Posted on 10/15/2002 5:12:15 AM PDT by madfly
GRANTS PASS, OR. -- Sixty-five year old Ray Karczewski, a retired police sergeant from Pacifica, California, whose wife of 43 years describes him as "steadfast in what he does" and "very focused" is in the Josephine County, Oregon jail because of his constitutional beliefs.
On September 5, 2002, Mr. Karczewski was stopped for a minor traffic violation. His violation? He failed to dim his high beam headlights. When the officer asked Mr. Karczewski for his driver's license (and other documents which he had), Mr. Karczewski replied, "I don't need a license for private purposes on a public road, in a private vehicle." Then a series of escalating events took place that ultimately led to his arrest in the courthouse hallway.
On September 12, 2002, Mr. Karczewski appeared in court with his wife and numerous witnesses, including myself, who just happened to be there. Mr. Karczewski's case was the last one called. After reading the charges, Judge Allen H. Coon asked Mr. Karczewski to enter a plea of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. While remaining seated in the gallery, Mr. Karczewski informed the judge that the judge's jurisdiction over this matter was being formally challenged and then had the court bailiff deliver to the judge the appropriate papers with the stated allegation. The judge ignored the papers and then proceeded to inform Mr. Karczewski that if there was a question of identity, and according to Mr. Karczewski that person was not here, then he (the judge) would issue a bench warrant for failure to appear to the person to whom the original charges were directed. Then the judge abruptly got up and left the courtroom. We all left the courtroom and stopped at the courthouse water fountain.
On Judge Coon's orders, and in front of numerous witnesses, including myself, Mr. Karczewski was arrested and handcuffed by Corporal John Justema and Deputy Malin, without having his Rights read to him, and not answering Mr. Karczewski's question "in whose name is the warrant issued." Mr. Karczewski was then taken to the county jail. What makes this case so weird is that Judge Coon had Mr. Karczewski arrested for NOT appearing in court when Mr. Karczewski WAS there in front of Judge Coon AND numerous witnesses.
Due to this injustice, Mr. Karczewski, being a man of principle with steadfast beliefs decided to go on a hunger strike. Today marks his 33rd day. Local media, the Grants Pass Daily Courier, kept silent on Karczewski's hunger strike. Due to pressure from concerned family, friends and citizens, the Courier finally ran their first article on Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 28 days into the hunger strike.
Anita, Mr. Karczewski's wife, released the following statement from her husband:
"According to the law, when the court is challenged to prove jurisdiction, the court must do so in writing... Until then no proceeding may continue... The question Americans who value their freedom must ask themselves is do we or do we not live under the Constitution. When the court can make up their own rules as they go along and pay no heed to the Constitution, we live in a lawless land."
On the 10th of October judge Coon allowed, for the first time, to have Mr. Karczewski address the court with his legal issues and asked Mr. Karczewski to produce case law, which he did, to see if they had merit. At Mr. Karczewski's last hearing he supplied case law to the judge who promised to read them.
The judge said he wanted to accommodate the state with conditional release papers, which Mr. Karczewski refuses to sign, stating he refuses to do anything until written proof of jurisdiction is established, which the judge refuses to do. According to Karczewski's wife, they'll either let him out of jail or he'll take the hunger strike to its ultimate conclusion.
Judge Coon said he didn't understand Mr. Karczewsk's legal issues, then imposed public defender, attorney Peter Smith, on Mr. Karczewski against Mr. Karczewsk's wishes. According to the Courier Judge Coon wanted Attorney Smith to gain an opinion on Mr. Karczewski's mental stability. The judge was quoted as saying, "I still have some concerns about the defendants mental health...the defendant has some ideas which are different...I don't have a problem with ideas that are different, so long as those differences are the product of a healthy mind."
This situation, spotlighting the close relationship between Josephine County's Mental Health and the court system, is a frightening specter. If a judge can order a psychological evaluation on a person for being different, then we are all in danger because we are all different. This is extremely alarming. Is this why $28 million is being spent on mental health in Josephine County, with a population of only 80,000?
This sets a dangerous precedence. The same philosophy was practiced within the Third Reich. Adolph Hitler had people incarcerated under mental health simply for holding an opposing view. The Soviet Union used mental health to control dissidents and political opponents.
Mr. Karczewski, a dedicated police sergeant, took a bullet in the line of duty. Is this the thanks he is receiving from Judge Coon? Former Josephine County, Oregon deputy, Jerry B. Mathel, was caught with a large collection of child pornography, yet he received only probation, dismissed from the force and to my knowledge received no psychological evaluation. This is only one example, there are others to numerous to mention. Is there a double standard here?
Community concern has apparently expedited a trial date of October 15, 2002, at 9:30 AM, at the Josephine County Courthouse, since the Courier published a November 1, 2002 trial date.
On October 14, at 4:15pm I interviewed Anita Karczewski at their home in Cave Junction, OR. where she made the following predictions: "They're going to convict him of something, then release him for time served." Why, I asked: "To save face and avoid proving jurisdiction" replied Anita. Anita can be reached at: anitak@internetcds.com
© 2002 Anita Karczewski, photo by NWV
© 2002 Paul Walter - All Rights Reserved
Paul Walter was born in socialist Yugoslavia in 1945. He and his family emigrated to America in 1959. He served 3 years in the U.S. Armed Forces and became a U.S. citizen in 1963. Owner of Walter Publishing & Research, he republished a 100 year old book titled The Coming Battle, the true history of our national debt. The book is currently in its 5th printing. E-mail walter@internetcds.com
This article shows the contempt that judges have for the U.S. Constitution. They will spare no taxpayer dollar to incarcerate those bold enough to challenge their authority.
Forward this article far and wide.
Paul Walter ______________________________________
A better choice was to show his driver's license on request .....
Idiot.
There is more than one issue presented in the article. From your remarks it appears they don't concern you. Did you catch the reference to the amount of money spent on Mental Health?
1. Accused must be properly identified; identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense. Almost always the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT, any means of identification is equally valid if said means differentiates the accused without doubt. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself) For stop and identify (4th Amendment) see Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.
2. The statute or offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: Colorado National Monument Superintentdent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog, or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non- applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law. Example of exception: ".... thereof to make a return (other than a return required under authority of 6015).....Indictment or information is defective unless every fact which is an element in a prima facie case of guilt is stated. Assumption of element is not lawful. Otherwise, accused will not be thoroughly informed. 26 USC 6012 is a necessary element of the offense. Since 6012 isn't cited, the information is fatally defective. Additionally, information did not negate the exception (other than required under authority of section 6015)." After reading 6012 and 6015, and knowing that 7203 elements are: A. Required to perform. B. Failed to perform. C. Failure was willful you may wish to ask, "how often is a valid 7203 or other information or indictment brought? How many citizens have been convicted on a fatally defective process?
3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non- prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describe a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.
4. The accuser must be named. He may be an officer or a third party. Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse. Some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that he heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom. All political dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.
7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e. (article III judge).
Without the limiting factor of a court of competent jurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty being imposed at any bureaucrat's whim. It is conceivable that the procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of facts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.
The first six elements above deal primarily with the issue of personal jurisdiction. The seventh element (also element #2) addresses subject matter and territorial jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by acts controlled by law; territorial jurisdiction attaches by venue of the parties in relation to the court and to any trans- jurisdictional acts and/or activities of the parties (extended territorial jurisdiction is conferred by controversial long-arm statutes).
SUMMING UP the LAW and the POLITICS Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); to inform court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void.
A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful.
Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.
I didn't see a single constitutional issue mentioned. What are the constitutional issues?
Did you catch the reference to the amount of money spent on Mental Health?
First, the figure comes without a reference. 28 mil sounds a little high for a county. Where did they get that figure? How does the money break down?
Second, how is the mental health allocations of a COUNTY a constitutional issue?
Witnesses under oath, or just someone saying something to someone? But let's say it's true. This occurred after he had landed himself in court regarding his driver's license, etc. Are we saying that this grand constitutional question for which this anarchist biker-for-Jesus is peforming a hunger strike is the reading of the Miranda warning?
That is pretty hysterical, when one considers that among conservatives, the Miranda decision is considered to be a fine example of liberal judicial activism and legislating from the bench.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.