DOCUMENTS	CASES	PETITION	ARTICLES	EVENTS	DONATE
FORMS	MAILING LIST	NEWSLETTER	CONTACT	NC BLOG	HOME

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISTRICT COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF GASTON File # _____99IF8737_____

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )

Plaintiff, ) REVISED 10-7-99

)

vs. ) RESPONDENT’S SECOND MEMORANDUM

) OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLEA IN BAR:
Patricia Preston Honeycutt, )

Respondent )

__________________________________________________________________________ )

WHEREAS. I, Patricia Preston Honeycutt, sui juris, having first-hand knowledge of the facts as stated herein, hereinafter "respondent", hereby enter this Memorandum of Law in support of the preceding Plea in Bar, to-wit: This memorandum deals with other jurisdictional issues not specifically addressed in the preceding Memorandum.

I
Definitions:

1. The definitions found above in Respondent’s First Memorandum shall apply equally to this memorandum and are incorporated herein as if fully reproduced.

resident – as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. The Law of Nations Vattel

freeman – a person in the possession and enjoyment of all the civil and political rights accorded to the people under a free government. Such classification of individuals have been effectively removed from within the geographic boundaries of North-Carolina by the Acts of Congress called ‘Reconstruction.’

unconstitutional act – 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.

Excess of jurisdiction – Acts which exceed defined power of court in any instance. Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 17 Cal.2d 942, 948. A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an "excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 53 Cal.App.2d 339, 127 P.2d 934, 937.
II
Original Jurisdiction:

Original jurisdiction of a given area, place or people stems directly from the ownership

of the land. In the case of one of the several United States original jurisdiction lies with the free people of the individual state. Original jurisdiction in regard to conflicts between Citizens of different jurisdictions, according to our Constitution lies in Article III.

2. The North-Carolina Constitution of the Freeman of North-Carolina of December 18, 1776 states in Article 25 of the Declaration of rights, "The property of the soil, in a free government, being one of the essential rights of the collective body of the people…" By this statement it is clear that the property of North-Carolina rightfully belongs to the free people of North-Carolina until such time as it is lawfully and constitutionally transferred. In fact the property (ownership) of the land is an essential right of the free people of North-Carolina.

3. With respect to North-Carolina, the land was ceded to the People of North-Carolina by King George III of England in Article 1 of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, signed in Paris, France in 1783 which states:

"His Britannick Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. …., North Carolina, ….to be Free, Sovereign, and Independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof."

a. A point touched upon in Respondent’s First Memorandum is that President Johnson on July 19, 1867, who as the Commander and Chief of the United States Military forces, stated "…the title of each of these states to the lands and public buildings owned by them has never been disturbed, and not a foot of it has ever been acquired by the United States (1^st Hooven)..." By this statement it is clear that the military forces of the United States government acting under authority of the resolution of Congress of July 1861, concerning the Object of the Civil War, never conquered any state prior to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Therefore the title to the property and the government remain in the hands of the free people of North-Carolina. President Andrew Johnson proclaimed the war to be over in a Presidential Proclamation of Peace dated August 20^th 1866 in which he stated:

"And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exists in and throughout the whole of the United States of America."

i. Both houses of Congress passed Resolutions in July of 1861 stating that the object of the war "...was not for any purpose of conquest, subjugation or interference with states rights," which point was re-iterated by President Johnson in his proclamation of peace dated August 20^th 1866.

However, Governor Jonathan Worth surrendered the civil government of North-Carolina, during a time of Presidentially proclaimed peace, to the occupying Federal military forces on July 1^st 1868. Said surrender is documented by a letter from Governor Worth attached hereto as "Exhibit C" and incorporated herein as if fully reproduced, {North Carolina Archives, Raleigh, North-Carolina, pages 170 and 171, Governor Jonathan Worth’s Original Letter book.} which states in substantial part:

"Yesterday morning I was verbally notified by Chief Justice Pierson that in obedience to a telegram from General Canby, he would today at 10 A M administer to you (W.W. Holden) the oaths required preliminary to your entering upon the discharge of duties of Civil Governor of the State; – and that there upon you would demand possession of my office.

I intimated to the Judge my opinion that such proceeding was premature even under the Reconstruction legislation of Congress and that I should probably decline to surrender the office to you.

At sundown yesterday evening I received from Col. Williams, Commandant of this Military Post an extract from General Orders No. 120. – of Gen. Canby as follows;

Head Quarters 2^nd Military Dist

General Orders No 120 }

To facilitate the organization of the new State Government, the following appointments are made. To be Governor of North Carolina, W. W. Holden, Governor elect, Jonathan Worth, removed… to take effect July 1^st 1868"

We see here that the government of North-Carolina which is prosecuting this case was put into place by a military order, not the consent of the free people of North-Carolina. Governor Jonathan Worth went on to state:

" I do not recognize the validity of the late election, under which you and those cooperating with you claim to be invested with the Civil Government of the State. You have no evidence of your election, save a certificate of a Major General of the United States Army. I regard all of you as, in effect, appointees of the Military power of the United States, and not as "deriving your powers from the consent of those you claim to govern. Knowing however, that you are backed by Military force here, which I could not resist if I would, I do not deem it necessary to offer a futile opposition but vacate the office without the ceremony of actual eviction, offering no further opposition than this, my protest. I would submit to actual expulsion in order to bring before the Supreme Court of the United States the question as to the Constitutionality of the legislation under which you claim to be the rightful Governor of the State, if the past action of that tribunal furnished any hope of a speedy trial. I surrender the office to you under what I deem Military duress, without stopping as the occasion would well justify. To comment upon the singular coincidence that the present State Government is surrendered, as without legality, to him whose own official sanction, but three years ago, declared it valid."

ii. The State of North Carolina prosecuting this case was unconstitutionally created by an Act of Congress of March 2^nd 1867, namely the first of the Reconstruction Acts, over President Johnson’s veto, and in direct contravention of the Constitution for the United States of America; North-Carolina had no representation in said Congress and, said Acts are unconstitutional, null and void on their face. The United States supreme Court has been asked to rule on the validity of said Acts, but has declined to do so. In fact there has been a well documented cover up concerning the unconstitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts. It must be noted that the function of government is to protect the rights of the people. The duty of the Supreme Court is one of the checks and balances of power. In the words of Alexander Hamilton from Federalist Paper number 78:

"…the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments… since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty… it is not otherwise to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law."

The Supreme Court clearly violated their duty to the American people by failing to keep the legislative branch of government from usurping powers. Even though there is no constitutionally delegated authority allowing Congress to annul or abolish existing states, and all powers not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people, the Supreme Court allowed just such an abuse to happen, as documented in the following examples concerning the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts;

I. Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall 50-78 December 1867: "A bill to restrain the defendants, who represent the executive authority of the government, from carrying into execution certain Acts of Congress, inasmuch as such execution would annul and totally abolish the existing State Government of Georgia, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.’ {Emphasis respondent’s}

The validity of the Reconstruction Acts came before the supreme Court again in March of 1868 in the case of Ex parte McCardle 74 U.S. 506. Immediately after the supreme Court assumed jurisdiction in the McCardle case Congress rushed through a bill repealing the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme Court. This Act was passed over President Johnson’s veto as being unconstitutional.

The arguments in the McCardle case had been finished while the bill was still pending, and the Court, had it so chosen, could have rendered it’s decision before Congress acted. But it did not choose to do so. Instead, it waited until the bill was passed and then postponed further consideration of the matter until the next term. At the next term; in the decision delivered by Chief Justice Chase, it said; "this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgement… for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal…."

II. In the floor debates in the House of Representatives concerning the passage of the bill removing the supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction Representative Woodward stated

"Now, here is another point. When this Government entered upon the perilous enterprise which is known as reconstruction, and what even more questionable scheme which is known by the name of the Freedmen’s Bureau, both which measures, taken separately or together, were nothing more or less than invasion of sovereign States with the military power of the Government, and to force upon the people of those States a government not of their choice, but such a government as we chose to dictate from these Halls…"

"This bill proposes the repeal of the law, which has not been asked for by the people of those states in whose behalf the law was passed, not demanded by any great public necessity, but dictated, according to the confession of the gentlemen from Iowa himself, merely by a desire to prevent the Supreme Court of the United States from deciding McCardle’s case. And the reason of this desire was a fear that the Supreme Court would declare the Reconstruction Laws unconstitutional and void."

"Sir, in former times, candid and wise legislators were most anxious that questionable legislation should be brought to judicial tests at the earliest possible moment…. But it was rumored that the Supreme Court were likely to declare the Reconstruction Laws unconstitutional; and this bill was reported and passed, says the gentleman from Iowa, for the purpose of preventing that."

"There is another point which I trust will not be overlooked by the public. The Government under which we live happily distributes its powers in three separate coordinate departments. The legislative is one of them, but the judiciary is also one of them. And the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court of the United States and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish. Now, McCardle’s case was a judicial case. It presented a question for judicial inquiry. Jurisdiction had attached. The rights of McCardle had vested. And I deny that the legislative department has any power to meddle with the coordinate department, the judiciary, while the latter is performing its appropriate functions in respect to jurisdiction of a particular case that has attached."

" … this law prostrates all distinction between the coordinate branches into which the political power of this country was divided. It is no longer true that judicial power belongs exclusively to the judicial department. It is henceforth true that the Legislature may invade the courts and stop the exercise of judicial power in proper judicial cases. In other words, Sir, the first principles of the Government under which we live are trampled under foot by this law. The Constitution, which we have sworn to support, is utterly disregarded by this law."

" What are the people of the country to understand from such legislation? Just this: that the legislative department of the country is determined to consolidate all the powers of the government into its own hands; determined to consolidate this government into a grand legislative oligarchy, the country to be governed by the Legislature, and the Legislature to be governed by a caucus, and a caucus to be governed by, the Lord knows who …"

"Sir, if this legislation means anything it means just this: that the President shall not exercise the constitutional functions of his office, the judges shall not exercise the constitutional powers vested in them, but the legislative will shall be supreme; which I say is a repeal of the Constitution of the United States and a consolidation of all the political power of this government into the hands of a legislative oligarchy to be wielded I know not by whom."

And in the Senate of the United States concerning the repeal of the Supreme Court jurisdiction a Senator Hendricks stated,

"Perhaps it may be proper for me to suggest that it is understood that the Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take any action upon any case that is now before it under the act proposed to be repealed until the will of Congress upon this particular bill shall finally be known."

This is clear that the Supreme Court could have acted in the performance of it’s duties had it choose to. Instead it chose to become a co-conspirator in the depravation of rights of the American people in violation of their oaths and their sworn duty.

IV. Concerning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the McCardle case, on the floor of the United States Senate, a Senator Doolittle on March 25^th 1868 is quoted as follows,

"Mr. President, my honorable friend from Illinois seems to think that there is no importance in this measure; that it effects nothing and nobody, that there is no case pending in the Supreme Court that this act will effect…"

" We all know, the whole world knows, that this case of McCardle is pending in the Supreme Court, brought up on appeal, under the Act of 1867, from the circuit court of Mississippi, and that that case has been argued, by eminent counsel and that it is pending."

"It is important because the case involves the constitutionality of the reconstruction acts…It involves the constitutionality of these acts which have been passed by Congress. If there is no such case before the court why does the honorable Senator desire to pass this bill to take away jurisdiction of a case which does not exist? If the honorable Senator does not believe it is an important question to determine whether these acts be or be not constitutional, if he has faith to believe that they are constitutional, and that the court will decide that they are constitutional, why undertake to take away the jurisdiction of the court?"

"Mr. President, the truth is, and we may as well look it square in the face, it is because men know that these acts will be decided to be unconstitutional. That is the reason why they desire to take away from the court the consideration of the question. The matter has been considered; it has already been argued on both sides; and the court stands ready to decide one way or the other, unless Congress interfere and take away its power to decide. Why this haste to take away the power? Is it because you know the court will decide your acts to be unconstitutional?"

3. The State of North Carolina is a federal satellite Government created by unconstitutional Acts of Congress without the consent of the governed.

a. In 1865, elections were held in North-Carolina and new Senators and Representatives were chosen, however those representatives were denied admittance to Congress.

b. In 1866, the People of North-Carolina submitted a new Constitution to Congress to secure their re-admittance to the Union, but that Constitution was rejected.

c. In 1868, another "constitution", written by a new class of "U.S." citizens, which neither recognized the existence of the organic North-Carolina Constitution of 1776 nor retained the sovereignty therein contained, was adopted by said new class of citizens. There are two (2) crucial points here;

i. The Free Inhabitants of North-Carolina had no representation and neither ordained nor established said constitution (wasn’t the Revolutionary War fought over such a situation?) and,

ii. Reading the wording, in the Constitution of the United States, of the 13^th and 14^th Amendments shows that between 1865 and 1868 the term "United States" changed from a "them" to an "it."

4. The State of North Carolina prosecuting this case is a de facto corporation which exists and operates by paramount force, and not by the collective will of the people.

North-Carolina Constitution of 1776; A Declaration of Rights, made by the Representatives of the Freemen of the state of North-Carolina. 1. That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only."

a. Although "Freeman," and many other crucial ideals disappeared from the North Carolina "constitutions" of 1868 and 1971, one very important point remained:

North Carolina Constitution, 1971: "Article I, 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…"

i. However, who are "the people?" In the 1776 Constitution of North-Carolina they were the Free Inhabitants of North-Carolina; in the 1868 and 1971 Constitution of the State of North Carolina they were Congressionally created 14^th Amendment "United States citizens residing in North Carolina! North-Carolina Citizens who do not choose to encumber themselves with a citizenship which makes them "completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (Congress) could not vote in 1868 or 1971, and they can not vote today! The form of citizenship upon which our nation was founded, State Citizenship, was virtually annulled by the Reconstruction Acts without the consent of the people affected.

U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542: "We have in our political system, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." {Emphasis respondent’s.}

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94: "The persons declared to be citizens are "…all persons born or naturalized in the United States [2^nd Hooven] 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." {Emphasis respondent’s}

Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226: "The privileges and immunities clause of the 14^th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all 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 belong to state citizenship." {Emphasis respondent’s.}

5. The respondent belongs to the fundamental class of state Citizens – Free Inhabitants –those to whom the original jurisdiction of the property and government of North-Carolina and the federally created State of North Carolina belongs.

a. There is one other possible conclusion that can be drawn. If the Government will admit it; that North-Carolinians are a conquered people, living under the Lieber Code (a code of martial law, General Order #100, issued by the War Dept. in 1863 under President Lincoln), and are permanently and forever subject to the conquering Federal jurisdiction under force of Bills of pains and penalties. Please note that Bills of pains and penalties are forbidden by the United States Constitution, Article I, § 9, cl. 3, § 10 (States)

Lieber Code: "Article 1: A place, district or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest." {Emphasis respondent’s}

"Article 3: Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws…"

"The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority." {Emphasis respondent’s}

The surrender of the civil government of North-Carolina, which by Congress was being treated as a conquered country, to the occupying military forces on July 1^st 1868 fulfills these two articles of the Lieber code. The creation and operation of a de facto government outside of the rightful legitimate authority, according to this, can be executed without public notification and it can take on the appearance of having a normal peacetime operation.

The extent of governmental operations outside of the Constitution leading to the virtual annulment of the rights of the several American States and their people is partially documented in Senate Report 93-549, reported by the United States Senate in November of 1973. Although parts of the report are misleading and it does not reveal the entirety of the Constitutions demise, a few excerpts are as follows:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all 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 crisis have – from at least the Civil War – in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

" In this, what is for all practical purposes, permanent state of emergency, Presidents have exercised numerous powers … legitimated by that ongoing state of national emergency. "

"Because Congress and the public are unaware of the extent of emergency powers, there has never been any notable congressional or public objection made to this state of affairs. Nor have the courts imposed significant limitations."

"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 durations have become everyday powers; and a state of "emergency" has become a permanent condition."

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who is often quoted in his opinion that "It is not the function of government to keep the citizens from falling into error; it is the function the citizen to keep the government from falling into error," is cited in Senate Report 93-549. Justice Jackson, in the majority opinion in the Youngstown Steele case concerning what have become everyday powers over the people, states:

"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 limit of their rights."

Taken together, all of the above show that the original jurisdiction of the soil, government and people of North-Carolina has never been lawfully transferred to those openly exercising authority within its borders. It shows that the sworn duties of governing officials have been cast aside, and that well documented encroachments and usurpations have occurred that have absolutely overturned the American Constitutional form of government. It is also obvious that this state of affairs will not change until such time as the people exercise their rights to reestablish their guaranteed yet usurped form of government.

III
Conflict of Interest

1. There exists, in the above-captioned action, a major conflict of interest in that the State of North Carolina is the Plaintiff, the Prosecution, and any Judge in the above-named North Carolina Superior Court and any "licensed attorney" whom the respondent should hire or have appointed for her are all members of a Bar Association which is a corporation created by statue.

a. This fact; that it boils down to the State of North Carolina, also including officers and agents thereof, versus the respondent, "stacks the deck" so heavily in favor of the State that even if the State had jurisdiction, a "fair trial by an impartial finder of fact" would be impossible.

i. The State of North Carolina has a vested interest in seeing that it wins the case, and that any and all who challenge the State’s legitimacy and/or authority are punished.

ii. The respondent has a vested interest only in seeing that she is free to exercise her unalienable rights as a Citizen and, if charged with a crime, to see that she is afforded due process of law, in the proper jurisdiction and venue.

b. Even the most renowned "federalist" Alexander Hamilton spoke at length in The Federalist Papers # 78 about the necessity of keeping the branches of government separate and equal and the dangers involved when one branch usurps delegated authority, but even he did not foresee the current unlawful state of affairs in North Carolina where the laws are written and administered "by the lawyers, for the lawyers" - where the majority of the legislators, all of the lawyers, on both sides of a case and all of the judges are members of a State-created corporation, and all of them owe their allegiance to the corporate State as opposed to the Citizens of the state.

Article 1, Section 6 of the 1971 North Carolina Constitution states:

Sec. 6 Separation of powers. The legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the State government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other.

ii. The public laws of 1933, chapter 210, provides a legislative enactment to create a state bar as an agency of the state. This act creates an agency beholding to and whose allegiance is to a state not created by the will of the people. Article 1, Section 34 of the 1971 North Carolina Constitution says: "…monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state and shall not be allowed." Clearly the State Bar and those regulated by it have a clear monopoly on the exercise, interpretation, and process of the laws. Its’ members have passed and enforced enactments designed to allow only members of the State Bar representational powers in the State of North Carolina’s courts of law, even if it is not in the best interest of the client. To interpret the right of council to include only members of the State Bar is clearly prejudicial and unconstitutional. To the people are reserved the rights not specifically enumerated or delegated to the Government.

2. The respondent does not presume to tell The State of North Carolina how to create a fair and equitable system of Justice, nor can she; however, the respondent does see a clear conflict of interest with respect to the above-captioned action.

3. The Public Laws and Resolutions passed by the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina of 1941 passed resolution 24 entitled A JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A DECLARATION OF THE FEDERATION OF THE WORLD. This resolution, still on the books, gives the people of North Carolina notice that the State of North Carolina is resolved to attain the goal of establishing a government for the community of nations. Resolutions, though not law, are enforced and come into fruition by subsequent passage of laws, policies, and procedures.

a. In The North Carolina Law Review , volume 26 of February of 1948, J. McNeil Smith, Jr., a member of the North Carolina Bar, made the following statements:

"Can the United Nations, as it is now constituted, establish the rule of law for this world community? …It would seem axiomatic that any government must have a monopoly of physical power far superior to what could be accumulated by any one or groups of its subjects, and that that power must be exercisable directly upon each of its individual subjects."

"When all the articles in this collection devoted mainly to support the United Nations are taken together the significant impression is that even its chief supporters are not satisfied that the United Nations, as it is now constituted, can do the job and say it is but a start in the right direction of world government and that gradually it may grow into one. But the truth is that the United Nations cannot strengthen itself; that takes political action."

"Every lawyers job should be to grasp this vision of the world community attempting to exist without a government and therefore without law. Having grasped it, each lawyer is the best, perhaps the only man in his community who can alert his fellow citizens to the urgent necessity of establishing a government for that world community, and those fellow citizens will, according to recent public opinion polls, respond surprisingly well. …This is the greatest challenge in the history of the bar."

Department of State Publication 7277 released in September, 1961 by the Bureau of Public Affairs titled, FREEDOM FROM WAR; The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World states in its summary of disarmament goals and objectives the following goal:

"The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of the reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to the United Nations Peace Force."

The "The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of the reestablishment in any form whatsoever" means all of branches of the United States Armed Forces for the purpose of maintaining our sovereignty as an independent nation. Mr. Smiths axiomatic belief, that "any government must have a monopoly of physical power far superior to what could be accumulated by any one or groups of its subjects, and that that power must be exercisable directly upon each of its individual subjects," in this instance, is relating to the physical power of a World Government. The free inhabitants of North Carolina who vehemently oppose the erosion of their rights by being made unwilling subjugated citizens of the United States Congress, through 14^th Amendment U.S. citizenship, further oppose the additional erosions of their sovereignty and powers of self government by being herded into and subject to another new classification of citizen, the "world citizen." It is not unreasonable to assume that members of the Bar, in the form of judges, prosecuting Attorneys and defense Attorneys, will be willing enforcers of the exaction of monies in the form of taxes, fees and fines for the support of a "World Army" and the forced subjugation of the people of North-Carolina, in violation of the people’s constitutionally guaranteed rights. These monies will be used to support and maintain an Army not for the American people’s sovereign protection, but for the protection of foreign peoples and foreign policies. The dictates of Congress and the acquiescence of the American people do all of this, not the peoples consent. Federalist Paper # 78 addresses this particular point;

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both, and that where the will of the legislature, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws rather than by those which are not fundamental."

"… that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act. But it is easy to see that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community."

"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them…And every man must now feel that that the inevitable tendency of such spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress."

The concept that the American people can waive their constitutional rights through acquiescence to governmental dictates is further addressed as follows:

"Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must be done voluntarily, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of relevant circumstances and consequences." Brady v US, 397 US 742

"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of respect for the law are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." US v Minker, 350 US 179

The position the North Carolina State Bar finds itself is one in which they possess a political agenda to enforce subjugation to both federal jurisdiction (including the federally created State of North Carolina prosecuting this matter) and world jurisdiction over state citizens to whom they have a sworn oath to protect. This is occurring despite Article 3 of the North Carolina Bar Association’s corporate charter which states:

"The purpose for which the corporation is organized as a non-profit corporation are to promote and encourage the administration of justice in North Carolina; to advance the science in jurisprudence in all its aspects; PROVIDED, however, that all policies and activities of the corporation shall be consistent with all applicable tax exempt requirement." And "…nor shall any substantial part of the corporation’s activities consist of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation."

It is the respondent’s belief that non-profit corporations are not allowed to be political organizations with political agendas. It appears that there is a conflict in this aspect also.

The respondent finds herself in the position of only being able to be "represented" in the State of North Carolina courts by members of an organization openly hostile to her fundamental right of "State Citizen."

i. Citizenship is man’s basic right, for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. U.S. – Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez, Cal., 83 S. Ct. 554, 372 U.S. 344

The respondent’s citizenship is negatively affected and compromised by allowing members of the North Carolina State Bar to represent her. The obvious appearance is they intend to subjugate her into two foreign jurisdictions against both her free will and constitutionally guaranteed rights. The representatives of the State and the Court have taken a sworn oath of office to protect the respondent’s rights associated with her citizenship.

IV
Fundamental Law:

1. Even the federalized North Carolina Constitution of 1971 states in Article I, Sec.

35: "Recurrence to fundamental principles. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty."

a. Black’s Law Dictionary 6^th Ed. defines "fundamental law" as: "The law which determines the constitution of government in a nation or state, and prescribes and regulates the manner of its exercise. The organic law of a nation or state; its constitution."

2. N.C.G.S. §4-1 recognizes the common-law; "Common law declared to be in force. All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force in this State."

a. By skillful wording, the legislature of The State of North Carolina has told one and all that: (1) we recognize that there once was a common-law and, (2) those portions of it which we have not legislated out of existence or our courts declared "obsolete" are still valid.

i. The common-law IS the fundamental law; the Constitution for the United States of America and the Constitution of North-Carolina (1776), that IS precisely the fundamental law upon which those constitutions were based and the only organic law the framers knew!

ii. From the Pentateuch through the Magna Charta, through Blackstone, up to the day when the state of North-Carolina came into existence, the common-law evolved what is repugnant to the common-law? Unconstitutional statutory law!

iii. The Roman Civil Law, declared by the framers of the Constitution for the United States of America to be repugnant and not to be allowed in this nation has, by the efforts of shrewd and cunning men, filled the statute books and eroded the very foundation and fundamental law upon which North-Carolina was created!

iv. Where in the organic United States Constitution or North-Carolina Constitution can one find courts of statutory jurisdiction? There is no such thing

Where are the courts of Law, Equity and Admiralty? Gone! Replaced by a conglomeration of all three rolled into one. Removed by the Federal Government.

a. Article IV of the reconstructed Constitution of North Carolina of 1868 states in Section 1:

" 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.…"

3. Perhaps the best description of the common-law was written by Mr. Justice Brown in the previously-cited Hale v. Henkel, 201 US 43 @ 74:

"The individual may stand upon his rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his own business in his own private way. His power to contract is unlimited."

"…He owes no duty to the State since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken away from him by due process of law and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes no duty to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." {Emphasis respondent’s.}

4. The State of North Carolina in its 1971 "constitution" (Art. I, Sec. 35, which reiterates the same principal as Article 21 of the 1776 North-Carolina Constitution) recites, "Recurrence to fundamental principals. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty." A great principle that has been legislated out of existence.

This is a Fundamental Principle: "The created cannot be greater than the creator."

THEREFORE: The State of North Carolina cannot return to the fundamental law as that law never existed in said State (created 1868) and, the state of North-Carolina (organized under the Constitution of 1776) with its inherent sovereignty not only existed long before The State of North Carolina, but was a co-creator of the United States of America.

V
The Unjust Offensive War Against the States

Time has well established the fundamental principals of War. Among these principals is the clear distinction between a ‘just’ and an ‘unjust’ war. "All the rights of a belligerent are derived from the justice of the cause," an ‘unjust’ war therefore confers no rights. – The Law of Nations Vattel 1758

"War is either offensive or defensive. The purpose of defensive war is simple, namely, self defense; the purpose of offensive war varies according to the different interests of nations, but in general it relates either to the enforcement of certain rights or to their protection. My object here is merely to point out in general the various purposes for which war is carried on – purposes which may furnish lawful reasons or unjust pretexts, but which are at least capable of being construed as just. For this reason I do not offer conquest or the desire to usurp the property of another as one of the purposes of offensive war; such a purpose, lacking even the semblance of right, is not the object of formal war, but a brigandage." – The Law of Nations Vattel 1758

1. The Reconstruction Acts, the first of which was passed over the Presidents veto on March 2, 1867 are unquestionably unconstitutional and are literally and in actuality a declaration of war against the free people of the United States of America.

Many people confuse the Reconstruction Acts as the logical conclusion of the object of the Civil War. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts are that the object of the Reconstruction Acts and the object of the Civil War are diametrically opposed.

a. The object of the Civil War as stated by Congressional Resolutions of March 1861:

Was not for any purpose of oppression , "… nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all (Constitutional) laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease."

The objects of the Civil War have never been accomplished. The Union of the states is destroyed, the supremacy of the Constitution is not only a farce but the Constitution provides no limits on federal Executive, Legislative or Judicial powers and the dignity, equality, and rights of the several states are absolutely impaired. In fact they have been abolished and annulled by the will of Congress not the will of the people.

b. The object of the Reconstruction Acts were for the purpose of oppression, conquest, subjugation, and overthrowing the rights, and Civil Governments of the American States. These abuses resulted in the practical annulment of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was designed to keep federal powers limited in relation to those powers reserved to the States and to the State Citizens. By annulling the States Congress effectively rid itself of having limited powers.

On the House of Representatives floor debates of the Reconstruction Acts, Representative Finck of Ohio stated:

"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, 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."

"…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).

"….I have always opposed their attempt to withdraw from the Union. I have always denounced seccession. But, sir, they failed in their mad attempt to overthrow the Union of these States, and have they not suffered, Mr. Speaker, as no people have ever suffered before? I believe they are now sincere in their desire to continue in the Union, and to share the blessings and burdens of a common Government with us. Sir, if we wish a real Union, we must treat them as friends, and not as enemies; we must have confidence in them."

The Reconstruction Acts were oppressive and were for the object of conquest, subjugation and the destruction of the American Union.

2. The objective of ‘conquest’ is a clear one. It is a new title acquired by war. Since the object of the Civil War was not for any purpose of ‘conquest" yet the object of the Reconstruction Acts was for the purpose of "conquest" we clearly see two separate and distinct actions with distinct and opposite objectives.

620,000 Americans died fighting for the Congressionally declared "Objects of The War." 360,000 of these Americans died fighting for the Union Army. The 260,000 that died fighting for the loosing Confederate cause died as honorable men. Their Army humbly surrendering to the "objects" of the victorious Government.

The logical Conclusion and the lawful and morally binding conclusion to the Civil War would be to preserve the Constitution and to preserve Union of the several states and to restore the states to an unimpaired condition with all of their rights restored. To do otherwise would be to dishonor those whom died fighting for just such a cause.

It cannot be logically argued that the citizens of the Northern States fought to vanquish their own "states rights" out of existence. Nor can it be argued that they fought to gain federal control over the states and to convert the fundamental form of citizenship in the United States from that of "state Citizen’ to that of "federal citizen subject to Congress."

a. In the famed Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court confirmed that state citizenship was the primary and fundamental form of citizenship in the United States. The Reconstruction Acts, in a sense "recalled" the Dred Scott decision. The precedent set here is that the Congress is not bound by Supreme Court decisions. It is allowed to ignore the interpretations of the Constitution and substitute their will in its place. The victims being the system of checks and balances and the people who formed the government.

The Reconstruction Acts and the 14^th Amendment go hand in hand and are part and parcel to one another. The Reconstruction Acts dictated that the states affected would remain under martial law and their people would be subject to military tribunals until such time as each individual state voted and rarified the 14^th Amendment and also that enough of the other states ratify it and it became a part of the federal Constitution. They also dictated that only federally subjugated citizens could have political rights in the states. This concept of dictated election outcomes under threat of continued military subjugation violates every principal of free government. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina prosecuting this case states:

Article I §10. Free elections. All elections shall be free.

The Congressional dictate of disfranchising state citizens lead to the absolute overthrow of the Constitution and the protections guaranteed by it. State citizens under this form of government become in reality "aliens" contrary to their birthright and the fundamental laws of the nation.

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 possesses political rights, including the right to vote, to hold elective office, and to serve as a juror. Wash–Herroitt vs. City of Seattle, 500 P. 2^nd 101, 81 Wash. 2^nd 48

The State prosecuting this matter has made it perfectly clear that it has no intention of allowing "Citizens of North-Carolina" any political rights whatsoever. They are not allowed to vote, (SEE ATTACHED North Carolina voter registration application, only United States citizens resident in North Carolina are allowed to vote. Refer to the definition of ‘resident’ in § I.) hold office or be a juror to this day. They are not allowed any right associated with their ‘state Citizenship.’ See attached correspondences between the State prosecuting this matter and Chief Magistrate John C. Ainsworth. The State of North Carolina prosecuting this case is maintaining the continued annulment and abolition of one of the several United States. These Actions violate Article III §3 of the United States of America:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The claim that the Reconstruction Acts are revolutionary measures and that they are also war measures started prior to their final passage and continue to this day.

February 7, 1867 – Representative Thadeous Stevens (Penn.) speaking on the House floor of Congress; "Nearly two years ago the armies of a government calling itself the Confederate States of America were conquered."

February 7, 1867 – Representative Finck (Ohio); "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."

July 19, 1867 – President Andrew Johnson in his veto of the Acts; " Another ground on which these reconstruction acts are attempted to be sustained is this: That these ten States are conquered territory; that their territory is a conquered country and their citizens a conquered people, and in this new relation Congress can govern them by military power."

"A title of conquest stands on clear ground; it is a new title acquired by war…"

"There is not a foot of land in any one of these ten States which the United States holds by conquest… We have not conquered these places, but have simply "repossessed" them."

"From first to last, during the rebellion and since, the title of each of these States to the lands and public buildings owned by them has never been disturbed…" {emphasis respondents}

February 6, 1867 The Connecticut Democratic Convention passed the following Resolutions;

Resolved, That those lately in insurrection against the Federal Government having laid down their arms, and fully resumed their duties as citizens of the United States, there is no obstacle in the way of the harmonious working of our republican institutions, save the factious course of a mutilated Congress, who have inaugurated a new revolution, and are determined to rule the country, in violation of the Constitution, and to establish their wild

and fanatical will as a substitute for the Union framed by the Fathers of the Republic.

Resolved, That the only way in which peace and concord can be reestablished, is by conforming to the requirements of the Constitution, and defeating the Radical party, who spurn its provisions, and imperil the Union by their mad and seditious course.

Resolved, That to effect this object we solemnly pledge our best and most untiring efforts; that the accomplishment of this end is the one grand question now pending, transcending all others in importance, and that the present imminent perils of the country demand the union of all conservative hearts and hands, irrespective of former or present party names, in a vigorous effort to maintain the Federal Constitution in its integrity, and secure its operation according to the spirit and intent of its founders.

Resolved, That the Radical plan of reducing a portion of the United States to Territories, of taking from them those rights always possessed by them since the days of 1776, and of disfranchising their people, is so absolutely opposed not only to the clearest provisions of the Federal Constitution, but to every sound idea of practical statesmanship, is so thoroughly antagonistic to those principles of reserved rights, and of municipal governments, regulating their own domestic affairs, that underlie our republican system, that it is the duty of the people of Connecticut, regardless of past political divisions, to pronounce their condemnation of the Radical party by electing men who love and are determined to preserve the American Constitution and the American Union.

Resolved, That while that portion of the Representatives of the States of this Union, who exclude from the legislative halls the Representatives of ten States, are laboring to subvert our Government, we rejoice in the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States, by its recent decisions in favor of the rights of American citizens, has proved that that august tribunal will perform, without fear or favor, its high and solemn duties.

January, 1867– In Kentucky the Committee on Federal Relations reported the following resolutions;

3. The Government, within the limits of its powers, as defined by the Constitution, is supreme, and should be sustained in the exercise thereof. The rights and powers reserved by the States, in forming the Constitution, are as sacred and inviolable as those conferred on the General Government; and in the exercise of these rights the States cannot be constitutionally disturbed or hindered. The scrupulous observance of these delegated and reserved rights is necessary to preserve the compromises of the Constitution and advance the peace, prosperity, and welfare of the nation. Among the reserved rights is the right of each State to determine the qualifications of voters, and to control and regulate its domestic affairs. Congressional legislation that interferes with these sacred rights is unconstitutional, intrusive, meddlesome, and, if carried into execution, will be tyrannical, and may ultimately prove disastrous to the Union. {emphasis respondents} 4. The States of the Union are sovereign in their reserved rights, and indestructible by virtue thereof therefore Congress has no authority to annihilate any of the several States, and their territorialization is unwarranted by the Constitution and destructive of the very framework of our Government. {emphasis respondents}

December 2, 1867 The Committee on Federal Relations, found the following resolutions;

2. Resolved, That we recognize it as a fact, demonstrated by recent events, that a State cannot withdraw from the Federal Union, nor can it remain therein and annul a Federal law, enacted in pursuance of constitutional authority, nor can the Federal Government expel a State from the Union nor deny or refuse it representation in Congress; that taxation and representation go hand in hand, and under our system of government, to impose the one, and refuse the other, is at war with the spirit and genius of our republican institutions, and would be practising an example of tyranny against which our ancestors made war, and gloriously and justly achieved their independence. {emphasis respondents}

3. Resolved, That the scheme of reconstruction adopted by Congress, and sought to be consummated through the agency of force and fraud, is fraught with incalculable mischief — …We regard the whole scheme as a shameless usurpation, planned and conceived by dishonest politicians, prompted by no higher motives than to perpetuate a political organization unfriendly to free institutions.

June 25, 1867 – Maine– The Democratic State Convention adopted the following resolutions;

2. That representation in the Congress of the United States, and in the electoral college, is a right recognized by the Constitution as abiding in every State, and as a duty imposed upon its people, fundamental in its nature and essential to the existence of our republican institutions, and neither Congress nor the General Government has any authority or power to deny this right to any State, or withhold its enjoyment under the Constitution from the people thereof; and we are, therefore, in favor of admitting to seats, in either branch of Congress, every representative from every State in allegiance to the Government who can be found by each House in the exercise of the power conferred upon it by the Constitution to have been duly elected, returned, and qualified for a seat therein.

3. That our last Congress was without precedent in its utter disregard of the Constitution, and the rights of the people under it; all conservative pledges which, during the war, were made by both branches of Congress by the President and a met, and by our leading generals, were cast aside and disregarded, and the voice of the people, speaking through the minority, was stifled on questions of the most momentous interest, and which overturned the fundamental principles of republican government. Ten millions of people, who had made a full surrender to our victorious arms, were deprived of their equal rights, dignity, and authority, as States within the Union, and were declared as alien enemies, and placed under irresponsible military rule; our taxation was increased, our treasury burdened and, …in short their legislation was used for corrupt and unlawful purposes which merit, and must receive, the condemnation of an enlightened but outraged people. {emphasis respondents}

March 1867 – Maryland – The Maryland Legislature adopted the following resolutions, addressed to the Congress of the United States:

Resolved That the Union being restored, all the States of the Union are coequal States under the broad ægis of the Constitution, each entitled to all the rights and immunities of every other, and all having an equal right to participate in the administration of the Government on the terms and in the manner prescribed by its provisions.

Resolved, That the right of elective franchise rests with the people of the State, and that they alone have the authority to regulate and control its exercise in their respective limits; that any attempt on the part of the Congress of the United States to designate those to whom the right of suffrage should be secured would be in direct and flagrant violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the usages under it, an encroachment on the rights of the States, and, to their great detriment, would contribute to a consolidation of power in the hands of the General Government. {emphasis respondents}

October 14, 1867 – Massachusetts – The Democratic State Party platform set forth the following resolutions:

Resolved, That each State in the Union is free, sovereign, and independent, and entitled to exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not expressly delegated to the General Government in the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved, That those members of Congress who have passed laws outside of, and in defiance of the Constitution, for the purpose of subordinating the civil to the military power, have trifled with the safeguards of justice, liberty, and peace, and are guilty of perjury and usurpation. {emphasis respondents}

January 16, 1867 – New Hampshire – The Democratic State reported and adopted the following resolutions;

That the Democracy of New Hampshire adhere to the time-honored principles of their party as taught by the fathers and approved by experience, that they insist that the powers of the Federal Government are limited by what is expressly granted to it in the Constitution, and that all other powers not so granted are reserved to the States and the people respectively.

2. That the regulation of the elective franchise in the States respectively belongs to them only, and any interference with the matter by the Federal Government is usurpation.

3. That all the States of the Union have a right to representation in Congress and any attempt to deny such representation is revolution, {emphasis respondents}

4. That the Supreme Court of the United States have manifested, by their recent decisions, a respect for the only authority which can give them or any other department of the Government legitimate power and thereby have shown a fearless regard for constitutional law and right.

(Respondants’ note: This was stated prior to Georgia v. Stanton and prior to the intentional and criminal cover up of the Constitutionallity of the Reconstruction Acts)

5. That we tender to President Johnson our acknowledgments for his defence and support of constitutional rights and principles.

That all propositions which contemplate, directly or indirectly, the subversion of the executive or the judicial branches of the Government, or the annihilation of sovereign States, are revolutionary and treasonable, and ought to be resisted by all men are true to the Union and the Constitution. {emphasis respondents}

January 8, 1867– Ohio– The Democratic State Convention Committee on Resolutions reported the following, which were unanimously adopted:

That the Democracy of Ohio adheres to the principles of the party as expounded by the fathers and approved by experience; that, in accordance with these principles, we declare the Federal Government is a government of limited power, and that it possesses no powers but such as are expressly delegated to it in the Constitution; that all other powers are reserved to the States or people respectively; that a strict construction of the Constitution is indispensable to the preservation of the rights of the States and people; that the Federal Government is unfitted to legislate for local concerns of States; that the tendency of the Federal Administration is to usurp reserved rights of the States and people; that freedom of speech and of the press are essential to the existence of liberty. The Constitution is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and protects all classes of men at all times; no doctrine is more pernicious in consequence than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any exigency...; and that frequent recurrence to the first principles is essential to the safety and welfare of the States and people. {emphasis respondents}

That the States which lately attempted to secede are still States in the Union, and have been recognized as such by every department of the Government; that being thus in the Union, they stand on an equal footing with their sister States, with equal rights; that it was a thing unknown to the Constitution that Congress had the power to deprive a State of reserved rights and reduce it to a territorial condition; that therefore the exclusion by Congress of all representation from ten States, their proposed exclusion from the next presidential election, and reduction to Territories, are unconstitutional, revolutionary and despotic—measures destructive to the rights of those States and also to every other State in the Union, and part of a plan to nullify the Constitution, virtually overthrow State governments, and erect despotisms on their ruins and establish a tyrannical minority over a majority of the American people. {emphasis respondents}

That Congress is not an omnipotent law-making power.

The above examples clearly prove that the Reconstruction Acts were not associated in any manner with the object of the Civil War. In fact they were a new War, prosecuted by the 39^th Congress and covered up by the Chase Supreme Court. The Object of said acts were to conquer and subjugate American States and their Citizens outside of the Constitution. Their effect is to make alien enemies of all state Citizens and subjugate them to the federal citizens "resident" in the several states.

Conquest is a war measure. The Reconstruction Acts are an official declaration of conquest. The Reconstruction Acts are unjust Official Declarations of Offensive War upon North-Carolina and the free people inhabiting it’s land.

4. If you hold to the principal that the citizens of the Southern states committed treason and therefore could be punished for their actions, that punishment being the loss of their citizenship, the following must be noted.

a. The Presidential Pardon of December 25, 1868:

" (March The Proclamation of the President of December 25, 1868, granting to all and every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty with restoration of all rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution and the laws blots out the offense."

"This was a public Act, of which all courts of the United States are bound to take notice, and to which all courts are bound to give effect." Armstrong v US 13 Wall., 154-156 25, 1872)

"The general amnesty proclamation of December 25, 1868, proclaiming pardon to all such offenders, released them from punishment and obliterated their offenses."

"The public proclamation of pardon and amnesty has the force of public law, of which courts and officers will take notice, though not specially pleaded." Jenkins et al. V. Collard 145 US 546 ( May 16, 1892)

There is no evidence anywhere to show that the American Citizens in the Southern States were returned to an unimpaired condition with their rights associated with State Citizenship restored.

Article III § 3 cl. 2 United States Constitution

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the person Attained."

The Congressional punishment for the offense of treason cannot constitutionally "work corruption of blood." It cannot be passed to the posterity of those committing the original act. The loss of statehood on equal footing with the original 13 states and the loss of citizenship to said state have been passed down the bloodlines. This is yet another way in which the Congressionally created State is in direct and open violation of the Constitution. The maintenance of the federal State of North Carolina is for the 132 year continued punishment of state Citizens against federal authority.

If you hold to the belief that Treaties are made the supreme law of the land as stated in Article IV § 2 of the United States Constitution then it must be believed that Article 3 of the treaty signed August 14, 1941 is binding and has full force and effect. The Atlantic Charter signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill states:

"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."

V
Annulment of the Christian State

Another ‘war’ that the 39^th Congress waged upon North-Carolina and the free inhabitants thereof was a ‘religious war.’ North-Carolina as established and organized under the 1776 Constitution had/has a Christian State Government. The Reconstruction Acts, if they are held valid, convert North-Carolina from a Christian State into a secular State. This was achieved by changing Constitution concerning the eligibility to hold public office. The 1776 Constitution and the ‘reconstructed’ 1868 Constitution are compared as follows;

CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA OF 1776

32. That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.

CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA OF 1868

SEC. 5. The following classes of persons shall be disqualified for office: First, All persons who shall deny the being of Almighty God. Second; All persons who shall have been convicted of treason, perjury or of any other infamous crime, since becoming citizens of the United States, or of corruption, or malpractice in office, unless such persons shall have been legally restored to the rights of citizenship.

The key element to Christianity is belief in the New Testament, which you can see was forcibly taken out of the Constitution by the Federal Government, not the will of the people of North-Carolina.

In the letter of Paul to the Ephesians 4:14 "As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming… 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light, trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them….For this reason it says, "Awake sleeper, – And arise from the dead, – And Christ will shine on you."

VI
Conclusion:

1. The original jurisdiction of the land and public buildings of North-Carolina belongs to the Free Inhabitants thereof, a small class of People, granted but by the Grace of God, alive and well; neither The State of North Carolina nor the United States (2^nd Hooven) can claim, have, or in fact have ever had original jurisdiction over the land, public buildings or Free Inhabitants.

2. Original jurisdiction does not lie with the federal ‘residents’ of North Carolina. See definition in § I.

3. By God’s Law (even N.C.G.S. §11 recognizes the superiority of God’s Law over man’s law); the Fundamental Law and Constitutional Law, the State of North Carolina has no jurisdiction over anything other than "creatures of statute" - "persons", "residents", et al and, said State is not a "state" at all, but a corporation, federal district and de facto government.

4. As a Christian I can not recognize or participate in any fraudulently founded de facto government waging a treasonous unjust and criminal war upon the fundamental principals and laws of this nation. To force or coerce the respondent to pay any monies in the form of fines or fees, is to force her to commit treason against her own Country by forcing her to give aid, comfort and support to a government at war with the legitimate Government of North-Carolina and the United States of America.

5. As aforementioned, the only other conclusion which can be drawn, given the facts above stated including, but not limited to, the indisputable references to North-Carolina history, is that The State of North Carolina has jurisdiction over the respondent as the respondent is a "person" who is a "resident" of a conquered territory which is under military rule, and has no rights at all (save that of "residence"), only "privileges" for which she must pay

Frost Trucking v. R.R. Comm., 271 US 583: "If some constitutional protection may be denied, there is no good reason in logic why all may not be denied. It would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of legislation which.. seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same is accomplished under the guise of the surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens to withhold . {Emphasis respondents.}

6. What then shall The State of North Carolina say? "Your ‘state of North-Carolina’ doesn’t exist – we have the authority, we have the jurisdiction within your borders !"

a. The respondent can see that The State of North Carolina exists - it is the epitome of the term "de facto" – but, said State doesn’t own the land and never has!

b. The State of North Carolina has jurisdiction over just exactly what a "Congress" devoid of Representatives from ten (10) states (among which was North-Carolina) says it has, and said State has the paramount military force to back it up!

7. Therefore we face a conundrum; either the respondent’s statements with respect to the above-captioned action are true and correct, and The State of North Carolina has no jurisdiction over the respondent in said action or; The State of North Carolina is indeed a federal district operating under the Lieber Code and military rule, the respondent is a conquered "person" living in a conquered territory, and said State will admit same to "prove" in personam jurisdiction.

8. The perpetuation of the current de facto government has occurred with the aid of ‘Courts of Law’ not allowing these law issues to be brought up and diligently argued. It is an oxymoron to have ‘Courts of Law’ not allow issues of law to be argued. Not only is it an oxymoron but it is criminal also. It is the complete meltdown of the principals upon which governments of free people are established. When this occurs, the fundamental Laws of the land are invalidated and a system of checks and balances becomes merely a foreign and strange concept only to be dreamed about.

The Courts have perpetuated this ongoing state of affairs, in large, through the use of acknowledging these arguments as ‘political questions’ of which they refuse to take cognizance. It is a perversion of jurisprudence to harm those that you have a sworn duty to protect. It is a perversion of the science of law to oppress in the name of freedom. It is an absolute perversion and unpardonable for those knowledgeable in the law to hide the political crime of treason behind the guise of a ‘political question!’ Therefore it is demanded that these issues be addressed at length and thoroughly.

9. An unconstitutional act creates no office, it imposes no duty, it affords no protection to those who operate under color of its authority and no one can be punished for not obeying an unconstitutional Act or any statute created under it even before it is declared unconstitutional. The State of North Carolina prosecuting this matter has not been lawfully created and therefore cannot punish anyone who refuses to obey the offices created under the unconstitutional ‘Reconstruction Acts.’

Those acting under color of its authority can be afforded no protection for abusing, oppressing and violating the rights of individuals who exercise their rights by not obeying unconstitutional authority. Sovereign immunity attaches only to those lawfully entitled to that privilege. Sovereign immunity does not attach to usurpers.

By not addressing these issues of extraordinary importance, the remedy to lawful government is denied not only to the respondent but also to the entire population of North-Carolina. Denying remedy and denying knowledge of lawful government continues the unlawful subjugation of millions of Americans. Every abuse incurred under the ‘watch’ of The State of North Carolina attaches responsibility to those abuses, to all who have knowledge of the situation and fail to act.

10. The court has no alternative than to drop this case. Otherwise it would be a trespass on my rights as a citizen of the de jure North-Carolina organized under the Constitution of North-Carolina of 1776. By the court exercising an excess of jurisdiction knowingly and willingly, the court would be in direct violation of Article III § 3 of the United States Constitution, committing a political crime.

11. There have been volumes written on the very subjects and issues which the respondent raises. The respondent could easily turn her Plea in Bar into a volume, however, the respondent believes that she has "covered the bases" in her brief with all respect, the respondent does not wish to take any more of the above-named District Court’s time.

Reserving all rights, the respondent further saith naught.

Respectfully submitted by: ___________________________________________________

Patricia Preston Honeycutt

c/o Post Office Box #######

Charlotte, North-Carolina [#######

Do they accept force and coercion to be legitimate lawful tools of changing a form of government?

DOCUMENTS	CASES	PETITION	ARTICLES	EVENTS	DONATE
FORMS	MAILING LIST	NEWSLETTER	CONTACT	NC BLOG	HOME