Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Drivers license renewal case

Expand Messages
  • The Handyman
    This case is going to be a hum dinger. North Carolina Judge rules post-Civil War Reconstruction never happened In an ongoing legal battle between John
    Message 1 of 1 , May 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      This case is going to be a hum dinger.

      North Carolina Judge rules post-Civil War Reconstruction never
      happened

      In an ongoing legal battle between John Ainsworth and the State of
      North Carolina over a, North Carolina Superior Court Judge Forrest
      Bridges ruled that the Reconstruction Acts passed by the United
      States Congress in 1867 never really happened. The issue centers on
      Mr. Ainsworths position that he will renew his drivers license if and
      when the current State of North Carolina can prove that it was
      lawfully created.

      Mr. Ainsworth states that two States claiming to be The State of
      North Carolina� have entered the American Union; the first as one of
      the original 13 states, the second as a direct result of the
      Reconstruction Acts. Mr. Ainsworth challenges the constitutionality
      of the Reconstruction Acts which created the second State of North
      Carolina.

      Judge Bridges ruling took place on February 19, 2007 in a rather
      bizarre setting. The hearing was originally scheduled for 10:00am,
      moved to 2:00pm and finally called at 5:15pm, 15 minutes after the
      closing of the Courthouse, the doors to the court house and the doors
      to the court room were locked. No one, other than those already
      present, were able to enter the court room. Mr. Ainsworth claims that
      the locked doors along with the Judges actions violated the
      Constitution and were intended for intimidation.

      Mr. Ainsworth presented historical facts, Supreme Court rulings, laws
      passed by Congress, along with documents, including a copy of the
      letter of surrender of the original State of North Carolina to prove the
      second state was created without constitutional authority. After Mr.
      Ainsworth presented less than half of his evidence Judge Bridges
      stopped Mr. Ainsworth and said I have heard enough, your arguments
      are absurd this is a phantom about nothing...they are without
      foundation in law or fact.

      Judge Bridges found himself in an awkward position. If he ruled that
      Reconstruction did happen, by law the Prosecution would have to
      prove beyond a reasonable doubt� that they were authorized by the
      Constitution. By ruling that the Reconstruction Acts were in fact a
      phantom about nothing,� Judge Bridges relieved the Prosecution
      from answering Mr. Ainsworths challenge to the lawfulness of their
      jurisdiction.

      Mr. Ainsworth questions the authority of Judge Bridges to rule that
      historical facts are not facts and did not happen. When asked why the
      unconstitutionality of Reconstruction is such an important issue, Mr.
      Ainsworth responds, There has never been a meaningful hearing on
      the Constitutionality of Congress authority to annul States in the
      Union and dictate the creation of new States in times of peace.
      Reconstruction laws are the basis the Supreme Court rulings that: (1)
      make children of illegal immigrants United States citizens, (2) force
      the federal protection of abortion in Roe v. Wade and (3) open of the
      door for homosexual marriages. A ruling in my favor would reverse all
      of this.

      Mr. Ainsworth will be back in Court on May 14, 2007 in his
      continued efforts to return lawful and accountable government to
      North Carolina.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.