Source: http://beholdonline.info/forum/peace_officers.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:28:42+00:00

Document:
I exercised the unalienable right of locomotion in my vehicle with out a state license, registration, or driver's license, for 5 years in Oregon. I still don't have a driver's license. Gave that up in 1981 along with my SS #. I was ticketed for all the above and went to court for 4 1/2 years on the tickets. I learned a lot about how the courts really work. I teach the difference between "judicial" Courts and "non-judicial" Courts.
It results in a lot of dismissals.
I have found the police under the statutory term "Peace Officer" are in really the state military police, and the non-judicial courts are exercising a state Military Jurisdiction titled "Martial Rule" I find this same condition in the Federal Courts as Well. Normally a non-judicial court does not have a criminal jurisdiction, but under a military jurisdiction they do.
"When the citizen is governed by the military power, he is not governed by the soldier's code of military law, but he is said to be governed by martial law; and this law is perfectly distinct and entirely different from military law, to which soldiers are subject."
"The source and origin of the power to establish military commissions, if it exist at all, is in the assumed power to declare what is called martial law. I say what is called martial law; for, strictly there is no such thing as martial law..."
"All the Laws But One" William H. Rehnquist Published by Alfred A. Knopf, INC.
"...the violation of city ordinances are held to be in the nature of civil cases although of a quasi-criminal or penal nature where imprisonment may be inflicted." (Emphasis supplied.) Scott v. Denver, 125 Colo. 68, 241 P.2d 857.
In Oregon, a City Court is a court NOT of Record. Courts NOT of record have no power to fine or imprison, unless they by statute are given a military jurisdiction. They then use the criminal jurisdiction of the military power to do what under the state Constitution they can not do.
I'm sure you have noticed the term "Infraction" used citing vehicle offences. The non-judicial courts say these infractions are of a civil nature, but also are under criminal procedures. Under military law all offences are criminal, but the military defines some criminal offences as a lessor crime than others. But all offences are under criminal procedures.
17. "In all civil cases, the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." Article I, Section 17, Oregon Constitution (1859).
But if the legislature has by law created a code under the military power of the state and infractions are offences under this military power then that's why NO jury trials are permitted for infractions. All this comes under what is called EMERGENCY legislation. If you check the legislative Acts of the State legislatures you will find the term EMERGENCY LEGISLATION at the end of the Act.
When the state legislatures enact EMERGENCY legislation they are acting as a PROVISIONAL Legislature. A PROVISIONAL Legislature can alter the state Constitution without the consent of the Citizens of the State. In Oregon I have noticed every time the state Constitution is amended the term CITIZEN" is not used in the amended article???? How much amending is it going to take to omit the term "CITIZEN" completely from the Oregon Constitution, or yours? If a state Constitution no longer recognizes it has "CITIZENS" and its the "CITIZENS" who are the state, then is there a STATE? I think its time the police and the Citizen take a good look at what being done and put a stop to it. I for one am tired of the police referring to me as a "CIVILIAN" who do they think they are?
I also teach the difference between state Citizens and federal citizens. I do have judicial notice from the District Court of Oregon that I am a white state Citizen of Oregon and not a federal citizen.
I refer you to Case No.M35072100S, M35072000S, M35072200S, M35072300S , In the Oregon State District Court for the County of Multnomah, (1986), STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff v. Robert W. Wangrud, Defendant, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT L. KIRKMAN, judicially recognized Robert W. Wangrud, as a free white Citizen of the State of Oregon.
I refer you to Case No.M35072100S, M35072000S, M35072200S, M35072300S, In the Oregon State District Court for the County of Multnomah, (1986), STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff v. Robert W. Wangrud, Defendant, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, CHARLES B. GUINASSO, judicially recognized Robert W. Wangrud, as a free white Citizen of the State of Oregon and thereby a citizen of the United States..
I refer you to Case No. M-34578100S, M- 34578200S, M-34578300S, In the Oregon State District Court for the County of Multnomah, (1986), STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff v. RANDY L. GEISZLER, Defendant, PRESIDING DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Frank L. Bearden, judicially recognized Randy L. Geiszler as a free white Citizen of the State of Oregon.
I refer you to Case No. 86-28224 CHARLES W. BROWN, Petitioner, VS. JOHN & JANE DOES Nos. 1 through 99, Respondents, Presiding State Distrct Court Judge FELIX SALAZAR, Jr, In the DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, 157TH Judicial District. ORDER FOR DECLARATION OF CITIZENSHIP. judicially recognized CHARLES W. BROWN, as a free white Citizen of the State of TEXAS.
I refer you to Case No.492,817, FIRST CITY BANK-SIOUX FALLS, PLAINTIFF vs. Lang Holland, Defendant, Presiding Judge, Thomas Sullivan In the COUNTY COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. ORDER FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF STATE CITIZENSHIP. judicially recognized Lang Holland, as a free white Citizen of the State of TEXAS.
A few others have done this also. I won't get into racist arguments, but will show the law on this issue, if your interested.
[9, 10] "The privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of 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 relate to state citizenship ..." Jones v. Temmer (Aug. 1993) 829 F. Supp. 1226.
"It is claimed that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and of this State. Undoubtedly she is. It is argued that she became such by force of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, already recited. This, however, is a mistake. It could well be claimed that she became free by the effects of the Thirteenth Amendment, by which slavery was abolished, for she was no less a citizen than she was free before the adoption of either of these amendments. No white person...owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal constitution.
The history and aim of the Fourteenth Amendment is well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent, who had been held in slavery in this country, or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves." Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal 431 47 (1872).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.