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
The Josephine County courthouse is picketed daily by anti-government kooks. Those same kooks defend admitted child abusers and convicted child molesters in efforts to degrade the court system there.
Because of the influx of pseudo-constitutionalists into Grants Pass and the surrounding areas the judges are forced to dispense with the niceties. If this were an isolated case they could pamper the old codger. To take the time to play this guy's game would only encourage others and eventually the process for legitimate litigants would be logjammed.
According to the article he was arrested for the FTA charge.
One only has the rights enumerated by the Constitution. Those rights not so enumerated, we left to the States. I believe the 10th Amendment deals with that.
How about equal treatment under the law? Perhaps you would like to ammend the Constitution to nullify Ammendment XIV. You sound as contemptable as the judges in this country who refuse to follow the authority of the Constitution.
Shouldn't be that big of a deal for the courts to answer questions and concerns related to things like jurisdiction. Some posting to this thread have even suggested that the judge merely has to rule, he doesn't even have to write it out (as someone else on this thread, and the defendant himself suggests). Judges unwilling to rule according to the law and unwilling to go through the "trouble" of providing answers should find another occupation.
My old Pappy told me over fifty years ago that the key to living free was to be unobtrusive and keep your mouth shut. In other words:
Fly low, beat the radar.
(a state may restrict the use of its highways to drivers who have complied with the license, insurance and vehicle registration laws of this state or, if the driver is a non-resident, of his home state); Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 US 535
These are your support. The rest are superfluous. These SC cites hold true for a regulated right as well as for a granted privilege. It's been well settled that a right can be regulated under the state's police powers if exercise of that right impacts the health, welfare and safety of the state's citizens. The issue is not whether a state can test and issue driver's licenses, but whether they do so as regulation of a right. The Supreme Court cites are silent on that point.
Police power regulation in no way implies a privilege, which can be withdrawn, for any, or no reason. The state must jump through hoops when regulating a right and those hoops defray the income expected from that regulation which is why the notion that driving a motor vehicle has been repeatedly refered to as a "privilege". The state courts know what butters their bread.
Consider this quote:
"The Manual for the Traffic Officer", second edition, by Irving Isaacson, in the Chapter 3, The Operators License, has an interesting paragraph:
"In order to allow the state the broad powers of control over motor vehicles that it must have to keep the roads at all safe, the courts had to so some juggling with our traditional ideas as to our rights and privileges as citizens. After all, doesn't every taxpayer help pay for the roads; and, therefore, couldn't everyone have an absolute tight to use the reads as he see fit? Well, if this were the case, then we could forget all about any effective traffic control because such rights could only be controlled by very elaborate and complicated court procedures. To get around this, the courts set up the theory that the right to drive is a privilege and not a constutitional right; privileges are subject to state control with a minimum of formalities - whereas rights are surrounded with constututional protections and can be moved only by a legal bulldozer."
In the above quote, the author uses the "safety of the roads" concept to justify this egregious and fraudulent practice. It is not about safety. People follow the rules of the road because they make sense. Nobody wants to damage another person and his property because of the civil awards potentially available for that damage. Reissuing a license each year, mail in check and no retest, impacts the "safety of the roads" exectly zero.
It is about money and population control. And about appellate courts remaining in lockstep so there is no way to get the issue to the Supreme Court. You have been fooled and had, as have we all. 
Because that isn't what the law says...
Beyond that, you have provided a possible answer to the question of jurisdiction yourself in less than ten words. The judge couldn't have ruled in such a way himself?
If it's obvious he is a crackpot, then why bother with the process of testing his mental capacity in a formal way? If the man's argument had no merit, the judge could have warned him not to waste the court's time, and that other such "crackpot" behavior in his court would be answered with a charge of contempt.
And judging by the writings and beliefs of those of his ilk, society owes them the same amount of volutary respect that they pay society, which is to say "none".
Now, go on and play "Dueling Banjos" with the rest of your toothless, America hating friends.
You should ask the crackpot that because what Boonie Rat posted didn't back him up. I also doubt that standing up in the audience section and making a statement without taking part in the proceeding quite qualifies as a formal challenge of jurisdiction.
Do you seriously believe there IS any jurisdictional question here? This is just one of his crackpot claims, why are you trying to argue it for him?
This is a good question. The oath taken by judges should be taken/followed seriously, and they should honor and support the Constitution without fail.
Like I said above, if judges are not willing to take the "trouble" of answering to legal issues/questions/concerns of defendants, then they should find another occupation. If they are unwilling to honor and/or support the Constitution, they should be run out on a rail.
Just wanting to see how far you'll go to appease the toothless.
Of course, your answer will be no.
You are absolutely wrong. I suggest reading the actual documents before quoting them in the future.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Can you reconcile your assertion with the actual amendments?
My issue is with the judge and the tactics employed by the state to find mental incompetence in people that they "don't like" so they can detain them indefinitely. The defendant in this case is a self-proclaimed "divine anarchist." The judge in this case arguably plays into the hand of the anarchist by showing the state will use coercive control and authority that is not absolutely necessary, and is questionable with respect to the limits placed on the state by the Constitution.
But there is no reason to think they judge has done this. Instead, there is every reason to think the judge made the right decisions when confronted with a hostile and mentally challenged defendent. Why ignore that and jump to the conclusion that there is some bigger issue here?
Yes, you are doing so. You are even arguing his silly legal claims as if they meant something. Should the judge have refused to use his name because it was copyrighted too? Apparently this constitutional scholar (crackpot) thinks so.
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.