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
Very funny, except for the threat.
Actually, if you think I owe you money, you are entitled, in this country, to take me to court to make your case and have it adjudicated by a third party. What's your point?
You don't much about the law, do you? If I were to damage your automobile, I would be liable for the damages I did. That's all. If I paid for the damages, any civil suit you brought would likely be thrown out, unless you could bear the burden of proof that more remedy was justified.
If you did bring such a suit, you would have to pay a lawyer, whereas I would defend myself pro per. My expense, if you didn't win, would be a tiny fraction of yours. If I did not have a license, that would make no difference to your remedy at all. I would not go to jail. The worst would be a citation for Driving Without a License, and chances are, I would not be cited for that.
If you were to "make a life a living hell", I would sue you and if I kept documentation on your actions, I would win. And even if I didn't, I would have prosecuted the case myself and you would have lots and lots of lawyer fees.
So, let's not make threats we have no idea about how to follow through with, shall we? 
We have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS in an Admirality court.
Besides that America has been under the Emergency Powers Act since Roosevelt , which gives the Executive branch power over all of us.
Our government has done everything possible to get around our Constitution in order to convince us that it is outdated.
When in fact it is the only thing stopping Bush from sending out cattle trucks and forcing us to get the oil in Iraq.
Ray, is that you?
Yes that would have been a better choice for him personally, but not a better choice for America. Most of the unconstitutional laws we have are there because it is easier and cheaper to go along and pay your fines than it is fight back. I for one am glad that there are still men with the will to fight back.
And you've allied yourself with the corrupt so-called judiciary branch.
I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate knowing that being a prisoner of the Nazis was no worse than getting a traffic ticket, a day in court, an appropriate amount of hassling for acting childishly in court, and a psychiatric interview. Until now I thought that being a prisoner of the Nazis was an ugly experience.
If he or she has an opinion on the law or the various constitutions that is based on knowledge it certainly wasn't posted on this thread. The total of his/her posts are these:
"Has he been practicing, "No One Knows The Trouble I've Seen" and banging his tin cup on the jail cell bars?"
A block of cases cut and pasted from the ADL site "Militia Watch Dog".
"You may have missed it in the story, but the defendant in question admits to being on a public road, not private property."
"I tell you what: you can drive without a license, if you so choose. If you hit me while driving your (probably unregistered and unlicensed) car, I can and will sue you for every penny you've got--plus you're going to go to jail. But that's your choice, isn't it?"
"Oh, how dire. But it's your choice to drive without a license. It's your choice to go to jail. And if you hit me with your car while driving without a license, I can and will sue you for every penny you have. I will make your life a living hell. Jail, in fact, will be a vacation for you. And that, again, is your choice."
"Actually, I wouldn't have to pay a lawyer. It'd be two pro pers fighting it out. And I would have a ball."
"You can move freely. You can walk, you can jog, you can run, you can ride a bike, you can use a skateboard, scooter or rollerblades. You just can't operate a motor vehicle on a public highway if you don't have a driver's license."
I don't see anything remotely resembling constitutional knowledge in this. Do you?
I do have a problem though, in that you say this guy shows obvious signs of being unbalanced. A related question about the obvious was asked of me before. I responded by saying that his imbalance was obvious to some because of what he believes re "divine anarchism" and for how he looks - people even posted pictures meant to discredit him, you must have seen the pics. Furthermore, my response to this query was to also say that from my own perspective, nothing is obvious where it comes to people's motivations and what they believe.
What exactly do you see as the "obvious signs of being unbalanced" demonstrated by this man? Is it simply for the reason that he thinks differently - the reason given by the judge himself? Did the man lash out violently in court or something? What am I missing here, aside from the fact that the judge rationalizes his action to submit the defendant to mental competency testing on the basis of this man's different way of thinking?
My concern here is that the same rationale used by the judge could be applied to anyone else who expresses "different" thinking according to the powers that be. On one of the later posts to this thread, someone, apparently joking, equates the circumstances of the defendant to being held prisoner by the Nazis - saying it must not be that bad to be a victim of the Nazis if the experience is similar to the defendant's. This of course is a complete distortion of the point the author of the article was trying to make. (Ooops, forgot, am I not supposed to talk about the (crackpot)author here, among friends?) The fact is, the Nazis did use mental health as a means of disposing of political enemies. Do you honestly believe that this could not happen in America? What happens when political correctness and muticulturalism take further root in the institutions of our society? Teachers and government employees are already being fired for using the word "niggardly." The demands for the enactment of hate crime legislation are growing stronger. How much longer will it be until people in this country are jailed for "thought crimes" a la Orwell? Don't you see how the justice system can be abused where it comes to determining mental competency for people who think "differently?"
Like I said, maybe I am missing something here in this case, and the defendant acted out violently or in some other "crazy" way. But why shouldn't we be concerned about related issues outside the context of this particular case? Our culture appears to have a prediliction for viewing problems singularly - like when we view terrorism as a series of isolated crimes or events instead of as a continuing effort on the part of our enemies to wear us down and kill us. I am afraid that too many people view the issues of this discussion singularly too, literally on a case-by-case basis, and in so doing, lose sight of the forest for the trees.
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.