NOTICE OF RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
eBLAWg
This document serves as notice to the court, and all officers of the court, and all other public servants, and all other people and persons that are working for, or on behalf of any public trust corporation, that I know that I have Rights that I can Demand to have protected at all times, both by the court and the police departments who follow its policies. This document serves as notice that I hereby reserve all my rights without prejudice and order all courts and related people and persons to recognize, honor, and protect All My Rights, both today, and forever, as is in accordance with the Constitutions. Furthermore, a Quo Warranto is placed upon all actions that are taken against me that might cause me a legal disability, be it now or at any time in the future.
This is official notice that I Reserve All My Rights Without Prejudice. I refuse this or any other court, public servant or person, the Right to take any liberties with my Rights. I do not consent in any way to have my rights infringed upon. I do not give permission to construe anything I say or do as permission to Prejudice any of my Rights. Any lack of knowledge of the Law on my part at this time relating to My Rights shall not be construed as permission to take any liberties with any of my Rights. Before God, I make and proclaim this statement of My Reservation of Rights as fact and order all public service people and persons to abide by it.
Any infringement upon my Rights shall serve as prima facie evidence of Intent to Violate the Law. If any action is taken against me that causes me a disability and it is later determined that said actions, lack thereof, or any part thereof, are based on policy and not Law, this document shall serve as prima facie evidence of intent to willfully violate the Law. Each violation of my Rights shall created a separate claim for damages, which shall be deemed immediately due and payable to the injured party.
The following are two STATE OF OREGON administrative laws relevant to rights violations by public servants.
162.355 Simulating legal process. (1) A person commits the crime of simulating legal process if the person knowingly issues or delivers to another person any document that in form and substance falsely simulates civil or criminal process. (2) As used in this section: (a) "Civil or criminal process" means a document or order, including, but not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading or subpoena, that is issued by a court or that is filed or recorded for the purpose of:
(A) Exercising jurisdiction; (B) Representing a claim against a person or property; (C) Directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal; or (D) Directing a person to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. (b) "Person" has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.015, except that in relation to a defendant, "person" means a human being, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, or a partnership. (3) Simulating legal process is a Class C felony 162.415 Official misconduct in the first degree. (1) A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct in the first degree if with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another: (a) The public servant knowingly fails to perform a duty imposed upon the public servant by Law or one clearly inherent in the nature of office; or (b) The public servant knowingly performs an act constituting an unauthorized exercise in official duties. (2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor. All officers of the court and peace officers, such as the sheriff and deputies and all municipal private peace officers, such as all people hired for that purpose by a public corporation, such as City and State Police, are deemed to have a duty to know and uphold the law and protect the rights of the people around them.
Any violation of My Rights, or Failure to Stop Another from Violating Them, by a Public Servant Who Has the Legal Duty and Power to Protect Those Rights, Shall Constitute a crime. Such crime shall serve as prima facie evidence that said Public Servant does intend to, and shall, create claims on behalf of the injured party(s), for damages as follows; 1. $100,000.00 or the maximum allowed by the Administrative Tort Laws of this incorporated State against any applicable performance or security bond the Public Servant is operating under and, 2. $3,500.00 or the maximum amount allowed by the Administrative Laws of this incorporated State in a Small Claims Court. 3. Said Actions Shall Create a Claim for Damages That Can Be Collected by Filing a Suit under the Jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code for Violation of My Common Law Rights, in the Local or Federal courts. 4. It shall also serve as prima facie evidence that said Public Servant intends for the injured party to File Deprivation of Rights Suit, Directly in administrative (Federal) Court for the incorporated US Government for further redress of injuries. All claims shall be valid and enforceable simultaneously as allowed by Law.
Authorities that have not been overturned: Norton vs. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 An unconstitutional act is not Law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Owen vs. Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398 Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional Right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the Law.
Jackson, J., West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette 1943 319 US 624, 638 87L ed 1628, 1638, 63 S Ct 1178, 147 ALR 674 "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." JONES V. COUNCE, 7 F3d 1359 (8th Cir. 1993) BENITEZ V. WOLFF, 985 F3d 662 (2nd Cir. 1993) Qualified immunity defense fails if public officer violates clearly established right, because a reasonably competent official should know Law governing this conduct.
United State vs. Johnson, 76 Federal Register, Supplement 538 Rights are neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his Rights, nor to the one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can only be retained by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-207.4 "All Rights Reserved" When I use "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-207 in connection with my signature, I am saying: "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement." "The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "Without Prejudice" (UCC-1-207-.4) or "All Rights Reserved." "the making of a valid Reservation of Right preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7)
This Document Is Law, and Must Be Obeyed by Anyone Who has a Public Servant Job, and in Particular, Any and All Public Servants Who Have Taken an Oath to Uphold the Constitutions of this state and the united States but shall not be avoided for lack of an oath. Further Authorities: Whereas, the exercise of a natural right needs no authority in America other than the Constitution.
Whereas, Art. 1, Sect. 21 of the Constitution for Oregon, "...nor shall any law be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution;...". Since this is the underlying principle of all American law upon which Accused is standing, the issue of lawful authority over the body and other properties of Accused cannot be ignored.
Whereas, Accused reserves all rights given him by God and protected by the Constitution for the Republican Union, and the republic of Oregon which places definite and unbridgeable limits upon the law making and enforcement abilities of any government body or corporate entity operating in accordance with and under color of American Law.
Whereas, if the STATE OF OREGON decides to mediate or decide the alleged claim against Accused, Accused reserves and exercises his sovereign power to demand that the STATE OF OREGON and JOSEPHINE COUNTY provide full disclosure of the source of the authority upon which all actions were taken. Full disclosure means; absolute in detail from its source.
Whereas, under American Law, the Accused recognizes that codes, rules and statutes are only administrative in nature and are not the actual Constitutional Laws with proper enacting clauses. Such codes, rules, and statutes, as applied as mandatory obligatory conditions to the Accused, in which the Accused is placed under a legal disability over the objections of the Accused, or thru fraud and deception, is an act of slavery.
Whereas, Accused objects to, and reserves the Right not to be subjected to slavery and reserves all Lawful Rights of redress for any act of slavery imposed upon their person and/or other properties.
Further Notice: Whereas, the STATE OF OREGON operates upon some other system of law other than the Constitutional Common Law in which Accused has Rights secure in the Bill of Rights, Accused demands to know the following: (A) Exactly what system of law is the STATE OF OREGON operating under, (B) What system of law is being used to limit the Rights of Accused, if different from (A), (C) What system of law Accused is being prosecuted for violating, if different from (A), (D) What system of law Accused is being prosecuted under, if different from (A), and (E) How that system of law(s) apply to Accused, who understands himself to be a Man with all the Rights given him by God and protected by the Constitutions for the republic of Oregon and the republican union known as the United States.
Accused reminds the court that there is no "half-pregnant" in the law, and that to deny Accused access to the STATE OF OREGON's and JOSEPHINE COUNTY's law and thereby access to a defense, wherein an obligation such as a debt or service obligation is forced upon Accused is, in law, an act and declaration of slavery against Accused (42 USC, §1994 "...directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.")
Accused further reminds the court that pursuant to law, actors engaged in any form of slavery lose all immunities from criminal prosecution and civil judgments, and any corporation, municipal or otherwise, that condones any act of slavery by any of its agents or employees is subject to civil judgments under the law.
Relief Demanded:
If the court cannot, or will not comply with an American and internationally recognized 'in Law' and commercial law mandate for full disclosure, then Accused demands the court to dismiss its claim upon its own motion because JOSEPHINE COUNTY, thru its representative, failed to state a claim upon which Accused is obligated to grant relief and further failed to state a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction to grant obligatory relief.
Authority:
The Corporate State is moving in its own name in a criminal action and not Ex Rel on behalf of the People of Oregon under and in accordance with the common law.
In the mid 1990's, the State of Oregon, Inc., entered into a commercial enterprise with all of the other State of Oregon public corporations, such as the Oregon State Police, the Department of Transportation, SOSCF, etc. in which the retirement accounts/programs known as the Public Employee Retirement System, (PERS), were combined and invested in the stock market in a for-profit commercial enterprise. As a result: (A) The State of Oregon is no longer operating in its lawfully mandated role as a non-profit public corporation. (B) The State of Oregon judges and the State of Oregon District Attorneys, court administrators, clerks, etc. all have an interest in maintaining the same retirement account.
Furthermore:
A percentage of every fine levied in Oregon, by a State of Oregon court, goes directly into the PERS account. As a result, the District Attorneys office and all of the State of Oregon judges, every Oregon State Police officer, SOSCF worker, etc., have a vested interest in assessing fines and using the State of Oregon's private corporate courts for finding people guilty, as they each acquire personal gain from every conviction.
And Finally:
A percentage of all fines go into the State of Oregon, Inc. general fund upon which the state plans its operating budget, and also, certain administrative agencies, such as the Oregon State Police, get a certain percentage of all fines placed directly into their operating budget.
Therefore:
The State of Oregon is involved in using its courts and jails as tools for an extremely unlawful revenue collection and an undisclosed taxation system.
Accused states that being subjected over his express objections to such a system of codes, rules, statutes and the accompanying enforcement court system is an act of slavery.
Accused again notices everyone that he reserves the God-given and Lawfully protected Right that is endowed upon himself and all Mankind not to be subjected to slavery. Constitution for the united States Art. 3, Sect. 2, Clause 2: "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."
By____________________________________
Date:______________________
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course and Authorized Representative for the Debtor/Defendant RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
UCC 1-308
Marilyn LeBaron
&
LeBaron Family
Thomas LeBaron
Victoria Couvillion
NTBAA
THOMAS LEBARON VICTORIA COUVILLION without Due Process
Marilyn LeBaron
Melanie LeBaron
NTBAA
MARILYN LEBARON MELANIE LEBARON without Due Process
Yuwie
http://www.yuwie.com/yuwie.asp?r=268928&vid=1365498
Hit SIGN UP under the feet of Yuwie guy, enter your information,
verify your account with the link sent to your e-mail account.
Please forgive the advertisements and junk mail.
(Hit 'SKIP' at the bottom of the page or No Thanks)
Hit the back button to get out of pop ups