th, 2002, when I was arrested.

       Note the complaint/information was gained through "Secret Indictment" on
    February 27, 2003.  There it laid, inactive, until it surfaced on July 21st, 2003,
    just after I had filed the liens against the State and County.  The register also shows
    that Judge Neufeld and Judge Coon recused themselves from the case on the same
    day, March 31, 2003.  The case register shows that the case was removed from
    "inactive " status when it was combined with the original case, 02 CR 0617 in a single
    hearing on July 21, 2003.  Very simply stated, District Attorney Johnson uses more
    scheming and manipulation in the pursuit of his department's prosecutions than he
   does common sense, intelligence, or integrity.

Here is the bottom line of these phony charges of "simulation of legal process."

   After I was arrested and in custody for this case, 02-CR-0617, I sought to defend myself against the unlawful charges.  I sought to protect myself from a runaway, lawless
government.   The venue used was legal contracts in conjunction with UCC commercial
law.

   District Attorney Johnson seeks to convert one's Constitutional Right to contract
into a crime.  Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No state shall pass
any law impairing the obligation of contracts."  Yet, in a way, District Attorney Johnson in applying this statute to this case, does what the statute purports to deter.  That is, to infringe upon and impair my right to contract.  Josephine County District Attorney Clay E. Johnson first seeks to make a crime of the right of a sovereign people to hold their public officials accountable.  Additionally, District Attorney Johnson seeks to make into a crime, the act of one to contract with another by filling out the contract papers himself, thereby bypassing the need for a lawyer.  How's that for tyranny?

   Purely and simply, District Attorney Johnson is using strong-arm intimidation tactics to force me to contract with the state and thereby confer jurisdiction, for the state has no jurisdiction at the present time.

       This case can be ended today.  Here.  And now.  And save the taxpayers of
    Josephine County a great deal of money.  If the overwhelming evidence showing the
    corrupt handling of the Josephine County prosecution is not considered by this court
    to be sufficient in dismissing these two cases, case number 02 CR 0617 and case
    number 03 CR 0170, here is an alternative solution.  Since District Attorney Johnson
    is one of the seven (7) counts of "simulation of legal process," and he is in the
    building, call District Attorney Johnson to the stand, swear him in under oath, and
    let District Attorney Johnson answer the twenty-three (23) Proofs of Claim that he
    and the other agents for the State of Oregon and County of Josephine have been
    evading.  Anything less will not be considered justice by the people of Josephine
    County.  Of that, you can be sure.

                                                                    Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, Cell 701
                                                                    Josephine County Adult Jail
                                                                    1901 NE  F Street
                                                                   Grants Pass, OR 97526
 

    Phone numbers to call and express your opinion:
        Judge Gerald C. Neufeld  (541) 476-2309
        District Attorney Clay E. Johnson  (541) 476-5200
            OR email to: DA@co.josephine.or.us
        Sheriff Dave Daniel  (541)  474-5123
            OR email to:  jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us

    USPS (snail mail) to: Josephine County Courthouse
                                    500 NW 6th Street
                                    Grants Pass, OR 97526

Reply



 

D.A.'s HANDLING OF KARCZEWSKI TOO COSTLY

   Have you ever had a nightmare that you were walking down a dark alley at 2 a.m., with your life savings in a brown paper bag clutched to you chest?  Abruptly, a powerful
seven-foot gorilla-like man slides out of the shadows and demands your life savings.  He
grabs you by the neck, helps himself to your bag and limbers away.  With a pounding
heart, you wake up.  It was only a dream.

   For retired police officer Raymond Karczewski and the taxpayers, it's not a dream; it's reality.  The seven-foot gorilla is the Josephine County criminal justice system.

Is Karczewski a serial killer or did he steal the district attorney's car and run off with his
wife?  He's accused of not showing a driver's license, attempting to elude and interfering
with a police officer.  The last two charges are allegedly pure imagination.

   An attempting to defend himself, Karczewski has served legal papers.  District
Attorney Clay Johnson didn't like that.  He charged him with seven counts of simulating legal process, a class "C" felony with a maximum of five years for each count.

   If convicted, that could be 35 years of incarceration for a 65-year-old man and could
cost present and future taxpayers over $1million.

     It took deputies a leisurely 90 days to carry out Judge William Mackay's bench
warrant and take Karczewski to jail.

   Now nonviolent Karczewski sits in the Josephine County Jail at $65 a day while violent people and drunks walk.  This is sheer madness.  The penalty doesn't fit the alleged crime.  The taxpayers can't afford Johnson.

JOHN TAFT
Grants Pass

Read John Taft's article about Ray on News With Views:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Taft/john2.htm
 

Reply


 

LETTER FROM OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION DATED JULY 31, 2003



RESULT OF MY TELEPHONE CALL TO
           MICHAEL B. BAIRD, CLAIMS MANAGER
         REGARDING LETTER DATED JULY 31, 2003

                               by Anita Karczewski

       Today I received the above letter from the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
    ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, dated July 31, 2003.

       I took particular note of the following:  "Your notice of claim has been reassigned
    and closed."

       I also took particular notice of the glaring fact that the letter did not contain a
    signature.

       I telephoned MR. MICHAEL B. BAIRD, CLAIMS MANAGER for the OREGON
    DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT
    DIVISION at the phone number on the letterhead to enquire to whom and to what
    department the claim has been reassigned and to whom I should address the third and
    final Notice of Default and Invoice.

       MR. BAIRD informed me that the claim has been reassigned to CORT DOKKEN,
    and when I asked what department MR. DOKKEN was in, MR. BAIRD replied, "He is in
    this department."

       I asked MR. BAIRD what it was that MR. DOKKEN was to do in regard to the
    claim.  MR. BAIRD replied that MR. DOKKEN was to do nothing.

       Amazed, and not certain that I had heard him correctly, I asked, "MR. DOKKEN is
    to do NOTHING?!"

       MR. BAIRD reaffirmed that MR. DOKKEN was to do nothing, that the file was
    closed and MR. DOKKEN was to do nothing.

       I asked why MR. BAIRD would reassign a closed case, and he replied that he has
    "that discretion."

       I said that the word "reassigned" gives one the impression that some person in the
    employ of the State was assigned the claim and they would take further action.

       MR. BAIRD said no, the case is closed.

       MR. BAIRD informed me that they deem the matter closed and would not be
    accepting any more correspondence regarding it.

   Reply


The following message from Ray was transcribed by me from a taped telephone
conversation from the jail on August 3, 2003.

                                                              Anita Karczewski


WHEN RIGHTS ARE IGNORED BY COURT:  A REMEDY


My next appearance in court is scheduled for August 11th, 2003.  I place the following
on the public Internet in order to clarify the issues so that all parties to the action may
stand equally under the same light of truth and be held accountable.

This is my position:

 1. This court is a legal fiction.  It has jurisdiction only over other legal fictions.  I am not
a legal fiction.  This court has no jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood,
sentient, natural, private man unless I confer such jurisdiction thru consent and contract.
I do not.  Nor have I ever consented to contracting with the court and/or agents of
Josephine County.

 2.  I am not the defendant listed in this case.  I have never been, nor will I ever be.
Unless the prosecutor can prove that I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient,
natural, private man am that legal fiction/juristic person named as defendant, this case
must be dismissed.

 3.  At no time since my arrest on September 5, 2002 have I willingly consented to doing
business with this private corporate court or any other agent of the corporate State of
Oregon or County of Josephine.

 4.  In seven (7) of my last ten (10) appearances before the court in the past eleven (11)
months, I have challenged the court to prove, in writing, as they are required by law to
do, their jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private
man.  The court has refused to follow the law and do so.

 5.  My Constitutional Right to due process has been denied, as I did not receive a speedy
trial.  At no time was I asked to or offered the opportunity to waive time for trial.  The
time for trial is long over, and this case must be dismissed on those grounds.

 6.  The arresting officer on September 5, 2002 perjured himself in his affidavit/traffic
citation by charging me with being uninsured when documented proof of insurance was
given him subsequent to his threat of an arrest.

 7.  The arresting officer violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which
protects one against unlawful searches and seizures when securing information under
threat of arrest.  All evidence gathered after that point is thereby inadmissible under the
"fruit of the poison tree" doctrine.

 8.  I am not a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, nor a corporate member of either the
corporate State of Oregon or Josephine County.  Therefore, its corporate rules,
regulations, and legislation do not apply to one who is standing in full legal capacity
under Common Law and commercial law.  The law states "There, every man is
independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.  He is not bound by
institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."  CRUDENT v. NEALE, 2
N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

      I have submitted five (5) documents requesting "Proof of Claim," three of which were
accompanied by sworn affidavits.  Not one question of the twenty-three (23) questions
submitted, which would establish proof of claim by the state, has been answered by any
agent for the corporate State of Oregon and/or the County of Josephine.  And so they
have defaulted.  District Attorney Clay E. Johnson has thrice defaulted in his steadfast
refusal to respond point-by-point to the sworn affidavit.  In his doing so, District Attorney
Johnson has, by his silence, stipulated to the facts as they operate in favor of this third
party intervener, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man.

 9.  On two (2) court appearances, September 23rd, 2002 and July 21st, 2003, when I
asked the court to produce anyone with a claim against me, and who is willing to testify
to such claim under oath and upon their own private, personal commercial liability,
Judge Allan H. Coon and Judge Stephen L. Gallagher were unable to produce such a
person.

      In fact, Judge Gallagher, after hurriedly searching through his court papers, candidly
acknowledged there did not appear  to be any claims filed.  That by itself, was grounds
for immediate dismissal of the case by the two judges.  Yet upon conclusion of both
arraignments, Judge Coon sent me back into incarceration for twenty-two (22) more
days, and Judge Gallagher did likewise, extending my unlawful incarceration from July
18th, 2003 to the present day.

10.  My Constitutional Right to due process was violated when the court conducted three
secret private arraignments, one of which was termed a "Confidential Arraignment" by
the court calendar clerk.  These arraignments were not published along with the other
publicly announced arraignments held at the same time and place, and resulted in the
prevention of my wife, friends, media, and members of the public from attending the
arraignment and witnessing the proceedings.

11.  On the arraignment of July 21st, 2003, held via closed-circuit TV link with the
courthouse courtroom, all ten (10) other inmates were seated in the jail facility courtroom
with me.  All inmates but me were given criminal complaints.  I was not made aware of
the charges, if any, placed against this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient,
natural, private man.  Nor was I given the opportunity to fully monitor the proceedings
regarding my incarceration, as the audio volume was shut off deliberately by the court at
a time when lawbreakers were discussing issues which required my monitoring of what
they were saying.

   One may ask why I am stating my position publicly in advance of the court appearance
scheduled for August 11th, 2003.  The answer:  Simply to get it out on record
independent of the court records.  A great deal is at stake here, not only my freedom, but
the ability of the citizen to hold public servants accountable thru the venue of
commercial law and liens.  This lien procedure has threatened the Josephine County
court system to such a degree that Prosecuting District Attorney Clay E. Johnson has
filed another bogus case charging this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural,
private man with seven (7) counts of "simulation of legal process," i.e., "paper terrorism"
for the liens placed on those responsible for this unlawful prosecution of this living,
breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man.

   Also at stake in this matter is the threat of the exposure of a nationwide government
policy of collecting billions of dollars from unwary taxpayers who have been defrauded
by their public servants into waiving their right to travel freely upon their publicly owned
highways in their privately owned automobiles for non-business, private purposes.

   Instead, government has converted a right into a crime, thereby permitting one to
engage in such activity only thru the venue of licensing.  On July 28, 2003 my wife Anita,
acting as my authorized representative, lodged, in writing, a criminal complaint against
the County of Josephine with the Treasury Department in Washington D.C.  She asked
that a full investigation be launched into the unlawful and fraudulent practices of the
Josephine County court system in processing commercial claims.

   If you are concerned about this ever-increasing loss of rights, contact your legislator.
Call, write, or fax them, and also contact, if you are so inclined, the numbers below and
voice your opinions.

                                                                  Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, Cell 701
                                                                  Josephine County Adult Jail
                                                                  1901 NE  F Street
                                                                  Grants Pass, OR 97526

Phone numbers to call and express your opinion:
 Judge Gerald C. Neufeld  (541) 476-2309
 District Attorney Clay E. Johnson  (541) 476-5200
    OR email to: DA@co.josephine.or.us
 Sheriff Dave Daniel  (541)  474-5123
    OR email to:  jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us

USPS (snail mail) to: Josephine County Courthouse
                               500 NW 6th Street
                               Grants Pass, OR 97526

Reply


 

INSANITY PASSES FOR JUSTICE IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON

The following message from Ray was transcribed by me from a taped telephone
conversation from the jail on July 31, 2003.

                                                      Anita Karczewski

   July 21st, 2003 I was brought into the Josephine County Jail facility courtroom with ten + (10) other inmates.  All were given criminal complaints/informations outlining their charges; that is, all but me.  Such a document was noticeably absent as in all ten (10) of my prior "in custody" appearances before the court.  All inmate cases were disposed of, leaving me for the very last.  The only witnesses present were several jail guards.  This noticeable pattern was, I perceived, a method of leaving no witnesses to the hearing except for agents for the County of Josephine.

   A new judge was brought in to preside over what I later learned was a "Confidential
Arraignment."  This was learned from court records and from comments made by a court clerk to my wife Anita.  It was also learned that this arraignment was not placed on the published court calendar and made public so that my wife, friends, and members of the media could attend.  This was the third of such secret arraignments that I have been subjected to by the Josephine County courts.

   A closed circuit TV link had been set up.  The arraignment began with Public Defender Peter Smith, the court appointed attorney whom I have openly rejected and dismissed as my counsel in court (yet he is the one the court requires to speak my name).  Since the November 12th, 2002 date when Judge Neufeld presided, the judges have not mentioned my name, but have called upon Public Defender Peter Smith, who acknowleges himself as a "go-between - at law," to utter my name in court.  Judge Gerald C. Neufeld and Judge Allan H. Coon have recused themselves from further hearings of my case due to what I perceive to be the copyright issue.

   Judge Stephen L. Gallagher Jr. was questioned by me as to whether he had a claim
against me.  He replied that he did not.  He was asked by me if he knew anyone who had a claim against me under their name or any other alleged name (such as The State of Oregon or Josephine County, etc.) other than their own; and if so who would step up and testify, under oath, as to the claim pressed against me and testify so under their own personal commercial liability.  Judge Gallagher shuffled the court papers, looking
through them hurriedly, and seemingly flustered, blurted out that there were no claims
against me.

   When Judge Gallagher stated the nonexistence of any claims, I asked that the "Order of the Court" be released to me.  Judge Gallagher didn't seem to know what I was talking about.  That was the second time the Josephine County Courts have pulled this unlawful stunt.  Without following the rules pertaining to commercial law and directives from the Treasury Department located in Washington D.C. which tracks all commercial
transactions regarding fines, levies, and (...muffled...) charges, the court, by proceeding
further in a prosecution of another without a legitimate claim, is acting against their own authority, perpetrating a fraud upon the people.

   In other words, they are acting as a rogue agency -- beyond the law.  That "Confidential Arraignment" was the second time the courts have snubbed their noses at the very law they profess to serve.  The first occasion was on September 23rd, 2002 when Judge Allan Coon, after failing to produce a claimant willing to testify under oath, should have dismissed the case.  Instead, Judge Coon sent me back to my jail cell to spend 22 additional days of incarceration.

   That was repeated on July 21st, 2003 when Judge Stephen Gallagher displayed the
same unlawful behavior.  Instead of dismissing the case outright, he too sent me back to
the jail cell where I remain today.  At one point in the arraignment I was cut off and
muted out as the volume of the closed circuit TV was shut down.  I sat watching a silent
screen while lawbreakers were talking about my case.

   Lest you forget, I have spent, so far, a total of forty-nine (49) days of incarceration for traveling with my highbeam headlights on and for asserting my Unalienable Right to
travel the roadways in my private automobile without first seeking permission from my
public servants.  That little bit of "insanity passes for justice" in Josephine County,
Oregon.

If you are concerned about the loss of our rights by those we put into office to serve us,
make your opinions known.  Call Judge Gerald Neufeld, District Attorney Clay E.
Johnson, and Sheriff Dave Daniel.

And if you are so inclined, drop me a note.

      Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, Cell 701
      Josephine County Adult Jail
      1901 NE  F Street
      Grants Pass, OR 97526

Phone numbers to call and express your opinion:
     Judge Gerald C. Neufeld  (541) 476-2309
     District Attorney Clay E. Johnson  (541) 476-5200
        OR email to: DA@co.josephine.or.us
     Sheriff Dave Daniel  (541)  474-5123
        OR email to:  jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us

USPS (snail mail) to: Josephine County Courthouse
                                 500 NW 6th Street
                                Grants Pass, OR 97526

Reply


DISTRICT ATTORNEY CLAY E. JOHNSON
ANSWER THE 23 QUESTIONS!

JUSTICE DEMANDS IT !


The following was dictated to me by my husband Ray Karczewski© during a phone call
from the Josephine County Adult Jail in Grants Pass, Oregon today, July 20, 2003,
2:40PM:
    Anita Karczewski

   Our country faces dark days ahead.  We, a once free people, are heading for an
inevitable economic collapse and tyranny.  Nowhere is it defined more clearly than here
in Josephine County.  The problem lies with our judges and District Attorney Clay E
Johnson.  They no longer conduct their business by law, but by whim.

   D.A. Johnson has defaulted in refusing to answer three documents filed with the court, one accompanied by a sworn affidavit.

   By not answering the affidavit point-by-point, D.A. Johnson has bound the county to a commercial debt in the amount of $21,600,000.00.  Liens have been filed and recorded at the Oregon Secretary of State's office, Corporate Division, against the corporations
Josephine County and the State of Oregon.

   As of (on) July 18, 2003 I was arrested for the third time in eleven months for the same bogus charges.  The courts are stymied as to how to get beyond the arraignment stage.

   For each passing day that I am incarcerated damages accrue at the rate of $60,000.00 a day.

   On July 21st, 2003 Judge Gallagher blurted (let) "the cat out of the bag."  He said there existed no one who had a claim against me.  That statement alone is legal grounds for dismissal.  Instead, D.A. Johnson chose strong-arm intimidation by charging one who is defending himself with seven (7) counts of "simulation of legal process," i.e. "paper terrorism," all toward "CYA" (cover your ass).

   How does it feel to know your public servants are bankrupting you?

      Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, Cell 701
      Josephine County Adult Jail
      1901 NE  F Street
      Grants Pass, OR 97526

Reply


Message From Ray
Arrested Again!

The following was dictated to me by my husband Ray Karczewski© during a phone call
from the Josephine County Adult Jail in Grants Pass, Oregon today, July 20, 2003,
2:40PM:
    Anita Karczewski


On the 18th of July, 2003, at approximately 3:00PM, three Josephine County patrol cars
and five (5) deputies came to my house.  They arrested me and took me to the Josephine
County Jail facility on an arrest warrant for "Failure to Appear," issued by Judge William
Mackay.

Shortly after arrival at the jail facility, I was handed booking papers by a deputy who
indicated that after I filled out the papers, I would be released to go home.  This was
confirmed by the Jail Supervisor, Sgt. Michaels.  He indicated that after I signed the
booking forms, I could go home because they have a bed shortage.

Now, what was the purpose of the arrest to begin with?  Certainly they knew the situation
before they arrested me.  The real reason may be found in the fact that at the present time
there is a $21,600,000.00 judgment standing, and every day that I'm in this jail is another
$60,000.00 per day for additional damages.

So far, the county has arranged to add $240,000.00 onto the original $21,600,000.00.

Is it the intention of the authorities in Josephine County and the Court System to
bankrupt Josephine County?  It seems so to me.

I have sent "Request(s) for Proof of Claim" to the Josephine County District Attorney,
Clay E. Johnson, and other authorities at both the State and County level.  I have sent
three (3) to District Attorney Clay Johnson and two to the others; and in addition, I have
had nine (9) appearances before the court, at seven of the nine appearances, I challenged
the court to prove jurisdiction over me.  They have refused to do so.

In the five "Request(s) for Proof of Claim," three of them accompanied by affidavit, not
one single, solitary person from the State of Oregon or from Josephine County has
answered any of the questions.

They have no answers for my questions.

Is this the way we expect our government officials to behave, here in Josephine County?

Below are the twenty-three (23) questions that have been submitted to these people that
they absolutely refuse to address:

Ask yourself:  Why won't they answer these questions?

Below you'll also find phone numbers for Judge Gerald C. Neufeld, District Attorney
Clay E. Johnson, and for Sheriff Dave Daniel.

I would like to see Josephine County citizens hold their government officials
accountable.

Call these numbers and tell them what you think.  Ask them to answer the questions that
were submitted.  Especially ask District Attorney Clay E. Johnson to either answer the
questions, or remove himself from his office and put somebody in there who will answer
those questions.

Enough is enough!  If you don't want tyranny in Josephine County, this is the time to do
something about it!

Questions submitted to the County of Josephine and State of Oregon:

    1.  PROOF OF CLAIM on how the Oregon Constitution operates upon me, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person, the private man.

    2.  PROOF OF CLAIM on how the State statutes by and through the Oregon Legislature and the DMV operate upon me, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person, the private man.

    3.  PROOF OF CLAIM that the name appearing on the charging instrument, in capital letters; RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI, is not a corporate fiction, but is the name of the living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person, the private man in his private capacity.

    4.  PROOF OF CLAIM that the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) describe any other class of
license other than for commerce or for commercial trade, occupation or profession.

    5.  PROOF OF CLAIM  that this private man is specifically named in the Oregon State
Statutes and more specifically ORS cites as applied in this matter.  (See the PEOPLE v.
HERKIMER, 15 Am Dec 379, 4 Cowen (N.Y. 345, 348 (1825)

    6.   PROOF OF CLAIM that the STATE OF OREGON, in its Corporate capacity, has
Jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person/private man, the Secured Party, Raymond Ronald Karczewski© in his private capacity unless consented to, and/or contracted for, by that natural person/private man.

    7.  PROOF OF CLAIM that the COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE, in its Corporate capacity, has
Jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person/private man, the Secured Party, Raymond Ronald Karczewski© in his private capacity unless consented to, and/or contracted for, by that natural person/private man.

    8.   PROOF OF CLAIM that all "Officers of the Court," which include members of the
JOSEPHINE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S staff, are under oath of office to support and defend both U.S. and OREGON Constitutions.

    9.   PROOF OF CLAIM that Deputies and/or Jail Staff, in their capacity as Agents for the
CORPORATE  JOSEPHINE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, are bound by their oath of office to support and defend both U.S. and OREGON Constitutions.

    10.   PROOF OF CLAIM that the CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY, in its Corporate capacity, has Jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person/private man, the Secured Party, Raymond Ronald Karczewski© in his private capacity unless consented to, and/or contracted for, by that natural person/private man.

    11.   PROOF OF CLAIM of the existence of the liability and how it was created.

    12.   PROOF OF CLAIM of what 'state' the liability came from, the de jure state ('The State') or the de-facto state ('This State'), a mere corporation.

    13.   PROOF OF CLAIM that the State of Oregon DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DMV, through its Administrative Drivers Licensing process, has Jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person/private man, the Secured Party, Raymond Ronald Karczewski© in his private capacity unless consented to, and/or contracted for, by that natural person/private man.
 

    14.  PROOF OF CLAIM that in my private capacity, that I, Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person, the private man, is subject to Class A, B, and C commercial driver license.

    15. PROOF OF CLAIM that the State of Oregon via the DMV sells any other ‘driver’ license.

    16.  PROOF OF CLAIM that the Motor Vehicle code does not operate upon all ‘drivers’ of
‘all’ vehicles owned or operated by ‘the United States,’ ‘this state,’ ‘or any county,’ ‘city,’
‘district,’ ‘or any other political subdivision of this state’ … and thus operates upon this private
man. (see ORS 801.020)

    17.  PROOF OF CLAIM that my ‘private' vehicle is not a ‘recreational’ vehicle that is operated solely for personal (private) use. (see ORS 801.208)

    18.  PROOF OF CLAIM that my ‘private' vehicle is used for the transportation of persons for compensation or profit, or designed or used primarily for the transportation of property (for hire). (see ORS 801.210)

    19. PROOF OF CLAIM that Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, a living, breathing, flesh-and-
blood, sentient, natural person, the private man, was a licensee at the time of the ‘stop’ to subject himself to the motor vehicle code by agreement and as a signatory. (see Vehicle Traffic Law, 1974 Rev Ed., page 238, 239)

    20. PROOF OF CLAIM that, “In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervision
officials “may” exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they “must” exempt them, generally applies in this matter.  (State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 60 C.J.S. section 94 pg 581)

    21. PROOF OF CLAIM that Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, a living, breathing, flesh-and-
blood, sentient, natural person, the private man, does not have the right in light of ORS 801.305.

    22. PROOF OF CLAIM that the ‘entity’ bringing forth this claim can testify on the witness-
stand of the same and bring all relevant evidence.

    23. PROOF OF CLAIM that the prosecutor, as an agent of the State, has established a ‘liability bond’ in this action to indemnify Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person, the private man, in the event of any damnification.

Phone numbers to call and express your opinion:
     Judge Gerald C. Neufeld  (541) 476-2309
     District Attorney Clay E. Johnson  (541) 476-5200
           OR email to:  DA@co.josephine.or.us
     Sheriff Dave Daniel  (541)  474-5123
           OR email to:  jocosheriff@co.josephine.or.us

Snail Mail to: Josephine County Courthouse
                       500 NW 6th Street
                       Grants Pass, OR 97526

END OF MESSAGE

Reply
 
 

An Oregon Judge and Jury Nullification:  "I'm Going To Be Rude to You!!"

 By Anita Karczewski



     On July 15, 2003, I attended jury orientation at 8AM at the Anne G. Basker Auditorium next door to the Josephine County Courthouse on 6th Street in Grants Pass, Oregon.

     I was among the first people to arrive and when I was signing in, the jury clerk, Pat, said to bring the (legal) pad with me and to follow her.  I was seated in an end seat in the first row of chairs that were set up in the auditorium.

     Pat advised me to finish signing in and to pass the pad to the next person for them to sign. We all received a white paper with questions on it.  Among the questions were the distance from our home to the place of jury duty; what mode of transportation we used to get to the auditorium/courthouse and, if it was public transportation, the cost.  Another section of the paper contained two choices--one choice was for the juror to waive payment for jury duty and to donate it to the justice department for their expenses for other jurors, the other choice was for the juror to waive their travel expenses and to donate it to the justice department for the same purpose.  The juror could choose to waive payment of one or both monies

     We also received a smaller blue paper containing instructions on how to find out if, when and where we were to appear for a trial, along with other information pertinent to jury duty.

     A television set was brought into the auditorium and after a short presentation by Pat, the jury clerk, she ran a sixteen-minute film about the importance of juries to the process of our "system," how diversity among the people of both our juries and our society was an asset to the American and justice system, and although we may be reluctant to serve as a juror, how "good" we all should feel about being a part of that process.

     After the film was shown, Pat introduced Judge William Mackay who spoke about the importance of jury duty and assured the assembly that attorneys were in court to present the facts and not to trick the jurors.  He stated that the lawyers presented the facts most favorable to their position as prosecutor or defense of the accused. He also said that just as there are alcohol abusers, people with money problems, etc. among the public, there also were lawyers and judges who were plagued by the same problems.

     Judge Mackay explained there are 6-person juries which must return unanimous verdicts and twelve-person juries which may have different numbers and requirements for verdicts.

     Judge Mackay told us that the verdict of the jury is final.  That a jury's verdict cannot be changed, but that it can be appealed.  That there are innocent people who go to jail for something they didn't do, just as there are guilty people who are found innocent by a jury.  He said that the only job of the judge is to read and understand the law.

     Twice I attempted to gain Judge Mackay's attention by raising my hand, but he seemed not to notice.  I then raised my voice and inquired if I could ask him a question.  He said yes, and I asked him to explain jury nullification to those present.  He responded by saying that jury nullification is not recognized in the State of Oregon, that it is "illegal."

     At that, I responded by saying that it was my understanding that the Supreme Court has ruled that all juries have the power of jury nullification, but that the courts are not required to inform them that they do.

     Judge Mackay then said that jury nullification isn't "illegal" and gave the following as an example of jury nullification:  "A jury has heard a case and filed into the jury room.  A man says, 'Boy, did you see that guy?  He had a ring in his nose.  I'm going to find him guilty.'"  Judge Mackay followed that by saying, in effect, that jury nullification is when a jury disregards the facts and the law and does whatever it feels like doing.

     I again spoke and asked him about controversial issues such as "medical marijuana."

     Judge Mackay then told me he would answer the question "one more time' and then he "would be rude to me" and not answer any more of my questions.

    He reiterated jury nullification as being when a jury does whatever the it wants to do without regard for the facts and the law.

    There were no further questions or comments from the prospective jurors.

     Shortly thereafter Judge Mackay requested the clerk to call 40 people for immediate jury duty, and he left the auditorium.

    Forty people were selected for immediate jury duty, more were released for the rest of the day (I was among them), and the others were asked to remain.

                                                   Anita Karczewski

Reply