The Appelate Argument which Will Set Ed and Elaine Brown Free.
Raymond Karczewski
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
*********************************************
"No other man but I in the recorded History of
mankind, including JESUS CHRIST, has directly
revealed to the World the SATANIC WEAPON used to
enslave mankind -- INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT!!"
Raymond Ronald Karczewski� http://www.arkenterprises.com