Friday, July 15, 2011

The Mighty Oak Was Once a Nut Who Stood His Ground

"It always seems impossible until it’s done."~Nelson Mandela

     First, let me apologize to you all for the time that has passed since my last update. It has been very busy here.
     On 17 June 2011, the de facto ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA filed its response brief, contemporaneously, with a second motion to dismiss the appeal. The response brief was weak to say the least, and made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate a lawful jurisdiction being exercised by the STATE, or any lawful chain of custody. I invite you to read the response brief, and leave comments - of course, I would strongly encourage you to read my brief first, so you can understand the issues raised and see the ridiculous points raised by the de facto ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
        Unfortunately, on 28 June 2011, the APPEAL COURT granted the STATE’s motion to dismiss the appeal, which was entirely based upon a technicality (however this is not the end of the case). Supposedly an error in the Record on Appeal which I now know was no error at all. I was not aware there was no error, as the STATE claimed, at the time I filed my response to the motion. It is strange how justice has become a game of ‘Simon Says’, likened to the game show ‘Jeopardy’ – “Oooppppssss you screwed up, I didn’t say Simon says… Sorry Mr. Birch you didn’t give the answer framed as a question…yes, you’re absolutely right, but that is just too bad”-Justice has become a mockery, with the lives of people in the balance.
        28 June 2011 was the day my response to the State’s brief was due. So, to bring some clarity to the situation, and to demonstrate how desperate this de facto political venue is to maintain power, I will share with you my rebuttals to the new issues raised by the de facto STATE in their feigned attempt to demonstrate the legal argument of the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts as ‘frivolous’ and ‘lacking any legal authority’.
        First, the STATE asserted that State v. Sullivan, __ N.C. App. __, 687 S.E.2d 504 (2009), appeal denied, 364 N.C. 247, 699 S.E.2d 921 (2010), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 178 L. Ed. 2d 754 (2011), and the argument in my brief are substantively identical. In Mr. Sullivan’s brief there is a single paragraph expressing the concept of a 12th and 39th State of North-Carolina. Mr. Sullivan does not offer any additional information, such as an Affidavit of Citizenship and Domicile demonstrating he is in fact a lawful claimant/freeman of the de jure[1] State (see RR. 88 & 89), nor does he offer any additional argument, or authority in law. The STATE’s assertion in this instance is wholly without foundation or merit.
        Second, the State asserted the question being brought forth  is an question which falls under the Political Question Doctrine, citing  Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 12 L. Ed. 581 (1849) as an example. Nowhere in my brief am I requesting the Court to make a determination of North-Carolina’s ratification of the 14th Amendment, as that is a political question. Nor am I asking this Court to rule upon the validity of the de facto[2] 39th State of which it is a part, See Federalist Papers #80: “No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause in respect to which he has the least interest or bias.  This principle has no inconsiderable weight in designating the federal courts as the proper tribunals for the determination of controversies between different States and their citizens.  And it ought to have the same operation in regard to some cases between citizens of the same State.”
        In Luther v. Borden, the question ultimately answered was, how is a State deemed lawful and legitimate? The answer demonstrated is this – the political body recognized by Congress as having adopted the Constitution for the United States of America. The political body encompassed in the Chartered Government of Rhode Island was the legitimate government of Rhode Island, as it had represented the free people of Rhode Island, at the time of its’ ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America. The Charted Government had called for no referendum to draw up a new constitution for Rhode Island, therefore Luther had given aid and comfort to treason against Rhode Island. The Federal Government had a duty and obligation to defend the Chartered Government from this rebellion.
        This is the essence of my brief: the de jure government of North-Carolina had called for no referendum to amend its’ constitution, in this instance it was the Federal Government itself that was rebelling against the de jure government of North-Carolina. In 1868 the U.S. Congress deemed that there was no republican form of government within the territorial boundaries of North-Carolina, when within the previous two years it had submitted two constitutional amendments to it for its consideration. See Appellant’s Brief  pp. 10-37.
        In this instance, the 12th State of North-Carolina is the lawful ‘Chartered Government of Rhode Island’ and the 39th State of North-Carolina is the government put in place by the ‘Dorr Rebellion’. Only this time it was Congress, not Dorr, who is declaring the de jure State annulled, with no acknowledgement of the ratifying government. See Appellant’s Brief  Appen. pp. 135-134; the 12th State of North-Carolina. This annulment was carried out by the Reconstruction Acts and Bills of Attainder, executed by the U.S. Military who drove one group of people to the polls, and another from them, under the orders of the United States Congress.
        Third, in the Response Brief for the STATE is cited Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 726, 19 L. Ed.227, 237 (1868). In this case it is quoted that the “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.” The STATE seems to be under the impression that the weight of the argument is lawfulness of succession, and while this question is one which may need to be revisited at some instance in the future; it is not the focus of this authoritative legal argument. However, the question rises from this cite - if the Union is indestructible and the States are indestructible then why did Congress believe it had the authority to destroy the States which had entered and formed the Union? Where did Congress get its lawful authority to annul the Republic of Texas admitted into the Union 27 December 1845? Once again Congress had legislated it be done through the Reconstruction Acts for the purpose of reconstructing the founding principles of the Constitution for the United States of America by the nationalization of citizenship.
        Forth, in the Response Brief for the STATE, it is asserted that I have somehow inadvertently accepted and consented to the jurisdiction of the de facto STATE by being in possession of a de facto issued ‘Driver’s License’, and that the people of North-Carolina have somehow accepted this unconstitutional act and the new constitution. This assertion is also without foundation or merit, since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it... See 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256. Consent does not cure and unconstitutional act.
        Friends, those of you who do not prefer “the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom”, it is apparent that the STATE is avoiding the question. The argument I presented is not frivolous, and it is not in the nature of a political question, it is the single most important constitutional question that these united States have ever been faced with – does Congress have the power to annul States in times of peace, for the purpose of nationalizing citizenship, without the consent of a free people, by threat of military rule? Is Congress’s power absolute, is that what our founders intended? Do you wonder what happened to the States, to the powers reserved to the ‘People’? They were taken by Congress unconstitutionally.
        On 12 July 2011, I filed a Notice of Appeal to the NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, as this is a constitutional issue. On 14 July 2011 the de facto STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA filed a motion to dismiss the notice of appeal. My response will soon be following. Once again, the STATE is making no effort whatsoever to answer the jurisdictional or the constitutional questions; they are using procedure as a defense. In the minds and hearts of the de facto attorney general’s office it is safe to assume that justice is of little interest and the rule of tyranny and usurpation is tantamount. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are honorable men and women seated in the de facto state supreme court, we shall see. If it is proven there is no honor among them, then a special writ shall be sent to the United States Supreme Court. Friends, I need your support, if you believe in me, if you believe in what I am doing. Freedom isn't free, it comes with the highest of costs and filing fees are not a cheap expense, not to mention the time and research that has been required by myself and others who are helping. There is no such thing as a little freedom. Either you are all free, or you are not free.


[1] Government de jure /gə́vərnmənt dìy júriy/. A government of right; the true and lawful government; a government established according to the constitution of the nation, and lawfully entitled to recognition and supremacy and the administration of the nation, but which is actually cut off from power or control. A government deemed lawful, or deemed rightful or just, which, nevertheless, has been supplanted or displaced; that is to say, which receives not presently (although it received formerly) habitual obedience from the bulk of the community. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition

[2] Government de facto. A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government de jure. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community. There are several degrees of what is called "de facto government." Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristic of such a government is that adherents to it in
war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason; and, under certain limitations, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country or otherwise will, in general, be respected by the government de jure when restored. Such a government might be more aptly denominated a "government of paramount force," being maintained by active military power against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and obeyed in civil matters by private citizens. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less by military force. Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) I, 19 L.Ed. 361. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition