1868 imposter still blocking freedom’s highway
Because the “14th Amendment” was never ratified according to the U. S. Constitution whose Article V mandates concurrence by three-fourths of all participant States, the principle for which we contend reasserts itself today across this land as a struggle to liberate the media of exchange.
By Olaf Childress
firstfreedom@gulftel.com
Our people believe lies. They fall for it, evermore complaining about Muslims and Obama instead of the Zionist Jews behind all these hijackings. And yet, how do we fight such weapons of mass instruction as train taxpayers to simply shut up and pay? Each child on arriving at maturity senses something is amiss about today’s drive for “equality” among all individuals worldwide – a clear impossibility – but that awakening instinct for survival still obeys the seen paradigm, right or wrong and by whomever dictated, pending a better understanding.
Where is the way out of this cul-de-sac? Not through Hollywood or via Madison Avenue, whose media moguls drew up the roadmap having directed us here in the first place. Which leaves?
Remember that yarn about an Arkansas pioneer baiting his wild hog corral with a few ears of corn while raising its perimeter over which they had to jump in each day, until the herd was pacified bacon? If you were one of those animals fattening for the kill at this enemy’s pleasure who suddenly realized your destiny, is there any escape? Say the other porkers have grown apathetic to their worsening slop: leading enough of them to push together at that enclosure will not just happen.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no vegetarian. Which is just my point. The mediacracy has worked long and hard convincing each Goy child that all Goyim are “equal” under these “Chosenites” – the latter by rights in charge, and judging the propriety of rules, opinions, “legal” procedures, preferences, public policy and the architecture of every Holocaust museum. But, since we, like the Hebrew, walk on two feet, communicate with our kind as does he in the language peculiar to a human tribe similarly pulling its pants on one leg at a time, obviously a Jew has no God-given commission to prod us through chutes.
Obediently-subdued cattle keep to their pens, no argument there; when necessary, a Judas goat leading them in. Men handle all beasts pretty much that easily. But canine animals, on the other hand, at each feeding either kill anew or starve. That is nature’s miraculous balance. It’s dictated by Higher Law – whether or not we understand and approve.
Here’s the question: are Goyim reduced “equally” worldwide to cattle just because Hollywood and Madison Avenue moguls set countless entrapments toward that end? And, even if many go for such assignments into degradation, is every non-Jew thereby mincemeat, with those victorious Zionists elevated to sainthood?
We shall march out of this cul-de-sac only after declaring and publishing why we’re detained here. Great men pursuing worthy goals are no different in one respect from the cynics who’ve sent into perdition so much of what was ours with their Judas TV; lacking any means to render their idea public, they would convince few. So let us acquire forums on which to stand and call together heralds who will take the message far and wide, once it’s “safe” to pronounce our dilemma: that we’re totally surrounded by a Zionist Occupied Government.
The emperor has no clothes! Vulnerable to the changing weather, he must fall ill of his miscalculations – again.
And, once that Jewish media monopoly retires – when grocers no longer fear to stock peanut butter upon which the rabbis haven’t stamped their approval and public office seekers feel adequately dressed even without the yarmulke – we have regained an American tradition: open debates that don’t skirt the question.
Are your local media in this vanguard of such an awakening? Maybe not noticeably yet; for they, creatures of habit like the rest of us, need a little push by way of incentive to break those barriers surrounding today’s captive journalism. Why not urge them to take a deep breath and let both sides of the story out – truth no less than the ZOG’s pathologic agenda? Customs can, like fire, work for or against our better interests.
One can help today’s revolution along by challenging any media story that quotes the Southern Puberty Lechery Center as its source, for surely we all know the SPLC is a totally-depraved hive of Zionist perverts. Those who really want to burst their bonds and escape this “safe” confinement inside a politically-correct compound, whose real purpose is hiding its keepers from justice, might get busy exposing that fact.
We are not cattle! Nor wild hogs, even though our hackles get raised somewhat with these savants of One World mischief entrapping us along the public highways, as happened May 29, 2008, when a Police State roadblock at Silverhill, Alabama – in total disregard of the U. S. Constitution’s Amendment IV – stopped and arrested this sovereign without a warrant, searched and impounded his vehicle then threw him in jail for trying to read them the Law of the Land from a copy of that document which he was carrying.
Silverhill’s judge had equal contempt for the law, refusing to hear any argument that goon squads wearing badges can’t just get out there stopping all travelers in a “revenue enhancement” shakedown. This victim appealed and, getting no relief at the circuit level, turned to the State court.
We’ll look at that high tribune’s ruling, stamped DEC 04 2009, thousands of dollars in fines and “court costs” one-and-a-half years after the fact, in a moment. But here’s the kicker.
As The First Freedom is the Nation of Aryans Against Communist Putrefaction’s meeting place for declaring and publishing why we’re caught up in all these intrigues, not one to preach what he doesn’t practice, your editor considered that problem as just another opportunity: an opening widening our case against the fraudulent “Fourteenth Amendment.”
Conceding the prosecution’s arguments on all four charges against me if the system itself proves legitimate, I contended at my three trials that the emperor has no clothes. His magistrates lack jurisdiction over the Confederate States of America – and this sovereign by extension. Unable to answer that charge, they deny my having made it. Our people believe lies, especially big ones by skilled professional systemites standing before jurors and expecting each nefarious presentation to put this issue at rest. That won’t happen.
Back issues of The First Freedom hold our case for posterity; it’s kept as hardcopy at various locations. Also all records from that Silverhill roadblock are downloadable at www.14thfraud.com – as the appeal to Montgomery stated clearly – which leaves no excuse for the State court’s claiming I never mentioned the subject!
At the above website, click “Alabama’s Mossad-trained stooges capture politically-incorrect hearse” for the Silverhill hearing before Judge Ken Raines on July 2, 2008:
“I hand the judge my signed Notice of Objections based on lack of due process under the 1819 Alabama and the 1787 U. S. Constitutions as both stood in 1860 (I have the Alabama Archives’ copies thereof), thus challenging his and the entire de facto government’s jurisdiction inasmuch as the ‘14th Amendment’ didn’t ratify; and he thanks me. I walk over and give a copy of same to the prosecutor, then return to my seat. Judge Raines, without reading it, lays the sheet aside and continues calling others forward. I watch the prosecutor and Chief Wasdin for some twenty minutes debating intently what to do about this. He then hands a note to the judge, who summons me back up.
“ ‘What you’re claiming has already been decided,’ he says. ‘I have no other choice than to confirm our jurisdiction.’
“Returning his big smile, this defendant replies: ‘I know just where you’re coming from, judge, but here we’ve a due process problem. Merely alleging that the ‘14th Amendment’ was ratified won’t cut it. Having proofs that it didn’t, I will read my Notice of Objections to you if something therein isn’t clear.’
“ ‘How do you plead to the charges?’
“ ‘I plea nothing. You’ve no jurisdiction.’
“ ‘You will take an oath or go to jail.’
“ ‘Let the record show it’s under duress.’ ”
Also, at the same website as above, click “ROADBLOCK” for the circuit hearing on Feb. 3, 2009:
“Judge Wilters: ‘Mr. Childress, you have asked for a new trial. This is it; Silverhill doesn’t count. We are not here conducting an appeal hearing but a whole new trial. Do you understand that?’
“ ‘No. An appeal for my constitutionally guaranteed right to come before a jury and explain the lower court’s errors was timely filed in accord with official instructions. This is the fifth time I’ve been summoned to appear regarding the charges of which I was convicted and punished at that first ‘hearing,’ the four others in Bay Minette all resulting from my demand. This jury must now hear my charge – which the previous magistrate wouldn’t even consider – that the court itself lacks jurisdiction over a sovereign until proving its own legitimacy when challenged.’
“Thus began my recorded ordeal…
“ ‘Ms. [Silverhill Police Chief] Wasdin, Did you have a warrant for stopping me that day? Is this a true copy as given me by Mr. Dasinger?’
“ ‘Yes, sir.’
“ ‘Are you saying this warrant was issued before my arrest? What was the date of that roadblock and my arrest? May 29?’
“ ‘Yes, sir.’
“ ‘Why was this arrest warrant, signed by the town clerk, not a magistrate, dated May 30? Why does it contain the names of three witnesses, but not their signatures?’
“No answer.”
Now click on “Notice of Appeal”:
“…Unconstitutional subjection and adherence to a de facto foreign government which claims its fraudulent 14th Amendment modified the Law of the Land in 1868… Subjection to a forced process under the fraudulent 14th Amendment instead of the law of the land… The Appellant’s Claims against the Baldwin County Circuit Court: The trial Judge erred in going forward after objections were made against the absence of Due Process in its true and only meaning established in 1789 as thenceforth lawfully amended and known as the Law of the Land, inasmuch as the States at that time ratified the protective 5th Amendment whose original mandates then placed into the Constitution by the Sovereign States have never been altered… The trial Judge erred in not proving jurisdiction once challenged… Does merely asserting a claim that an Amendment has become properly ratified and therefore is part of the Constitution, without any further proof, render it the Law of the Land? …The Appellant reminds the Court that the Congressional Records are filled with proofs of military power having constituted the singular Agency used to ‘enforce’ what is now called the 14th Amendment upon Alabama and the other Confederate States of America. Due Process played no part whatsoever at that time and instance in taking life, liberty and property from these States and their People while forcing the so-called 14th Amendment down the throats of States that had properly denied its imposture, causing the same to fail for lack of ratification.”
Click on “Emergency Memo” and read:
“On February 26, 2009, I filed an appeal against the monstrous judgments seeking to intimidate our suit from going forward, and on March 16, 2009, added this motion: ...Having already suffered two separate trials and convictions on the same criminal charges, by the Silverhill Municipal Court and Baldwin County Circuit Court, both of Alabama, neither of which consented to hear my defense arguments regarding their lack of due process in unconstitutionally arresting and incarcerating me twice on the identical claims, I remain presently under attack by said courts; which are obviously working in tandem to avoid answering my charges against themselves. For they have proven either unwilling or incompetent to hear these arguments… Due process is the revisional remedy sought by this appeal. We ask the courts to prove their jurisdiction by DISPROVING our contention that the 14th Amendment was never ratified and that the sovereign State of Alabama went into limbo under a foreign, occupational government in 1865.”
Then click “Brief to Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals” to read my May 4, 2009, recapitulation of all the above and more, and you’ll have no choice but to agree that the “State” judges, same as both lower courts, are forbidden by the ZOG to accept any challenge of its jurisdiction.
Next, click “Transcript of roadblock trial” or www.gulftel.com/firstfreedom/t97.pdf (page 97 of the Circuit Court jury hearing), where I’m examining the police chief…
Q. That is the 4th Amendment. It does -- I’m asking you a question. I’m asking a question. And you have signed under oath to obey the United States Constitution. Does the Constitution not forbid searches, seizures and arrest without a warrant signed prior to the search or seizure?
THE COURT: I’ll answer that. No, it doesn’t…
Page 98, still addressing Chief Wasdin…
Q. Okay. Why was this arrest warrant signed by the town clerk, which I have shown you, not signed by the magistrate? It’s signed by the town clerk. Why was it dated May the 30th when –
THE COURT: That doesn’t make a darn bit of difference –
MR. CHILDRESS: It doesn’t make any difference –
THE COURT: No, sir. Now sit down. If you’re going to keep doing this, sit down or I’m going to put you in that jail. Do you understand that?…
In this 131-page official court transcript the judge orders me to stop speaking in my own defense and “Sit down!” over a dozen times, and the high court examining those proceedings decrees I’m bringing up new arguments that weren’t introduced earlier. But what can one say, standing before an Inquisition with a gag covering his mouth? On page 48…
MR. CHILDRESS: This is not an everyday case. After demanding a true judicial hearing, I have diligently prayed that some of the process will suffer me to challenge before a jury of my peers the present government’s buried jurisdiction. May I continue?
THE COURT: I didn’t say to stop.
MR. CHILDRESS: Which is why I have entered no plead until now. I have been asked how I plea and I said I do not enter a plea because I challenge the jurisdiction of this Court.
THE COURT: This Court?
MR. CHILDRESS: Yes.
THE COURT: I don’t have jurisdiction?
MR. CHILDRESS: That’s my challenge, sir. That was my challenge through Judge Ken Raines and he summarily put aside the case and pronounced me guilty. And I was unable to enter any evidence at all.
THE COURT: In Silverhill?
MR. CHILDRESS: In Silverhill, yes. He didn’t say sit down. He simply said, thank you, and he pushed my paper aside and said that’s it. Go over there and pay the lady.
THE COURT: Well, you can prove it here, that you’re not guilty.
MR. CHILDRESS: I’m trying. I’m trying. May I continue?
THE COURT: Not on the course you’re going. I’m sorry. You’re way off first base. I’m sorry…
And I, Olaf Childress, am sorry for my fruitless appeal to the circuit court at Bay Minette. We’ll now review that same kind of juggling act by the more professional magistrates in Montgomery. As the “State” would have it:
“On appeal, Childress argues, as best we can determine, that he is not subject to the laws…
“Although Childress appears to challenge the State of Alabama’s power to regulate his conduct, he did not make this argument at trial [emphasis added].”
The quoted transcript remains online, so anyone can see that copout as a mere clever play on words. Am I allowed to publish their decree? Its opening paragraph reads a bit fuzzy:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Notice: This unpublished memorandum should not be cited as precedent. See Rule 54, Ala. R. App. P. Rule 54(d), states, in part, that this memorandum “shall have no precedential value and shall not be cited in arguments or briefs and shall not be used by any court within this State, except for the purpose of establishing the application of the doctrine of law of the case, res judicata, collateral estoppel, double jeopardy, or procedural bar.”
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Alabama
Judicial Building, 300 Dexter Avenue
P. O. Box 301555
Montgomery, AL 36130-1555
A. KELLI WISE
Presiding Judge
SAMUEL HENRY WELCH
MARY BECKER WINDOM
J. ELIZABETH KELLUM
JAMES ALLEN MAIN
Judges
Lane W. Mann
Clerk
Gerri Robinson
Assistant Clerk
(334) 229-0751
Fax (334) 229-0521
MEMORANDUM
CR-08-0896 Baldwin Circuit Court CC-08-2148; CC-08-2149; CC-08-2150; and
CC-08-2l51
Olaf Olsen Childress v. City of Silverhill
WINDOM, Judge.
Olaf Olsen Childress appeals his municipal convictions for improper tag, a violation of Silverhill Municipal Ordinance No. 316; operating a vehicle without insurance, a violation of § 32-7A-16, Ala. Code 1975, and Silverhill Municipal Ordinance No. 330; failure to obey a law enforcement officer, a violation of § 32-5A-4, Ala. Code 1975, and Silverhill Municipal Ordinance No. 316; and resisting arrest, a violation of § 13A-10-41, Ala. Code 1975. The Silverhill Municipal Court fined Childress $25.00 plus court costs for the improper tag conviction, $250.00 plus court costs for the operating a vehicle without insurance conviction, $350.00 plus court costs for the resisting arrest conviction, and $500.00 plus court costs for the failure to obey a police officer conviction. Childress appealed to the Baldwin County Circuit Court for a trial de novo, where he was again convicted of displaying an improper tag, operating a vehicle without insurance, failure to obey a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. The Baldwin County Circuit Court fined Childress $25.00 plus court costs for the improper tag conviction, $500.00 plus court costs for the operating a vehicle without insurance conviction, and $500.00 plus court costs for the failure to obey a police officer conviction. Additionally, the Baldwin County Circuit Court fined Childress $500.00 plus court costs and sentenced him to 180 days in the Baldwin County jail, split to serve seven days followed by one year of unsupervised probation for the resisting arrest conviction. Childress did not file any post-judgment motions.
Because Childress does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in this case, a brief recitation of the facts will suffice. At trial, the State presented evidence that Chief Kimberly Roberts Wasdin, of the Town of Silverhill Police Department, was conducting a “Click It or Ticket” safety check on May 29, 2008. During the check point, Chief Wasdin and the other officers stopped each vehicle and asked for the driver’s license and registration. Approximately an hour and a half after the check point was set up, Childress approached the check point area in his vehicle. Chief Wasdin approached Childress’s vehicle and asked for his license and registration. Childress refused to comply with Wasdin’s request. After Childress told Chief Wasdin that she had no right to stop him, Wasdin asked Childress to pull over to discuss the matter. Childress then asked Chief Wasdin whether he was under arrest, and Wasdin replied that he was not. At that point, Childress attempted to drive off and was eventually stopped by Officer Clemmons. Chief Wasdin tried again to obtain a copy of Childress’s license and registration, but he still refused to comply. Childress then attempted to drive off a second time, but Officer Mosley intervened by opening the passenger door and turning the ignition switch off. Childress was then placed under arrest and the officers physically removed Childress from his vehicle and took him into custody.
On appeal, Childress argues, as best we can determine, that he is not subject to the laws of the State of Alabama or its municipalities because the 14th Amendment does not apply to him as the State was illegally occupied and conquered by the federal government during the Civil War.1 Specifically, Childress appears to contend that because he is a “white” man, all laws enacted after the Civil War do not apply to him.2 (Appellant’s brief at p. 7-9). Childress, however, failed to preserve his argument for this court’s review. Although Childress appears to challenge the State of Alabama’s power to regulate his conduct, he did not make this argument at trial. Because Childress did not raise the ground that he now raises on appeal at the trial level, he did not preserve it for our review. See Miller v. State 602 So. 2d 488, 496 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992); see also Mitchell v. State 913 So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (“To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue must be timely raised and specifically presented to the trial court.”). Therefore, Childress is not entitled to relief.
Accordingly, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Wise, P. J., and Welch, Kellum, and Main, JJ., concur.
1. This court notes that Childress readily admits that he appealed his convictions from the Silverhill Municipal Court and that he is “guilty of all four … crimes” (R. 106); therefore, any argument that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to hear his case was without merit.
2. To the extent that Childress attempts to present other frivolous and unintelligible arguments on appeal, this court notes that it does not appear that he presented any of these arguments to the trial court. Therefore, he did not preserve them for our review. See Ex parte Coulliette 857 So. 2d 793, 794-95 (Ala. 2003) (“‘Review on appeal is restricted to questions and issues properly and timely raised at trial.’ Newsome v. State, 570 So. 2d 703, 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). ‘An issue raised for the first time on appeal is not subject to appellate review because it has not been properly preserved and presented.’ Pate v. State, 601 So. 2d 210, 213 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). . . .”).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
So, fellow criminal terrorists, there you have it. According to systemite Rheannon Miller’s official transcript (as they read it), I’ve inarticulately mumbled and confused, never even attempting to challenge any court’s jurisdiction?(!) By such a clever, purposely mendacious sidestep, they avoid picking up this hot potato as did both those Zionist Occupation Government inferior courts whose findings they were supposed to examine, not recite verbatim.
Our Southland – the same as Germany, Afghanistan and Iraq – remains shackled by the moneymen’s mercenary magistrates and media, who forbid children to notice the emperor’s shameless wardrobe. Their penumbra (and darker) “hate laws” forbid such discoveries, citing the “hurt feelings” of Satan’s deceivers when called by name, which is possible because they dictate the “news.” If we don’t grow up sufficiently to mount our own platforms, and more of us sound off a little louder, future generations must wear not only heavier blinders but chains to boot, so let’s get busy.
The London and New York City money that has reduced manikin heads of States to their blackmailably barest for centuries is (yet again) “servicing” even itself. Victim of his party-loving “lifestyle,” the ultimate urbanite can’t really “change” a thing, nor moderate ingrained behavior. He will push this show until the last taker walks out. Flashing lights, blaring sounds, sensational entertainment posing as reality: fascinated with its body parts the City slides into oblivion, never noticing that out across the country genuine people go right ahead, as best they can, with their lives of daily work, honest competition, prayer, hope and whatever satisfaction, no thanks to government welfare or any other toxic drug.
This naked bankster, along with all the shysters in his train, ventures outside that City only as necessary to maintain the bluff against us taxpayers. He loves none but his kind of (equally-impoverished) company.
The system he imagines finally to launch after so many failed tries with gods, media, currencies and “men” needing always just a little harder push – has stopped at “parade rest” down by the water. And why won’t a twin-towers-high stack of Federal Reserve Notes transport him to his destination?
He’s already at the Ultimate Thule, this consummate fool.