The Appellate Argument which Will Set Ed and Elaine Brown Fr - The Appellate Argument which Will Set Ed and Elaine Brown Free aa wrote: David Groom Attorney: wrote: Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:16 pm dg: >> Defendant had copyrighted his name. Thus, two

Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:11 am

The Appelate Argument which Will Set Ed and Elaine Brown Free.

Following are excerpts from the Appellant Brief filed by Attorney David Groom with the Oregon Court of Appeals. In it lies the key to liberation for an enslaved public, only this time presented by an officer of the court and member of the bar who possesses courage and integrity, a commodity not found amongst judges and lawyers practicing law in JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON.

The quoted footnote below spells out the key to Sovereignty, the Lawful Liberation of an Unaware People from their CONDITIONED yoke of "Juristic" Slavery.

2 " It may be feared that if defendant's argument is correct, it would wreak havoc with the criminal justice system because the court would have to establish jurisdiction over every defendant. This would not be the case, however; very few individuals have copyrighted their names and have asserted their rights in the manner this defendant has."

Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: The Oregon Appelate Court refused to hear the Appeal without comment. The authorities "dodged the bullet". It is this question of law that would paralyze the "present" Judicial Process in the prosecution of Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient Natural Men and Women tried without their consent, and is at the Core of Ed and Elaine Brown's Unlawful prosecution. rk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON )
JOSEPHINE COUNTY )
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Circuit Court No. 03CR0170 )
vs.
RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI, )
Defendant-Appellant. ) Appellate Court No.A122754_______________)

APPELANT'S BRIEF

Appeal from the Judgment of the Circuit Court
for JOSEPHINE County
Honorable WILLIAM G. PURDY, Judge
_________________________________

DAVID E. GROOM #78231
714 SW 20th Pl.
Portland, Oregon 97205
(503) 771-3587
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

HARDY MYERS #64077
Attorney General
MARY H. WILLIAMS #91124
Solicitor General
400 Justice Building
Salem, Oregon 97301
Phone: 378-4402
Attorneys for the Plaintiff-Respondent

(7) Standard of Review

Questions involving the trial court's jurisdiction are legal questions, and decisions of the trial court are reviewed by the appellate court for errors of law. See, e.g., State v.Donovan, 307 Or. 461, 770 P2d 581 (1989)

Discussion and Argument

Defendant was convicted of seven counts of Simulating Legal Process, ORS 162.355, for causing papers to be served on seven individuals in the criminal justice system, which purported to be judgments owned to defendant by these individuals. It was defendant's position, and continues to be his position that the Josephine County Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over him to render a judgment in this criminal matter. It may be difficult for people who work within the criminal justice system to fully comprehend defendant's position.

"Here are my . . . objections to the continuance of this case, and a 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 02CR0617 and this case, 03CR0170, 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."
1 Defendant acknowledges there is a general rule that assumes a court has jurisdiction over a criminal matter, as stated as follows:
______________________________________________________________________
1 There are a number of other objections contained in this document, but these are the arguments that are pertinent to the issue raised by this assignment of error.

"It is well settled and not disputed that a court of general jurisdiction proceeding within the scope of its powers will be presumed to have jurisdiction to give the judgments and decrees it renders until the contrary appears. In re Lyon, 128 Or. 94, 98, 265 P. 1087; Northcut v. Lemery, 8 Or. 316, 322". State v.Lillie. 172 Or 194, 139 P.2d 576 (1943).

The appellate courts have discussed circuit court jurisdiction over the subject matter and over individuals, and have noted a difference between "excess of jurisdiction" and "absence of jurisdiction." This difference was defined as follows:

"Excess of jurisdiction may be defined as the state of being beyond or outside the limits of jurisdiction, and, as distinguished from the entire absence of jurisdiction, means that the act, although within the general power of the judge, is not authorized, and therefore void, with respect to the particular case, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of his general power in that particular case are wanting, and hence the judicial power is not in fact lawfully invoked. Although a court may have jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, its act or order may, nevertheless, be in excess of its jurisdiction, as being something which it has no power to do; and it has been said that any act of a court in violation of statutory prohibition may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction." 21 C. J. S., Courts, section 25.Garner v Garner, 182 Or. 549, 562, 189 P. (2d) 397 (1948).

The Court of Appeals has even gone so far as to rule that the lack of jurisdiction of the circuit court is an error apparent on the face of the record:

"(W)here the same is apparent on the face of the record it is the duty of the appellate court to not the absence of jurisdiction on its own motion. Northern Ins. Co. v. Conn Organ, 40 Or App 785, 791, 596 P2d 605 (1979); League of Women Voters v. Lane Co. Bndry. Comm., 32 Or App 53, 59, 573 P2d 1255, rev den 283 Or 503 (1978)." Montez v Gomez, 54 Or App 996, 636, P2d 1027 (1981).

The consequence of a lack of jurisdiction was discussed by the Court of Appeals as follows:

"When there is a want of jurisdiction over the parties, or the subject-matter, no matter what formalities may have been taken by the trial court, the action thereof is void because of its want of jurisdiction, and consequently its proceedings may be questioned collaterally as well as directly. They are of no more value than as though they did not exist. But in cases where the court has undoubted jurisdiction of the subject matter, and of the parties, the action of the trial court, though involving an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, which might be taken advantage of by direct appeal, or by direct attack, yet the judgment or decree is not void though it might be set aside for the irregular or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction if appealed from. It may not be called in question collaterally." Bank & Trust Co. v. Fredrick, 271 Mich 538, 544-45, 260 NW 908, 909, (1935)" . Wood v. White 28 Or. App. 175, 179, 558 P2d 1289 (1977).

Applying these judicial philosophies to defendant's case, it is apparent that the circuit court in the present case did not have jurisdiction over him. He made continuous requests, not only during this trial, but over the course of the twelve months leading up tothis trial, that the court prove it had jurisdiction over him. As noted in the Preservation section, and the portions of transcript quoted therein, the trial court stated on the record that it "assumed" it had jurisdiction over defendant. This was not sufficient. The court should have shown to all parties' satisfaction that jurisdiction did indeed exist. Defendant contends in this appeal that the court did not, and thus could not have proven it did.

Defendant had copyrighted his name. Thus, two entities existed; one was the "juristic" person, as defendant described it, which consisted of the, incorporated name. The other entity was defendant himself, a "living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private" person, over whom the court had no jurisdiction by virtue of defendant having copyrighted his name.2
__________________________________________________________________
2 It may be feared that if defendant's argument is correct, it would wreak havoc with the criminal justice system because the court would have to establish jurisdiction over every defendant.This would not be the case, however; very few individuals have copyrighted their names
and have asserted their rights in the manner this defendant has.

Because the court had no jurisdiction, or at least did not adequately prove its jurisdiction, defendant could not be tried in criminal court. Thus, the judgment against defendant is void and the charges should be dismissed. Defendant was deprived of his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Indeed, federal law provides that once state and federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S. Ct. 2502, 2504, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing assignment of error, defendant respectfully requests that his convictions be vacated.

Respectfully Submitted,

David E. Groom
Attorney at Law

**Member** Joined: Apr 25, 2007 Posts: 1235

This is major Ray. Thank you again.

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:11 pm

The Appellate Argument which Will Set Ed and Elaine Brown Free

aa wrote:

David Groom Attorney: wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:

Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:16 pm

dg: >> Defendant had copyrighted his name. Thus, two entities existed; one was the "juristic" person, as defendant described it, which consisted of the, incorporated name. The other entity was defendant himself, a "living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private" person, over whom the court had no jurisdiction by virtue of defendant having copyrighted his name.2
__________________________________________________________________
dg: >> 2 It may be feared that if defendant's argument is correct, it would wreak havoc with the criminal justice system because the court would have to establish jurisdiction over every defendant.This would not be the case, however; very few individuals have copyrighted their names and have asserted their rights in the manner this defendant has.

dg: >> Because the court had no jurisdiction, or at least did not adequately prove its jurisdiction, defendant could not be tried in criminal court. Thus, the judgment against defendant is void and the charges should be dismissed. Defendant was deprived of his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Indeed, federal law provides that once state and federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S. Ct. 2502, 2504, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980).

Conclusion

dg: >> Based on the foregoing assignment of error, defendant respectfully requests that his convictions be vacated.

aa: > This is major Ray. Thank you again.

rk: aa, you're absolutely correct, this is a "major" event in the unfoldment of American Jurisprudence. We, here in these united states of America are either a nation of Laws, or merely loud-mouthed slaves living under the yoke of tyranny, cloaked by black robed hypocrites who have been put into their positions of judging their fellow man, but, who have pulled the wool over the eyes of the Sovereign American People and see themselves now as a law unto their own..

rk: In a land where our courts no longer follow the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, but make up their "color of law" corporate rules as they go along and then claim them to be the law, no man or woman is safe from arrest, incarceration, and enslavement by armed corporate security agents who call themselves Police..

rk: That is the issue upon which Ed and Elaine Brown have made their stand. They represent every freedom loving, Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man and Woman who make up the Sovereign People. the True lawmakers of these united states.

rk: Ed and Elaine have been abandoned by their so-called supporters. From thousands of vocal supporters, look around you now and you will see the illusions through which most supporters have been reduced to silence through unrelenting campaigns of fear and intimidation.

rk: ORGANIZE a nationwide campaign. DEMAND the courts answer the question of JURISDICTION put forth by Ed and Elaine Brown. The Law says, the courts must prove JURISDICTION in writing when challenged by the defendant. A denial of motion set aside without proof, as Judge Singal has shown, is just another example of how such Unlawful, Unconstitutional, non-Article III courts can bend the law according to corporate legislative policy and, in one felled swoop, reduce a nation of Sovereign People into a nation of Corporate slaves.

rk: Send this article far and wide on and off the Internet. Contact the New Hampshire Courts via phone, email, fax, etc, and let them know that you as a man/woman of the Sovereign People demand JUSTICE prevail in the Ed and Elaine Brown Case, and the Judge and/or Prosecutor answer, once and for all,via their Oath or Affidavit, upon their own private, unlimited Commercial liability the PROOF OF JURISDICTION, which if not answered is an admission that the courts have proceeded unlawfully in the Fraudulent prosecution of Ed and Elaine Brown.

rk: That is how Ed & Elaine Brown will be Freed from their unlawful incarceration.. That is how we, as a free, Sovereign People imbued with the Unalienable Rights of LIfe, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property will TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT IN VIOLENT REVOLUTION.

rk: You already know what the alternative is. The question remains, are you LIFE ORIENTED, OR DEATH ORIENTED?

Raymond Ronald Karczewski©