|
No. COA02-88 TWENTY-SIXTH DISTRICT
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
*******************************************
In The Matter of: )
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA )
)
v )
)
John Charles Ainsworth )
*******************************************
Questions Presented
*******************************************
I. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant John Charles Ainsworth's pre-arraignment motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction on the ground that once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven by the party asserting it and the State provided no grounds whatsoever establishing said jurisdiction; and John Charles Ainsworth provided multiple facts and proofs showing the court lacked said jurisdiction.
II. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the State of North Carolina as “created” by the 39th Congress in 1868, was a legitimate state lawfully created and duly authorized by the United States Constitution since the “people” voted to adopt the State Constitution presented to them in 1971.
III. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant procedural as well as substantive due process in that the prosecution presented nothing more than a “citation” which was called “criminal,” in violation of: N.C.G.S. §15A-303 et seq, in that no probable cause existed nor was a probable cause hearing conducted, nor was a “crime” or “criminal offense” stated in said citation; North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Section 6 & 19, in that said citation was issued by an executive officer of the “corporate State” of North Carolina and was unsigned by a judicial officer in violation of substantive due process; U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV & V, in that due process of law is unchangeable by any State legislature simply by passing a statute (Chapter 20 N.C.G.S.): all of which constitute grounds for correction of errors by the appellate court under N.C.G.S. §15A-1442.
Statement of the Case
This action was commenced by the filing of North Carolina Uniform Citation #C1747976-8, issued on 14 August 2001 by Officer C. R. Vanzant of the Cornelius Police Department of North Carolina, in the District Court of Mecklenburg County.
On 3 September 2001 a pre-arraignment challenge to jurisdiction was made in "court" by John Ainsworth to which the response was, "we don't hear those matters here," and another court date was issued for a hearing in the District Court.
On 8 November 2001 certified court reporter Gisele Calame was retained by John Ainsworth to record the district court proceedings and did begin to record said proceedings. During the proceedings she was ordered by the Judge to halt the recording of said proceedings. The judge then ordered the bailiff to confiscate the record made by Gisele Calame. Consequently, John Charles Ainsworth objected to the Judge's order and asked upon what authority the Judge based his actions. The Judge held a red volume of some nature up and said, "it is in here." A specific cite was requested to which the Judge responded, "You look it up."
The Court further ordered that all of John Ainsworth's motions be filed by the second week of December (more than 30 days prior to the arraignment date of January 17). No further proceedings took place.
On 17 January 2002 a hearing was held in District Court of Mecklenburg County. Prior to the hearing Ms. Calame stated she had never before been subjected to such intimidation or actions by a court and filed a complaint with the Mecklenburg County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department claims that they have no record of Ms. Calame's complaint. She called Mr. Ainsworth and stated that she was too intimidated to show up in court on that day to record the proceedings. To wit Mr. Ainsworth carried a tape recorder with him to the Courthouse. It was confiscated by the Sheriffs Department at the door after learning that it was to be used to record his court proceeding. During this "hearing" Mr. Ainsworth's attempts to challenge jurisdiction and place into the record the memorandum of law constituting John Ainsworth's challenge to in personam jurisdiction, were refused by the judge in violation of N.C.G.S. §15A-952(d), but later filed with the Clerk of Court on 28 February 2002.
A guilty judgment was rendered against John Charles Ainsworth by District Court Judge Jerome Leonard, and a fine of $5.00 was imposed. Upon an open court appeal of the decision, a $500.00 secured bond was imposed by Judge Leonard, in violation of United States Constitution Article VIII, upon which one bailiff physically took hold of the left arm of Mr. Ainsworth and led him out of the courtroom while another took his briefcase and walked behind him. After emptying his pockets and being ordered to remove his belt and tie as preparation to go to the jail Mr. Ainsworth was ordered back before Judge Leonard where the bond was altered to a $500.00 unsecured bond.
On 30 January 2002 a pre-arraignment jurisdictional challenge was made by John Ainsworth in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County before Judge Richard D. Boner pursuant to N.C.G.S. §15A-952(d) (mistakenly reported as “15A-915(b)” on page 2 line 7 of the transcript - All following references are to the second transcript).
Pages 2, 3 and 4 of the transcript reflect John Ainsworth's attempt to make a pre-arraignment challenge to in personam jurisdiction. Judge Boner would not allow the challenge to be heard until such time as Mr. Ainsworth addressed a Lawyer issue. John Ainsworth in believing that a lawyer was not necessary until such time as the jurisdiction of the court were properly ascertained and proven was coerced by (1)the stern tone of Judge Boner, page 2 line 23,(2) leading questions by the Judge to trick Mr. Ainsworth into the answer the Court wants to hear, p. 3 lines 7-10,(3) the Bailiff rising to his feet and walking over to Mr. Ainsworth's side, p.3 line 23,(4) Mr. Ainsworth being told by the Bailiff to answer “yes” or “no” to the Judges questions, p.4 lines 5,6 & 7,(NOTE; The Bailiff appeared to be in excess of 6 feet 3 inches in height and 250 lbs. Mr. Ainsworth is 5' 8” and 155 lbs.) (5) being told that Mr. Ainsworth was trying to be difficult, p.3 line 17 and (6)the Judges acceptance to the alleged fact that Mr. Ainsworth freely waived his right to lawyer after Mr. Ainsworth clearly stated that said waiver was made not of his free will but under duress, p. 4 lines 5-23 and 3 objections to the process prior to addressing the challenge, page 5 lines 8, 11 and 16. The Judge also made conflicting statements concerning whether his process was an arraignment as stated on page 2 line 17 and conversely that it was not an arraignment as stated on page 3 line 4.
The Court stated that it would deny John Charles Ainsworth's challenge to in personam jurisdiction and stated that it did have jurisdiction. Notice of Appeal was given in open court to the North Carolina Court of Appeals without a trial on the merits.
Grounds for Appellate Review
Appellate review is authorized under N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(d), in that John Charles Ainsworth seeks review of an interlocutory judgment of a superior court denying a jurisdictional challenge affecting a substantial right which, if granted, discontinues the action altogether.
Appeal is also authorized under N.C.G.S. §15A-1442, which provides: 1) the lack of jurisdiction over the person of John Charles Ainsworth (the defendant), and; 2) failure to charge an act that constitutes a violation of criminal law, and; 3) the conduct for which the charge is made is constitutionally protected; are all grounds for correction of errors by the appellate court.
Statement of the facts
John Charles Ainsworth was pulled over on 14 August 2001 by Officer C. R. Vanzant and given a ticket for not being licensed as a driver pursuant to G.S. 20-7(a). The reason given for being
stopped was that he was leaving a place of business and the Officer wanted to know who it was that was there at that time of night; the time being 11:50 p.m. Upon being asked to produce a drivers license, John Charles Ainsworth stated that he did not posses one and that he and the State of North Carolina were at odds as to whether the State could force him to have one based upon the un-Constitutional overthrow of the Lawful de jure state of North Carolina by the Reconstruction Acts, and that it was at present an ongoing battle.
Argument
I. The trial court erred in failing to grant John Charles Ainsworth's pre-arraignment motion to dismiss for lack of in
personam jurisdiction on the ground that once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven by the party asserting it and the State provided no grounds whatsoever establishing said jurisdiction; and John Charles Ainsworth provided multiple facts and proofs showing the court lacked said jurisdiction.
Assignment of error No. 1, R p. 14
Jurisdiction is of paramount importance in any proceeding in which the State seeks to deprive a Citizen of essential Liberties and Freedoms. This has been so well established that citing authorities would seem superfluous and unnecessary. However, the following cites should provide for adequate authority;
N.C.G.S. §15A-952(d)- Motions concerning jurisdiction of the court...may be made at any time.
And;
Once jurisdiction is challenged, the burden of proof is on the state to prove that the States Courts have jurisdiction, beyond a reasonable doubt, overruling prior decisions. State vs. Batdorf 238 SE 2d 497 North Carolina Supreme Court (1997)
And, the State has affirmed that Mr. Ainsworth is within its jurisdiction;
Maxim of Law- Affirmati, non neganti incumbit probatio. The proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies.
Maxim of Law - Qualibet jurisdictio cancellos sous habet. Every jurisdiction has its bounds.
Maxim of Law - Quaeras de dubiis, legem bene discere si vis. Inquire into them, is the way to know what things are really true.
In view of the importance of the instant case and the foundations upon which the challenge to jurisdiction is asserted, John Charles Ainsworth will establish without question the facts upon which he asserts his claims, even though the State has failed in it's mandate to make a prima facie showing.
In this jurisdictional challenge John Charles Ainsworth will show the following:
- He is a free Citizen of the de jure state of North Carolina who exercises all the sovereign authority and inalienable rights accruing to said Citizen.
- He is not a subject nor member of the de facto State of North Carolina.
- He is not a subject nor member of the Corporate United States, nor it's Government.
- He is not a citizen as defined under the 14th Amendment, nor under any other Act, Provision, or Contract-hidden or implied.
- He is not a subject nor member of the United States Military nor it's Martial law rule via emergency powers enacted pursuant to the Reconstruction Acts.
- That the state of North Carolina as re-established under the original constitution of 1776 (identified as the North Carolina American Republic) has an antecedent and proffered right to exist above that of the Federalized State of North Carolina created under the Reconstruction Acts of 1867.
- That the creation of the new Federalized State of North Carolina under the Reconstruction Acts was, and remains today, a usurpation by the United States government and is an act of Military Occupation and Treason against the Constitution.
- That this military occupation of the state of North Carolina by the Federal government denies the guarantee of a Republican form of government.
- That the Reconstruction Acts which gave rise to the militarized State of North Carolina are, and remain today, null and void ab initio.
- That as a result of these facts, the de facto State of North Carolina has no jurisdiction to try a Citizen of the de jure state of North Carolina absent a clear showing on the record of an overriding, compelling, controlling, or contractual nexus.
- That John Charles Ainsworth has an inalienable right to exercise citizenship of a lawful state of the Union under the North Carolina Constitution of 1776; which citizenship supercedes and is superior to the “fiction at law” jurisdiction created by the de facto State of North Carolina.
- That the de facto State of North Carolina government, and its agents, owes its allegiance to, and has taken an oath to, support the Constitution of the state of North Carolina, and as such is subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the sovereign citizens who hold all the political power as recorded in that instrument under the first three Sections of Article I.
1. John Charles Ainsworth, is a free Citizen of the de jure state of North Carolina who exercises all the sovereign authority and inalienable rights accruing to said Citizen.
It is a well understood maxim that in order for a State to have and exercise jurisdiction over a living soul, it must first show that it is a Citizen of that State or Country and that this living soul owes its allegiance through reciprocity, or some other legal or lawful nexus, to that State, see Cruden v. Neale, 2 N. Car. 338 (1796); see also the preamble to the North Carolina Constitution of 1776. In other words, the State must show that it has jurisdiction.
The State of North Carolina as it popularly exists today is operating under emergency rule predicated upon being Federalized and enjoined under the jurisdiction of the United States government through the auspices of the Reconstruction Acts. In fact, it is a de facto government, a bankrupt entity, a fiction at law, and can only maintain a jurisdiction that deals with de facto, bankrupt, fiction at law persons, Franklin v. Franklin, 356 Mo. 442, 283 S.W.2d. 483, 486. While most “persons” at large in today's society are, via some nexus these “fictions at law,” John Charles Ainsworth is not, but rather is a Christian man who is a Citizen of the de jure state of North Carolina and submits his evidence of such with his "memorandum of law (R. p. 3)," hereinafter denoted MoL.
In Franklin v. Franklin, supra, the "clean hands" doctrine is espoused wherein a party who, as actor, seeks to set judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, will not be granted relief if such party in prior conduct has violated conscience or good faith or other equitable principle. The Reconstruction Acts are clear evidence of the violation of the "good faith" the people placed in their government; these Acts violated not only the conscience of those in government who just a few years earlier stated that the purpose of the "civil war" was not for the purpose of conquest or subjugation (DJE 14, MoL; Congressional Globe for Friday, July 26, 1861), but violated their Oath's of Office in that they passed this measure in violation of the Constitution (DJE 16, 17 and 18, MoL; President Andrew Johnson's vetoes dated March 2, 23, and July 19, 1867), and went beyond any lawful authority ever granted them at any time in the history of this country.
It was a violation of conscience, in that the passage of the Reconstruction Acts could only by founded upon the "conquest" of the states and their geographical territories, which the Congress and President Andrew Johnson stated was not the object of the war. Consequently, the Acts themselves constituted a "new war" against the states since peace had already been declared (DJE 8, MoL; President Johnson's declaration of same), concerning the hostilities of the rebellion, with the victim of this new war being the Constitution of the United States itself. Its passage was at best a vengeful attempt to get back at the Southern States for the death of so many of their loved ones, and/or at worst, Treason of the highest order against established Law and the Constitution, i.e.;
"If men would enjoy the blessings of republican government, they must govern themselves by reason, by mutual counsel and consultation, by a sense and feeling of general interest, and by the acquiescence of the minority in the will of the majority, properly expressed; and, above all, the military must be kept, according to the language of our bill of rights, in strict subordination to the civil authority. Wherever this lesson is not both learned and practiced there can be no political freedom. Absurd, preposterous is it, a scoff and a satire on free forms of constitutional liberty, for frames of government to be prescribed by military leaders and the right of suffrage to be exercised at the point of the sword." Daniel Webster, cited in Andrew Johnson's veto dated March 23, 1867 DJE 17, MoL (emphasis added).
In passing these "Acts" the government passed from a government at Law under the Common Law to a government in equity under the old Roman Civil Law which is;
"That body of law which every particular nation, commonwealth, or city has established peculiarly for itself; more properly called 'municipal' law, to distinguish it from the "law of nature," and from international law. Laws concerned with civil or private rights and remedies, as contrasted with criminal laws.
The system of jurisprudence held and administered in the Roman empire, particularly as set forth in the compilation of Justinian and his successors,-comprising the Institutes, Code, Digest, and Novels, and collectively denominated the "Corpus Juris Civilis," -as distinguished from the common law of England and the canon law." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (emphasis added);
thus depriving itself of jurisdiction as applies to John Charles Ainsworth because it now operates in bad faith and conscience under the rules of equity and cannot take advantage of its own wrong. In addition, John Charles Ainsworth falls outside of this venue as he is a Free and Natural Person who is a Citizen of the re-established, de jure, at law state known as the North Carolina American Republic.
This present Federalized Corporate State of North Carolina maintains the traitorous over-throw of lawful government through the machinations of the Reconstruction Acts and emergency rule enactments, depriving the Citizens of their inalienable rights in times of peace when there is no actual emergency requiring the exercise of such extraordinary powers. Consequently, it acts outside of lawful authority under pretenses and in bad faith; and this Honorable Court, if indeed it should lay claim to being Honorable, should dismiss this case with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, as this case falls outside the purview of the court to take cognizance of as regards the person of John Charles Ainsworth who is not a member of, nor subject to, the Federalized de facto State of North Carolina, et seq:
2-5. John Charles Ainsworth is not a subject nor member of
the de facto State of North Carolina, the Corporate United States or its government, the United States Military under its Martial law rule via emergency powers enacted pursuant to the Reconstruction Acts, nor is he a "citizen" as defined under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
John Charles Ainsworth made written correspondences with the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections claiming to be a Citizen of North Carolina but not a United States citizen (DJE 12 MoL). Mr. Ainsworth received a correspondence from Special Deputy Attorney General Charles Hensey, dated Sept. 11, 1995, citing the US and NC Constitutions, the 14th Amendment and the Dred Scott as authority to claim that “Mr. Ainsworth cannot register and vote in North Carolina.” This resulted in Mr. Ainsworth's voter registration being cancelled on September 18, 1995. The State prosecuting this action took it upon itself to deny Mr. Ainsworth representation in its government. Mr. Ainsworth has voted in every election of the Re-Established State since 1997.
Mr. Hensey cited two opposing views on citizenship in citing both the 14th Amendment and the Dred Scott case to support his position. The Dred Scott case states that State Citizenship is the primary citizenship in America and that being a citizen of the Federal Government is secondary to State Citizenship. Mr. Hensey is therefore citing as authority to discredit Mr. Ainsworth's status, the Dred Scott case which supports the position that Mr. Ainsworth claims. The 14th Amendment reverses the Dred Scott decision by stating that Federal citizenship is primary and State Citizenship is secondary.
From the beginning of our Nation until the time of the alleged passage of the 14th Amendment only State Citizens could vote in both State and Federal elections. After the 14th Amendment was enforced, tho said enforcement is clearly unconstitutional, only federal United States citizens could vote in either State or Federal elections in North Carolina.
In light of the above facts John Ainsworth was made an alien, Wash-Herroitt vs City of Seattle, 500 p. 2nd 101, without representation in both the State and Federal Governments even though he was natural born at North-Carolina and claimed North-Carolina Citizenship.
In view of the noted evidence above showing the true status of John Charles Ainsworth, there exists no nexus binding him to the Federalized de facto State of North Carolina absent proof on the record.
"Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . ." "The persons declared to be citizens are 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . .' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject." Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884). (emphasis added).
The definition of subject revolves around sovereignty. In a Republican form of government the individual is sovereign as relates to the government of the state, with some sovereign powers delegated to the agencies of the government; and the state is sovereign (or is supposed to be) as relates to the federal government, as stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution, again, with some sovereignty delegated to those agencies of the government.
All political power is vested in the people who have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating that government. This is seen in Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution of North Carolina, which is nothing more than the very definition of sovereignty, and this is reinforced by the definition of sovereignty found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 1396 where it says;
“Sovereignty. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration;. . .” Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990. (emphasis added)
Now let us compare the above with the North Carolina Constitution, 1971, at Article I, Section 2 and 3:
“Sec. 2. Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted for the good of the whole.” (emphasis added)
And;
“Sec. 3. Internal government of the State. The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness;...”
From the above it could not be more clear that John Charles Ainsworth is not a “subject” of the State but is a Sovereign Citizen who carries and may exercise the capacity of sovereignty as a matter of right and law. There are members of a state who, by reason of natural or conventional disablility, do not enjoy full political rights and therefore, the word "subject" is used in contradistinction to the word "Citizen," which is a word describing one of the Sovereign People who has full political rights (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 3163) and is the highest status obtainable within a country. A Citizen is a Free and Natural Person having and enjoying all of his inalienable, economical, political, and civil rights within a country and is called a Freeman. The terms “subject” and “Freeman” are opposing terms.
The 1776 Constitution of North Carolina makes reference to "Freemen" no fewer than ten times; the 1866 Constitution of North Carolina makes reference to "Freemen" at least four times, and in the preamble consolidated the 1776 Constitution into its framework. This Constitution was rejected by Congress.
The 1868 Constitution of North Carolina did not consolidate the 1776 Constitution into its framework and makes no mention of "Freemen." It was forced upon the State of North Carolina without the consent of the people, through coercion and threat of force of arms. Additionally, only certain of the population were "allowed" to vote on its ratification.
Although John Charles Ainsworth's status as a Citizen and Freeman has, at times past, been yielded to contract, status itself cannot be reduced to contract. The original associations of status have been so well preserved that contracts may not alter its incidents or nature (Pollack's Maine Anc. Law 184). This Free person is not limited by contract and enjoys the highest status a Citizen can enjoy, that of a Free and Natural Citizen (see footnote4).
All ties with the Corporate United States and it's satellite States, have been severed by the “affidavit of citizenship and domicile” signed by John Charles Ainsworth as noted in footnote4, and filed with the de jure state of North Carolina. In effect, this removes John Charles Ainsworth from said de facto State of North Carolina and its presumed jurisdiction, and repatriates him with the de jure state of North Carolina re-established on the first day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred ninety-seven. This is accomplished as a matter of right and as a matter of law, and it maintains his status as a Free and Natural Citizen who is not a member of, subject of, nor subject to, the corporate, federalized, de facto State of North Carolina. This places the burden of proof upon the prosecution to show that the de facto State maintains its purported jurisdiction and that it supercedes the at Law de jure state Citizenship of John Charles Ainsworth and brings him under its assumed authority.
John Charles Ainsworth is a Freeman who freely exercises all of his political, economical, civil, and personal rights, liberties, duties, and capacities. Among these inalienable rights is the right of Liberty which cannot be regulated nor abrogated by government. In addition, Liberty is a legal right, and as such, must be acknowledged and protected by the government which has taken an Oath to uphold the same. Therefore, the courts need to take Judicial Notice that John Charles Ainsworth claims the status of a Free and Natural Citizen (Freeman) who claims and demands all rights at all times never waiving them; to include the right to personal liberty and therefore, has the right to own property, carry it or move it where he will, and has the right to move freely in public or on public roads being individually responsible for all his personal actions;
"For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold. . . any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 188 US 356, p. 370.
The "will of another" in this case is simply too much government. When the government starts regulating our lives, prohibiting what we cannot do, commanding what we can do, not what we will to do, and punishing us when no real crime has been committed; then as stated by the high court, the government has placed the People in "the essence of slavery itself." This is intolerable in what claims to be a Free Country, and this Freeman has already repudiated any other status than that of a Free and Natural Citizen of the de jure state known as the North Carolina American Republic (see footnote4), thereby putting an end to any past debilitating contracts, associations, memberships, or any other incapacity which may diminish his status or the exercise of his inalienable rights and liberties.
In view of these facts, and having been adequately appraised of the status of John Ainsworth, it should be patently obvious to this Court that the assumed in personam jurisdiction of the trial court is without merit and outside of its limited scope and authority in this particular case, as the person involved is a Freeman and the subject is Rights; and the trial courts' in personam jurisdiction is for de facto juristic persons which John Ainsworth is not, but who is rather a de jure Citizen. The resultant conflict creates an incurable jurisdictional defect absent an overriding, compelling, controlling, or contractual nexus which has not been proven by the State's prosecutor either on the record nor by any other assertion or claim. The trial court was/is therefore without capacity to exercise jurisdiction in the instant case and this Court should dismiss with prejudice the said instant case.
Should this Court overlook the veracity of the facts presented above and the overwhelming authority and weight of evidence they contain, then John Charles Ainsworth offers the following to be included with the above;
II. The trial court erred in finding that the State of North Carolina as “created” by the 39th Congress in 1868, was a legitimate state lawfully created and duly authorized by the United States Constitution since the “people” voted to adopt the State Constitution presented to them in 1971.
Assignment of error No. 2, R p. 14.
6-12 The state of North Carolina as re-established under the original constitution of 1776 (identified as the North Carolina American Republic) has an antecedent and proffered right to exist above that of the Federalized State of North Carolina created under the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 et seq.
The "State of North Carolina" which is prosecuting this action is a de facto State founded upon the principle of conquest via the martial law instrument of its creation known as the Reconstruction Acts:
Mr. Finck, of Ohio, said: "Certainly no member on this floor who understands the Constitution of the United States, and who is a friend of free government, will pretend to urge that we have any constitutional power to pass this bill. I understand the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens) does not argue that there is any authority under the Constitution of the United States to sanction this measure; where, I ask, where does he obtain the authority to pass it? On what principle is this Congress and the people of the United States called upon to adopt it?
"If I understand the gentleman correctly, he claims the power to pass this bill under the law of nations, and upon the doctrine of the right of the conquerors to take possession of and control conquered territory and its inhabitants in such a manner as may suit the purposes of the conqueror. This is the ground upon which the measure is defended. Certainly no man will insult the intelligence of the American people, by defending it upon any other principle. It is at war with the Constitution; it is at war with every principle of free government. And I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it cannot be successfully defended on the ground upon which it is placed by the chairman of the committee.
"He places it upon the ground that we, as conquerors, have a right to dictate to the people of these ten States their governments, and by the strong arm of military power hold and treat them as a conquered people. I deny most emphatically both the premises and conclusions of the learned gentleman. . . "What was that war, Mr. Speaker? It was not a war between distinct and separate nations. It was a war upon the part of the Federal Government, to do what? Not to make a conquest of territory. Not a war for subjugation. No, sir; it was a war on the part of the Federal Government to enforce its laws throughout the jurisdiction of the United States. It was a war on the part of the Federal Government to remove all armed opposition to the execution of the laws, and maintain the supremacy of the Government; to preserve the union of these States, and to suppress all opposition to the just and rightful execution of the laws of the United States
"The idea of defending this revolutionary scheme on the pretext that this Government is authorized to exercise toward the territory and people of these ten States the rights under the laws of nations of a conqueror, and thus overthrow the Government, is one only to be conceived by the fertile genius of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens)." Mr. Finck, Floor debates on the Reconstruction Acts, House of Representatives, February 7th, 1867.
To this the laws of Nations of the time reads;
“But if the State as a whole is conquered, if the Nation is subjugated, what treatment must the conqueror accord it without overstepping the bounds of justice? What rights has he over the conquered territory? Some writers have dared to assert the monstrous principle that the conqueror is absolute master of the conquest, that he can dispose of it as his own property, and treat it as he pleases, according to the popular phrase, to treat a State as conquered territory; and thence they derive one of the justifications of despotic government. Let us disregard such persons who treat men as if they were chattels...who subject them to the ownership of another man, and let us argue the case on principles which are in accord with reason and humane sentiment.
A conqueror's whole right is derived from justifiable self-defense...” The Laws of Nations, by E. de Vattel, 1758
These acts toppled the lawful or de jure nature of the state and placed the military powers in control of the offices of the civil government.
Also, through the forced adoption of the 14th Amendment, the foundation of American Citizenship was changed from freeman Citizens of the several States outside the purview or control of the Federal Government to “subject citizens” whose rights are derived from and controlled by the Federal Government outside of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. See Elk vs. Wilkins supra, and Jones vs. Temmer
In addition to this takeover of the de jure state, these "Acts", implemented by Congress, coerced the state governments under threat of no representation in Congress, to adopt certain legislation that they had previously rejected; this legislation was known as the Fourteenth Amendment.
“â¦and when said State, by a vote of its legislature elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, and when said article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives.” Sect 5 Reconstruction Act of 2 March 1867.
It was also required that this "New" State (DJE 24 MoL, supra), of North Carolina enact and pass a new Constitution (which no longer contained any references to Freemen) which would be acceptable to the Congress. These tactics not only were a coup d'etat, but a complete overthrow of our Republican form of government:
"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed. 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 182 on The Reconstruction Acts June 12, 1867 (emphasis added).
These machinations, especially the forced adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment; see DJE 30 MoL, and DJE 31 MoL), effected such a great upheaval and change in the body politic that the people no longer retained their standing as state Citizens, but were reduced to the level of chattel of the United States Government, to whom they owed their allegiance and from whom flowed their "civil rights", as opposed to inalienable rights, if indeed the government elected to grant them. The people became mere "subjects"/"citizens" of the United States and its government, and the government became that of the Roman Civil Law under military rule, all in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
As a further consequence of these actions, the lawful de jure state of North Carolina was put in abeyance, and this state of affairs has continued to this day via the many and notorious declarations of emergencies/wars. Senate Report 93-549, DJE 27, supra. To more clearly see the underlying truth of these contentions, John Charles Ainsworth places into evidence the following facts;
FACT 1: Government de jure: 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 6th, pg. 697 (emphasis added);
FACT 2: The "rightful title" to the office of the Governor was taken via U.S. Military order # 120 issued June 30, 1868 by General Canby (DJE 24 MoL, surrender of the Office of the Governor;
FACT 3: The U.S. Constitution was put in abeyance/suspended in its operation under a perpetual necessity which exists to this day (Senate Report 93-549 DJE 27, MoL; The Williamsburg Resolve, DJE 26 MoL).
FACT 4: The Civil Rights Act along with the alleged ratifying of the 14th Amendment (DJE 30 MoL), who's underpinnings were the (un-Constitutional) Acts known as the Reconstruction Acts, created a federal citizenship without authority and previously unknown.
FACT 5: The Reconstruction Acts passed by the 39th Congress and the 14th Amendment were notorious un-Constitutional Acts which completely changed the structure of our once Republican form of government and turned it upside down (see 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 182, supra), thus making the possession of office de facto, and creating a de facto government which operates under emergency and/or military rule via the many and notorious "declarations of war" or "emergencies" i.e..(DJE 27, MoL, Senate Report 93-549).
FACT 6: In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 380, Justice Harlan in his dissent stated:
"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments: one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise." (emphasis added)
FACT 7: This state of affairs is the antithesis of the de jure Republican form of government:
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, it 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 function, and establishes itself in their place,... 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. (Cite omitted), (emphasis added). Black's Law Dictionary 6th, pg. 697.
FACT 8: There are several Maxims of law that address these issues, to wit;
Recurrendum est ad extraordinarium quando non valet ordinarium. We must have recourse to what is extraordinary, when what is ordinary fails.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum. Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall.
Rights never die.
Quod initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere. Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin.
Fact 9: - an unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Therefore an unconstitutional act purporting to create an office gives no validity to the acts of a person acting under color of its authority. Norton v. Shelby County, 6 S.Ct. 1121. An "unconstitutional act" constitutes a protection to no one who has acted under it, and no one can be punished for having refused obedience to it before the decision was made. A legislative act in conflict with the Constitution is not only illegal or voidable, but absolutely void. It is as if never enacted, and no subsequent change of the Constitution removing the restriction could validate it or breathe into it the breath of life. In re Rahrer, 43 F. 556, 558, 10 L.R.A.444.
FACT 10: "The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, and Thing in the constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Sect. 2.
"They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them." Atlantic Charter, Sect. 3.
The Atlantic Charter was signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill on 14 August 1941 for the ostensible purpose to: ". . . make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world." John Ainsworth demands that these principles be upheld in the instant matter.
It could not be more apparent that the character of the present government is de facto at both the State and Federal levels. Merely by taking stock of the public record one can observe the truth of this statement, which public record in part is attached to this brief in the form of the attached MoL.
The government organized under the Constitution of North Carolina of 18 December 1776, has an antecedent and superior right and claim to exist over the de facto State of North Carolina, organized under the Constitution of 1971 which acquired its authority under the Constitution of 1868, which created a "new State" within a State, in violation of the Constitutional mandate against such (Article IV, Sect. 3, U.S. Constitution), as the original state had not been Constitutionally abolished, and the "new" state was created outside of Law and without the consent of the people. Consequently, all officials who hold office and take an oath to support the Constitutions of the United States and of North Carolina must recognize the de jure state Citizen's right to Lawful government and must prove that he is subject to the de facto government's jurisdiction.
III. The trial court erred in failing to grant procedural as well as substantive due process in that the prosecution presented nothing more than a “citation” which was called “criminal,” in violation of: N.C.G.S §15A-303 et seq, in that no probable cause existed nor was a probable cause hearing conducted, nor was a “crime” or “criminal offense” stated in said citation; N. Car. Constitution, Article I, Section 6 & 19, in that said citation was issued by an executive officer of the “corporate State” of N. Carolina and was unsigned by a judicial officer in violation of substantive due process; U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV & V, in that due process of law is unchangeable by any State legislature simply by passing a statute (Chapter 20 N.C.G.S.);
Assignment of error No. 3, R p. 14.
The Federalized State of North Carolina brings an action against John Charles Ainsworth under a presumed jurisdiction. This jurisdiction being created by alleged "legislative enactment" creating what purports to be a crime out of an act that in itself is not a crime. Thus, the act purported to have been committed is a violation of nothing more than what appears to be a malum prohibitum, or legislatively created non-victim "crime;" such crimes are nothing more than Bills of Attainder which have been outlawed by the U. S. Constitution at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1;
"The Parliament of England, exercising the omnipotent power which it claimed, was accustomed to pass bills of attainder; that is to say, it would convict men of treason and other crimes by legislative enactment. The person accused had a hearing, sometimes a patient and fair one, but generally party prejudice prevailed instead of justice. It often became necessary for Parliament to acknowledge its error and reverse its own action. The fathers of our country determined that no such thing should occur here. They withheld the power from Congress, and thus forbade its exercise by that body, and they provided in the Constitution that no State should pass any bill of attainder." DJE 16, MoL, President Johnson's veto of the Reconstruction Acts, 1867.
Such crimes assume the alleged perpetrator to be subject to the legislative act without regard to any factual basis which shows such to be the case. Until such jurisdiction is challenged, it is presumed to apply to all who are charged under its auspices. John Charles Ainsworth herein denies and challenges such jurisdiction as applies to him and demands the State prove said jurisdiction with facts, law, and points and authorities showing that he is indeed subject to same.
Unless there is a Corpus Delicti or body evidencing a crime, as under the principles of God's Laws, the Christian Common Law, there can be no actual Malum in se, or wrong of itself, crime. Any thing other than a Malum in se crime is nothing more than a statutory regulatory scheme of private law, enforcing private rights, to which there must be a showing of fact under which John Charles Ainsworth has contracted away, or in some other fashion, has lost his inalienable rights and is now subject to civil (private) rights which may be held to apply or not apply by whim of the court:
"The distinction between actions at law and suits in equity, and the forms of all such actions and suits shall be abolished, and there shall be in this State but one form of action, for the enforcement or protection of private rights or the redress of private wrongs which shall be denominated a civil action; and every action prosecuted by the people of the State as a party, against a person charged with a public offence, for the punishment of the same, shall be termed a criminal action...." North Carolina Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, 1868.
That such a change in law could be forced by the Congress of the United States upon the State of North Carolina shows that not only does it no longer retain any sovereignty, but it no longer maintains a Republican form of government and violates the principle of governance by law of consent.
In addition, the "hearing" to which John Charles Ainsworth was subjected in the District Court, was nothing more than a Summary Judgment proceeding in which only the facts were allowed to be heard, evidencing the nature of the court to be a legislatively created ad hoc special court (see N.C.G.S. §7A-146), or an administrative court of chancery. This being the case, it is unequivocally evidenced that the alleged charges brought against John Charles Ainsworth define a "legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial."
"A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties." Cummings V. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 278, 1867.
What took place in the District Court, and what takes place in the Superior Court, can be described in no other way than to say they are legislative courts acting ad hoc and outside of true judicial proceedings. They fail to grant substantive due process, and in many cases procedural due process, deprive John Charles Ainsworth of his inalienable rights, and fail in their sworn duty to protect same. All that is allowed is a hearing on the facts. These are bills of attainder and are unconstitutional in their operation upon any person.
Therefore, N.C.G.S. Chapter 20, can be only one of two things; it is either a bill of attainder if it claims to apply to the general public at large, or it is Private law which acts only upon parties to the contract or those who have applied for its benefits and/or protections; neither of which operate upon John Charles Ainsworth in conferring jurisdiction over his person.
Any purported summons claiming the authority to compel John Charles Ainsworth to appear in any "Court of Law" or "Judicial" court, must find its origination from a Judicial officer who has signed the summons or warrant and who has taken testimony from a duly sworn witness under oath that a crime has taken place (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV and V; North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Sect. 22). There must be a victim, or Corpus Delicti, who has been unlawfully damaged under the laws of God.
A "citation" issued by an officer of the Department of Motor Vehicles (a branch/subsidiary of the Department of Revenue) or other such executive agency is insufficient at Law to summons John Charles Ainsworth to any hearing whatsoever. It is a mere request at best and a fraud upon the Court at worst. It fails in all the requirements of a Judicial summons and cannot maintain or support any criminal complaint whatsoever, as it issues from an executive agent of the Corporate State of North Carolina, a bankrupt entity with no standing at Law, and with no compelling, contractual, or controlling nexus as pertains to John Charles Ainsworth; is unsigned by a Judicial official (which makes the trial anything but a Judicial trial, see Cummings V. Missouri, supra); brings forth no Corpus Delicti nor any other actual victim who has sustained an unlawful damage as a result of actions taken by John Charles Ainsworth and, as such, it fails to confer upon the court jurisdiction over the person of John Charles Ainsworth.
Conclusion
The epitome of war is the use of force to subjugate an entire body politic to the will of others. At issue is whether free government composed of free Citizens is allowed to exist in America. We need only look at modern oppressive societies to see the earmarks of the dissolution of Constitutional government and the ensuing loss of Liberty and Freedom of their people.
Although the Constitution of 1971 was voted upon by the general populace, the nature of the body politic had been changed and the subjugation of the entire nation was already completed through the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts and the 14th Amendment. Would this "vote" upon the Constitution not be the equivalent to the people of the old Soviet Union voting upon a new Constitution, when all the world knew it was a forced union by a centralized power? Would said vote turn the Iron Curtain States into “free Republican governments?” When the Iron Curtain fell, all the free world rejoiced in the new found freedom of the former Soviet States from oppressive centralized government. In this we see the hypocrisy of our own country and the very reason for this brief:
"No judicial fetters must interfere with the defense of the State, which has to adapt itself to the strategy of the enemy. This is the task of the Gestapo, which claims the status of an army and which, like an army, cannot allow judicial regulations to thwart its initiative in the struggle." Dr. Best, high official from the Ministry of the Interior, Germany, quoted in The Gestapo, A History of Horror, by Jacques Delarue, pg. 123, 1964.
In America, the enemy are those who seek freedom and Lawful government under the auspices of the Constitutional framework set up by the founders of our country, and the struggle is the effort to maintain the overthrow of Lawful state government and the subjugation of their people. In America now, as in Germany at that time, the mantra is:
"When the Gestapo (police) gives an order one does not discuss - one obeys." Decision of the Prussian Administrative Court quoted in The Gestapo, A History of Horror, by Jacques Delarue, pg. 122, 1964.
And Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion supporting the majority opinion that the "Presidents power must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself" warns us of the pattern:
"Germany, after the First World War, framed the Weimar Constitution, designed to secure her liberties in the Western tradition. However, the President of the Republic, without concurrence of the Reichstag, was empowered temporarily to suspend any or all individual rights if public safety and order were seriously disturbed or endangered. This proved a temptation to every government, whatever its shade of opinion, and in 13 years suspension of rights was invoked on more than 250 occasions. Finally, Hitler persuaded President Von Hindenburg to suspend all such rights, and they were never restored. Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 651 (1951).
And warns us of the clear direction America is taking,
"In view of the ease, expedition and safety with which Congress can grant and has granted large emergency powers, certainly ample to embrace this crisis, I am quite unimpressed with the argument that we should affirm possession of them without statute. Such power either has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed that it would plunge us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction. Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 653 (1951).
In the above principles brought to play on our own shores, we see the burgeoning growth of our "central" government beginning to experiment with these very measures. It can also be seen in the recently passed, and unnoticed, USA Patriot Act which no one seems to be able to understand, is nothing more than an outright attack on those liberties which the government and the Constitution are supposed to be dedicated to preserve. Unchecked, these powers can lead to the total destruction of our beloved country as Justice Jackson stated, to wit:
"The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no legislative power. The executive action we have here originates in the individual will of the President and represents an exercise of authority without law. No one, perhaps not even the President, knows the limits of the power he may seek to exert in this instance and the parties affected cannot learn the limits of their rights. ... With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive by under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations. Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1951).
In fact:
"The current law, which has thus accreted over a period of 50 years, gives the President a wide range of powers, but only in time of war or declared national emergency. . . . The President, with the approval of Congress, has thus used as authority for extraordinary actions laws which have no real relationship whatsoever to existing circumstances. As a consequence, a "national emergency" is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has become the regular and normal method of governmental action. What were intended by congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations and for the most limited duration have become everyday powers; and a state of "emergency" has become a permanent condition." Department of Justice, May 21, 1973.
If this was the prevailing condition nearly 30 years ago, it is not hard to imagine just where the "government" is positioning itself at this very moment. Too much government, constantly infringing itself on our Liberties and Freedoms has diminished those Freedoms until they are unrecognizable and nearly non-existent. It is fairly safe to say that we are conditional bond servants to the prevailing exigencies of government and at their mercy in all our Liberties and properties. Should this state of affairs be allowed to continue we will wake up slaves on the continent our forefathers shed their blood to free.
Much has already transpired to effect the tightening of the chains and the loss of our Liberties, we are taxed in every thing and we do nothing, including work, without "permission" from some agency of government either federal, state, or local;
"The octopus extended its tentacles. Permits were necessary in order to exercise certain commercial businesses,... The Gestapo saw in this a new field for control. It contested the validity of these commercial licenses and took the matter up with the Court of Saxony. The judgment was a masterpiece of servility. "Since tradesmen can carry out their business in a manner which might permit the development of subversive activities, the trade authority is duty-bound to consult the Gestapo before issuing permits." Thus the Gestapo was able to exercise pressures of all kinds on tradesmen who were politically suspect." The Gestapo, A History of Horror, by Jacques Delarue, pg. 122, 1964.
Not only has the United States government and its satellite State governments created hundreds of new offices and officers to regulate tradesmen, it has created offices to regulate virtually every aspect of human behavior and activity (see declaration of causes, Declaration of Independence). Nothing is left to the citizen to do freely and unabated without some over riding government regulation or agency.
Although this brief may seem to have taken a turn to philosophy and lamenting the problems facing this country today, it is not without purpose. From viewing the principles laid down in the body of this brief and considering the concluding remarks, John Charles Ainsworth once again returns to one overriding truth; that all legislation has proper subjects and affects only those proper subjects who fall under its purview. Not all legislation applies to all people, though some would have this believed. It applies only to the "proper subjects of legislation." This being the case, John Charles Ainsworth reiterates that he is not the "proper subject" of the legislation that the State attempts to foist upon him. He is outside the venue claimed and assumed by the State to apply to him. He is a Free Christian Man unfettered by the chains of the "citizen" who is "subject" to the jurisdiction asserted. He is a Citizen of the de jure state of North Carolina with full political rights and who exercises all the rights of sovereignty.
It is clear from the Statement of the case that North Carolina Constitution (1971), Article I Section 18 and N.C.G.S. § 15A-952 (d) carry no force in Mecklenburg County Courts, both District and Superior. The Court of Jerome Leonard, without any protest from the Assistant District Attorneys present or from the Bailiff, refused to allow any recording of the proceedings (See Notice of Filing Documents refused by the Court... page 3 of the record.), refused John Ainsworth's motion to challenge jurisdiction to be entered into the record in violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-952 (d) thus denying John Ainsworth the supposed Constitutional Right of “remedy by due course of law; and right and justice shall be administered without favor, denial or delay” Article I Section 18 supra (emphasis added).
It is equally clear that both Judge Leonard and Boner along with the several Assist. Dist. Attorneys present in those courtrooms beleive that they have authority to use the Courts as tools of intimidation and coercion. In referencing the tactics of the Gestapo and America's evolution of elimination of guaranteed freedoms and rights through our “perpetual state of emergency,” it is easy to draw the conclusion that Mecklenburg County Courts along with the District Attorneys Office have crossed the line from being administrators of rights and justice seeking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, to being administrators of the overthrow of fundamental rights and fundamental laws and have ceased being worthy of holding the publics trust.
The Appellate Court has a duty to step in and restore the confidence of the people in the Courts and severely reprimand both of the lower courts of Mecklenburg County along with the Mecklenburg County District Attorneys Office.
John Ainsworth is asking is that the Jurisdiction Challenge be, debated and rebutted in a fair, impartial and thorough manner in the District Court of Meck. County. To deny this would affirm that the District Court process is not bound by the parameters of due process.
Relief Requested
Dismiss the alleged action or mandate the Jurisdictional challenge be proven at Law on the record with points and authorities showing the State government asserting said jurisdiction is the lawful State that entered the Union in 1789 under the 1776 Constitution; that the "new" State created by the Reconstruction Acts were lawfully and Constitutionally created by the consent of the people who held title to the land of North-Carolina and that the 14th Amendment which changed the origin and character of American citizenship was lawfully and Constitutionally ratified; all of which go directly to the jurisdictional question as relates to John Charles Ainsworth. The Challenge should be heard in the lower Courts.
Submitted this 14th day of October, 2002.
_____________________
John Charles Ainsworth
Certificate of Service
This is to certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Brief was served on the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina by depositing a copy, contained in a first-class postage paid wrapper, into a depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows, this 15th day of October, 2002.
Attorney General
______________________________
John Charles Ainsworth
- -
NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS, REFUSED BY THE COURT TO BE FILED, WHICH ARE REFERENCED IN ORAL ARGUMENTS. Page 3 of the record.
N.C.G.S. §15A-952(d)- Motions concerning jurisdiction of the court...may be made at any time.
United States Constitution Article VIII states; “Excessive bail shall not be required...”
Cruden v. Neale, 2 N. Car. 338 (1796): "When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
Preamble to the Constitution of North Carolina, 1776:
"Whereas, allegiance and protection are in their nature reciprocal, and the one should of right be refused when the other is withdrawn;"
Senate Report 93-549 (1973); Introduction: A brief Historical Sketch of the Origins of Emergency Powers Now in Force.
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. ...And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."
See attached Declaration of Re-Establishment of the North-Carolina American Republic and John Charles Ainsworth's Affidavit of Citizenship and Domicile.
The term “Citizen” has been distinguished from the term “alien” It has been said that the critical attribute which distinguishes the citizen from the alien is that the citizen posses political rights, including the right to vote, to hold elective office, and serve as a juror. Wash-Herroitt vs City of Seattle, 500 p. 2nd 101 (emphasis added)
Subject. Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government. Cite omitted. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990 (emphasis added).
DJE 24 MoL, surrender of the Office of the Governor by Jonathan Worth, to the Military Authority who appointed W.W. Holden in his place
Jones vs. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226 “The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects the rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
|
