Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:34:10 -0400
From: John Ainsworth
To: "tigerja@bellsouth.net"
Subject: Re-Establishing lawful government in North-Carolina
I am forwarding a copy of an e-mail that I sent out to a friend in Colorado. The info is
up to date and provides a glimpse at what we are doing in the Re-establishment Movement.
It appears that the "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA" that was created by the Unconstitutional
Reconstruction Acts does not choose to spar over its legitimacy at this time. We will keep you
updated. Feel free to send this to anyone who might understand the issues addressed.
John
**************************************************
Dale,
Good to hear from you. It's been a while since I have received anything from you.
Give me an update on your health.
An Update From North-Carolina-
One of our Citizens, Patty Honeycutt, went into Court over a traffic ticket. Our issue is
jurisdiction. We fight their legitimacy to exercise jurisdiction over Citizens of the
Re-established North-Carolina republic organized under the North-Carolina Constitution
of Dec. 18, 1776.
Anyone who understands post Civil War Reconstruction knows beyond all doubt
that they were unconstitutional Acts of Congress designed to destroy "States rights"
and subjugate all American citizens to the will of the Federal Congress.
In knowing that an unconstitutional Act of Congress creates nothing, and that the
Reconstruction Acts "created" what is presently called "The State of North Carolina,"
Then we argue that the "State" prosecuting the case does not exist in law. Also, since
they could sustain some form of legitimacy in the absence of lawful government, they
loose that "shadow" of legitimacy by the people exercising their right by re-establishing
what was never lawfully taken from them. Our argument also included the fact that for
the "Reconstructed state" to proceed would be a violation of Art. III Sec. 3 of the
United States Constitution as follows;
"Art. III, Sec. 3 - Treason Against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Our stand is that the prosecutor is giving "aid and comfort" to the original Acts of
treason committed by the 39th Congress by maintaining the unlawful overthrow of one
of the lawful States of the American Union and the continued subjugation of the people
of said state.
We filed a 23 page brief to support the claim of illegitimacy of the "State" prosecuting
the case. The "State" did not rebut one statement or present any evidence that they were
legitimate and had lawful jurisdiction. Patty did an outstanding job questioning the judge on
proving jurisdiction. Judge Ralph C. Gingles stated that they were going to proceed on
the basis that they had jurisdiction and that our arguments were without merit. In response
to Mrs. Honeycutt's questions Mr. Gingles stated that he would not provide a written
ruling on why the arguments were without merit.
The following is what transpired immediately before the start of the trial:
Mrs. Honeycutt: Can you tell me (on) what principal it's without merit?
THE COURT (Ralph Gingles): Ma'am, I'm not going to say this anymore.
Mrs. Honeycutt: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm not going to do that.
Mrs. Honeycutt: How can you not go into it? Aren't you here to --
THE COURT: Because I'm the judge, and I'm the judge, and you either do-
Mrs. Honeycutt: Do you or do you not abide by the Constitutional Laws?
THE COURT: Ma'am I'm not here to be questioned. You're here on trial and you
can either proceed or else.
Mrs. Honeycutt: Or else what? .......... I mean, if you want to go ahead and declare
me guilty, then please do so because I will appeal it because for me to take any further
steps in this court, and to continue, would be giving merit to your -
THE COURT: I treat -- I treat the defendant's words as a not guilty plea. .... you
may call your first witness.
With this the District Court trial began. Patty refused to participate and the "court"
proceeded to find her guilty.
Patty immediately gave notice that she would not accept this Court's ruling and
sent this matter to the next level.
All of this happened on Dec. 10, 1999. It must be noted that the Court usually
gives an arraignment date either that day or the next. Patty called every week to find
her arraignment date. She did this through mid May. She finally received word from
Asst. District Attorney Karen Greene that the case was dismissed by Ms. Greene on
May 10,2000 without ever even arraigning Mrs. Honeycutt.
The official reason given for the dismissal was "Use of prosecutorial discretion in
the interest of judicial economy." The real reason, in all probability, is to continue the
132-year cover-up of the unconstitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts and the
illegitimacy of the so called "States" created by them.
That's all for now, again it was good hearing from you again. Please do give me
an update on you and what's going on in Colorado.
Toward freedom, Through Christ,
John C. Ainsworth
Senator,
Re-Established North-Carolina Republic
|
