Thursday, October 7, 2010

A day in de facto court

            Last week from September 27 to September 30, I Specially Appeared in GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE, COUNTY OF MACON, SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court based upon its creation under the 39th State which entered the Union on July 1, 1868. The 39th State was created by Acts of Congress know as the Reconstruction Acts, which are, on their face, unconstitutional and in contravention to, and in breach of trust of, Article 4, Section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America, as well as, a usurpation of the 12th State, also called the State of North-Carolina, which  enter the Union on November 21, 1789.
            The DISTRICT ATTORNEY’s OFFICE was in possession of the Notice of Pre-Arraignment Special Appearance to Challenge Jurisdiction since April 6 of this year and has never once established ANYTHING on the record proving its jurisdiction in contradiction to the Memorandum of Law in support of my jurisdictional challenge. According to the NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, their case law:
“…Once jurisdiction is challenged with substantial evidence contrary to the presumed conclusion that the state has jurisdiction, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that the states courts have jurisdiction, beyond a reasonable doubt, overruling prior decisions. The challenge must be answered on the record…” State vs. Batdorf 238 SE 2d 497 North Carolina Supreme Court (1977).
This is just one example of the burden of proof upon the state to prove jurisdiction. In addition, the first step of due process is lawful, provable, competent jurisdiction. Do they even have that?
            The question remains unanswered by them. I already know the answer:  they are not in possession of a lawful, constitutional, unbroken chain of title over the governance of the soil of North-Carolina. It seems apparent to me that due process and justice are of no concern to the officers; to these men and women, of this de facto state government. Perhaps these colorable officers are acting under orders and direction.  I can see the distinct possibility that this is the case.  The assistant district attorneys, and perhaps the judges, have received instruction on how to deny due process, for a challenge to the constitutionality of certain acts of Congress, at one of their renowned ‘Judge’s or District Attorney Conferences’. I would remind them of the Nuremburg Trials:  saying that “I was just doing what I was told” does not excuse them from committing a crime.
            I have no evidence at this time to conclusively prove conspiracy to deprive rights, however, I believe that 5 months is sufficient time to read and confirm the facts in a memorandum of law and I find it highly unlikely that such a constitutional question was not discussed by officers of the de facto court. I believe there is willful intent to maintain and support the overthrow of law by these men and women; they have been given proper notice and been made expressly aware of the legal arguments. Not only did they have the memorandum of law, with supporting exhibits, in their possession for close to 5 months, they also received 2 correspondences from the de jure state governor, Chief Magistrate John Charles Ainsworth of the North-Carolina American Republic (the name has been temporarily altered from the State of North-Carolina to avoid confusion); letters sent to address complaints I sent to him and his office in regard to the de facto governments behavior.   
            Judge Powell admitted on the record that he had not read the Memorandum completely; I believe he stated he had read a few pages, “but not all of it”, and yet he somehow could come to the conclusion that I had presented no evidence, when the first few pages site well know historical facts. Bradley B. Letts, who stated he had read the memorandum, was the Superior Court judge who signed a waiver of counsel in my behalf  - in spite of my protest and objection as I had not “…voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently elected in open court to be tried in this action”(the last sentence of an affidavit at the bottom of the WAIVER OF COUNSEL; AOC-CR-227.Rev.6/97 called the CERTIFICATE OF JUDGE ). Both Powell and Letts work together, as did the now retired Danny Davis (Davis took the same actions as Letts in regard to the Waiver of Counsel in the District Court Division).  Are we to believe that they do not discuss cases in private? Quo Warranto; where does the court get the authority to take any action when the jurisdiction of the court has been challenged? Do the assistant district attorney’s not have an obligation to protect my rights and follow the due process of law, or are they simply revenue agents with a primary obligation of protecting the court?
            These conflicts in law must be resolved. Unless you live as a hermit in a cave, or insist on and train yourself to be completely unaware to the world around you, the blatant disregard of the Constitution for the United States of America is standard operation for all levels of government today. Fraud, threat, duress and coercion are the preferred foundational principles. The root of this disregard and adoption of despotic principles is the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts which brought about the coerced 14th Amendment, creating a national citizenship; a new body politic, which has enslaved a nation and ultimately destroyed states rights, the balance of power, and the Constitution for the United States of America’s intent and the restrictions upon the federal government.
            I am extremely disappointed with these de facto officials, perhaps I should have expected their behavior, however it was my hope that they would recognize these usurpations and act honorably. I did not expect deprivation of rights, violations of due process, or for police officers to give false witness against me, under oath, in order to secure a conviction (I did not participate in the jury trial in any way, as it would have been construed as a waiver of the jurisdictional challenge; one sided jury selection, one side witness testimony and questioning, one sided closing arguments).  It was my hope that they would turn the corner and help to re-establish and restore lawful government in this great State of North-Carolina and then help to restore the nation the Fathers of 1776 created for us:
 We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
            Perhaps I hope for too much, but what else is there if there is no hope. Perhaps I will die broken-hearted, still hungry and thirsty for justice, but how can I turn away from the truth even though it promises suffering? I cannot. How can I ignore what is obvious? I will not.
            How do I convince my countrymen, who claim to believe in principles behind that preamble above and the document that follows it, that liberty and freedom are of far more value than any comfort or security? How do I remind them, so that they have open eyes and ears, of the great importance of valor and virtue for the survival of this nation, its’ states/countries, and the ‘People’? How do I help them realize that both comfort and security are illusion of the mind and deceptions of the heart?
            We have no promise of tomorrow, and there is no guarantee that our actions, or lack of actions, will bring about an absolute cause or effect, we have a duty to respond to what has transpired not what could transpire. Duty is ours, the results are in the hands of the Lord (YHWH), and we must NOT take counsel in our fears.    

Excerpts from Black’s Law Dictionary 6th edition
* De facto Idiy frektow/. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, position or status existing under
a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. MacLeod v. United States, 229 U.S. 416, 33 S.Ct. 955, 57 L.Ed. 1260…

* De facto court. One established, organized, and exercising its judicial functions under authority of a statute apparently valid, though such statute may be in fact unconstitutional and may be afterwards so adjudged; or a court established and acting under the authority of a
de facto government…
* De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145…
* De facto officer. One who, while in actual possession of the office, is not holding such in a manner prescribed by law. Trost v. Tynatishon, 12 Ill.App.3d 406, 299 N.E.2d14…

* De jure I diy juriy I. Descriptive of a condition in which there has been total compliance with all requirements of law. Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title. In this sense it is the contrary of de facto (q.v.). It may also be contrasted with de gratia, in which case it means "as a matter of right," as de gratia means "by grace or favor." Again it may be contrasted with de requitate; here meaning "by law," as the latter means "by equity."