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


Expand Messages
  • Bowman7a
    From: Jack Lancaster Some persons do not believe silence can be an admission of guilt. ...Let s have some comment from Law scholars
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 1, 2003
      From:"Jack Lancaster" <lancaster@...>
      Some persons do not believe silence can be an admission of guilt. ...Let's have some comment from Law scholars about this,,,,Jack
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: harmon
      Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:03 PM

      "I ask that this sentencing be suspended until such Proof of Claim and
      be established."

      Why ask?
      He should declare the offense.
      And why suspend "this sentencing"?
      What valid sentence is he admitting exists and should be suspended?
      Even if he did get an answer that wouldn't give the court the right to sentence. After the answer he would still have a right of defense or to determine plea. Then there would be pre-trial, then trial, then sentencing.

      Why ask to suspend a sentence that can't, but for the corruption, exist.

      If it is he didn't enter plea he should have added in the last line that fact and declare the violation of process due, and that any purported entry of plea is a misrepresentation or fraud upon the record, any sentence being void without his voluntary plea which does not exist, and that the Proof of Claim must be answered so the state preserves his right of defense which to this point has been denied him. Otherwise, it is further proof the institution purporting justice is served does not exist.
               There can be no judgement or sentencing today regarding this case, 02-CR-0617.
           As case law states: "As judgement represents the combined factual and legal
           determinations that the defendant committed acts constituting a crime, and there is no
           legal impediment to so declaring."  STATE V McDONNELL, 306 OR 579, 582, 761,
           P 2d, 921 (1988).
               There is indeed a legal impediment standing in the way of this sentencing.  The
           primary legal impediment standing in the way of this sentencing is that I am not the
           defendant who is named on the information of this Case, Number 02-CR-0617.  Nor have I consented to doing business with this private court, as I stand under the protection of my Unalienable Rights,  Common Law, and the U.S. Constitution.
               I am not a surety nor an accommodation party for the juristic person defendant.
           Proof of my legal status as Secured Party/Creditor and Holder of Supreme Claim over the Debtor/ Defendant, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI�, along with my being Held Harmless against all legal actions, judgements, and summonses brought against the defendant has been submitted and is on  the court record.  Yet this documented proof which calls for an immediate dismissal of all charges has been ignored by EVERY Josephine County Court judge whom I have appeared before in the last twelve (12) months.  Their complicity in the unlawful pressing forward of this malicious prosecution  by Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON has been duly noted.
               In the last twelve (12) months of this case, I have repeatedly challenged the court  and prosecution to  prove its jurisdiction, in writing, over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private  man, as is prescribed by law.
               Thus far, I count nineteen (19) scheduled court appearances in the last twelve (12)   months.  In actuality, I have yet to complete an arraignment or submit a plea.  Instead of proving jurisdiction, as required by law, the courts unlawfully broke standard judicial procedure and, making up  their own rules as they went along, pushed this matter to trial and to this present sentencing.  The question looms, if the courts actually had jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man, would they not have produced such proof by now?  Neither has the
      prosecutor's office, headed by Josephine County District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON, followed the law in producing anyone who has pressed a claim against me by sworn affidavit and to testify to that claim, under oath, and upon their own personal, unlimited, commercial liability.  Without proving either jurisdiction or Superior Claim over the Secured Party/Creditor/Supreme Claim over the Debtor/Defendant, this prosecution can only be considered a malicious prosecution.
               Documents accompanied by affidavit were sent to District Attorney JOHNSON
           and other agents representing the State of Oregon and County of Josephine Corporations.  They contained twenty-three (23) questions which concentrated upon the issue of Proof of Claim, which would, if answered honestly and truthfully, show unequivocally that neither the State of Oregon nor the County of Josephine had any jurisdiction over this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural, private man without his giving consent or contracting with them.  District Attorney CLAY E.
      JOHNSON has been unable to prove my liability to the State Statutes and Department of Motor Vehicle regulations for which the defendant was charged while I was, and still am, being held hostage as an Assumed Surety/Accommodation Party.  Not one question of the twenty-three (23) Proof of Claim questions was answered by District Attorney JOHNSON or the other agents for the State and County.   NOT ONE !!
        I remind the court of the following Maxims of Commerce recognized by the 
      International Law of Commerce:
            1.  All are equal under the law (both natural and moral law).
            2.  In commerce truth is sovereign.
            3.  Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit.
            4.  An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.
            5.  An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgement in commerce.
            6.  A matter must be expressed to be resolved.
            7.  He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default.
            8.  Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.  (If one has neither been damaged nor
                    incurred a risk, and is unwilling to swear an affidavit, i.e. "true. correct, and
                    complete," the commercial equivalent of "the truth, the whole truth, and
                    nothing but the truth" on his unlimited commercial liability for the veracity of
                    his statements and the legitimacy of his actions, he has no credibility, and
                    therefore no basis for asserting claims/charges, or claiming authority).
           9.  A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by counter-affidavit, 
                 point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment.
           It is this legal default of District Attorney CLAY E. JOHNSON, in failing to rebut 
      the twenty-three (23) questions submitted to him on four (4) occasions, which stipulates  to the truth as it operates in favor of this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient,  natural, private man that has removed any controversy for the court to decide.  Yet this  malicious prosecution went forward with the help of complicit judges ALLAN H. COON, GERALD C.  NEUFELD, WILLIAM J. MACKAY, STEPHEN L. GALLAGHER, ROSS G. DAVIS, and you, judge, LINDI  L. BAKER.  It is this injustice and unlawful conduct which stands as the legal impediment to this sentencing.
          I ask that this sentencing be suspended until such Proof of Claim and jurisdiction 
          be established.
           Raymond Ronald Karczewski�
           Secured Party/Creditor/Holder in Due Course/Authorized Representative for the
           Debtor/Defendant, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI�

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.