July 19th, another North-Carolina republic Citizen Denied Due Process in the de facto of Court of Mecklenburg County

Christopher Pierce, Citizen North-Carolina American Republic, was denied Due Process by District Court Judge Thomas F. Moore, County of Mecklenburg District Court on Monday July 19. The Assistant District Attorneys (who are unlisted on the docket) stood by offering no protection, allowing the rights of one of the People to be trampled upon. The territorial jurisdiction of the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA was challenged based upon the unconstitutionality of the creation of the said state June 30th, 1868 by the Reconstruction Acts of Congress and General Order 120, General Canby, Second Military District, Charleston, S.C.

The jurisdictional challenge was ignored by Thomas F. Moore,and the State established nothing on the record showing jurisdiction in contradiction to the challenge. Arraignment and sentencing where carried out, without jurisdiction ever being properly established. In an attempt to establish the Chilling Effect Doctrine Thomas F. Moore, after denying due process, asked Christopher Pierce if he would like to appeal the decision, Christopher Pierce verbally appealed at that time and Thomas F. Moore placed a $500 secured bond on Mr. Pierce and had him arrested for the grievous crime of no valid vehicle registration.

This is our 'Justice System': exploit the poor, suppress the truth, and Chill* anyone, present or future, who asserts their rights fought for by the Fathers of 1776.

Here is an interview with Christopher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXWhPLna5Q



*Chilling effect doctrine. In constitutional law, any law
or practice which has the effect of seriously discouraging
the exercise of a constitutional right, e.g. the right of
appeal. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct.
2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656.The deterrent effect of governmental
action that falls short of a direct prohibition
against the exercise of First Amendment rights. To
constitute an impermissible chilling effect the constrictive
impact must arise from the present or future exercise
or threatened exercise of coercive power. Reporters
Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. American Telephone
& Telegraph Co. et aI., C.A.D.C., 593 F.2d 1030, 1052;
Sec. of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S.
947, 104 S.Ct. 2389, 2847, 81 L.Ed.2d 786.Black's Law 6th Edition