COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
STATE OF ALABAMA

TOWN OF SILVERHILL )

COUNTY OF BALDWIN )

STATE OF ALABAMA )

Plaintiffs ) Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court

) CR-08-0896

Olaf Olsen Childress )

22151 Toler Road )

Silverhill, Alabama )

Defendant/Appellant )

Comes now the defendant/appellant Olaf Childress pro se, having firsthand knowledge of the facts contained herein and competent to testify regarding these matters.

“Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, (a pro se litigant), however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. Accordingly, although we intimate no view on the merits of petitioner’s allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof.”
– Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 522

The defendant/appellant was unlawfully searched, seized and violated without cause or warrant on the 29th day of May 2008 when jailed overnight by Silverhill Police Chief Kimberly Wasdin et al, then tried and punished on the 2nd day of July 2008 at Silverhill Municipal Court by Judge Ken Raines under four so-called criminal charges lacking lawful warrants. Summoned upon his own volition to appear before a jury in defense of those charges, but postponed on three of four separate dates after driving from Silverhill to Bay Minette and back, he was tried and punished with increased fines in addition to seven further days of incarceration for the same so-called criminal charges by Judge Harry Wilters on the 4th day of February 2009 at Baldwin Circuit Court, whereat Attorney Michael A. Dasinger III prosecuted the unlawful charges and Court Recorder Rheannon R. Miller misreported the proceedings in several instances cited herein. While serving seven days in prison he was interrogated by Baldwin County Corrections officers Carla Wasdin and Nathan Lusk, then falsely accused by the two of them in collusion as having “threatened to kill” the Silverhill police chief. Carla Wasdin is either the sister or sister-in-law of Kimberly Wasdin. Investigator Lusk forcefully laid hands on Olaf Childress while attempting to seat and intimidate him into giving a Soviet-style confession in support of their conspiracy.

Olaf Childress hereby serves notice on this 4th day of May 2009 upon each and all of the above-named parties, that they may refute any part of these allegations by contacting the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in re CR-08-0896 within thirty days, or otherwise accept what is written here as truthful; he furthermore asseverates that every statement contained herein is to the best of his knowledge under penalty of perjury true and correct.

Having already suffered two separate trials and convictions on the same criminal charges, first by the Silverhill Municipal Court and then by Baldwin County Circuit Court, neither of which consented to hear his arguments regarding their failures to follow due process in unconstitutionally arresting and incarcerating him twice on the identical claims, he remains presently under attack by said courts which may be working in tandem to avoid answering counter-charges against themselves, for they have proven both unwilling and incompetent to hear his arguments.

The purpose here is to fight injustice and prevent similarly entrenched disregard for due process in the future. As Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28, 2003, the question of what is morally right becomes routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient, a change having come about because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.

The 131-page transcript of “Case 2148” before Baldwin County Circuit Judge Harry Wilters, prepared as of that February 3, 2009, trial date by Court Reporter Rheannon Miller, demonstrates in and of itself the possibly quite deliberate confusion endemic in this, a court system whose jurisdiction lacks accountability. It begins with page 1 erroneously listing only one of four cases tried simultaneously against defendant/appellant Olaf Childress the same day. A putative fifth docket entitled “cc 2008 002149,” stating no charge or conviction, was invented out of whole cloth more than a month afterwards. Regarding the latter, Olaf Childress received a “cost bill” from “Operator KAM” of the Baldwin County Judicial Data Center dated 03/09/2009 that falsely showed $552.50 already paid by himself against a total due of $832, with a yellow-highlighted balance of $279.50, possibly suggesting he should call “KAM” to find out what that was all about and whether he could avoid such additional losses by throwing himself on the court’s mercy, promising to fight injustice no more forever.

Surmising that perhaps the above “cost bill” referred in some way to the $1,250 appeal filing fee paid by himself to the Town of Silverhill in addition to $1,900 fines and court costs paid thereto, which the town clerk should have forwarded to the circuit court, if the appeal filing “cost bill” amounted to $832 then the defendant/appellant was owed that difference, not the other way around. Such confusion created by these lower courts’ accounting practices may demonstrate subterfuge, incompetence or both.

Along with KAM’s cost bill, Olaf Childress received by mail also on the same date, March 13, 2009, four separate “remove these edges first” envelopes each containing a “Notice of Payment Terms” as follows:

Case 2148 oper veh w/o insura $832
Case 2149 improper tag $832
Case 2150 fail obey police/fi $832
Case 2151 resisting arrest $933.50

Rather than beg clemency by ending his search for due process – the essence of this case against “the first contemporary threat to the rule of law” as stated by Judge Edith Jones in noting that it “comes from within the legal system itself” – entertaining no plans for exiting this mortal existence carrying one red cent, defendant/appellant Olaf Childress appeared on the 16th day of March 2009 before Baldwin Circuit Clerk KAM a.k.a. “Karen” ready to pay the above demanded monies plus $100 docketing fee on top of the appeal filing fee already paid, entailing more than $3,300 devoured by this process already at Silverhill. “Karen” called the above four charges erroneous, saying he only owed $279.50, which was handed over even while protesting that all four of those “Notices of Payment Terms” had threatened his arrest if not paid. He then gave Circuit Clerk Sue Todd the $100 docketing fee that brought these arguments to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

As stated above, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals can easily verify from the transcript alone that this petition has merit. Defendant/appellant Olaf Childress charges malfeasance, misfeasance and/or nonfeasance against Municipal Judge Ken Raines, Attorney Michael Dasinger III and the Town of Silverhill; Circuit Judge Harry Wilters and the City of Bay Minette; Police Chief Kimberly Wasdin of Silverhill along with her roadblock-implementing officers; and Bay Minette Investigator Nathan Lusk in addition to Corrections Center employee Carla Wasdin; inasmuch as all of the above named have conspired to deprive him of his God-given rights to life, liberty and property in coordinated efforts to maintain and further empower local police and court systems tending toward tyranny.

Defendant/appellant Olaf Childress does not by these arguments seek relief in the form of any monetary compensation charged against the taxpayers, or a refund of monies paid by himself, nor will he demand apologies; yet his appeal does seek greater relief than mere cessation of unconstitutional roadblocks. The aim of this petition is to obtain the truest interest of all. For we, the people, must redeem our Constitution of the State of Alabama as legally ratified by ourselves in 1819, viz. Article I, § 9: “The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions, from unreasonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.”

Due process is the only remedy sought.

Defendant/appellant Olaf Childress asks the courts to prove their jurisdiction by DISPROVING his 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. Ameliorating such continuing distresses as these roadblocks by declaring the court system itself and all so-called amendments to both the U.S. Constitution and the Alabama Constitution since 1865 as de facto rather than de jure enactments would enable a return to constitutional government and prevent the bloodshed which is otherwise likely to soon follow; which is merely a prediction, no threat of any kind. What is petitioned here is a true and just remedy reinvesting unto the people and this State that sovereignty recited in the de jure Alabama Constitution’s Article I, § 2: “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit: and, therefore, they have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.”

The elderly Judge Harry Wilters should retire from practice, as those many prompts by Prosecutor Michael Dasinger prove he was not following much of the testimony; and half a dozen Silverhill police officers need to pass an examination determining their grasp of the constitutions they have sworn to uphold, likewise the Corrections Officers Nathan Lusk and Carla Wasdin, along with Silverhill Prosecutor Dasinger and Judge Ken Raines. As for the Court Recorder Rheannon Miller, let it suffice to note the many errors in her transcript, obviously not all of them her fault alone, because others had vested interests in keeping this challenge of the status quo from reaching a higher and more lawfully-instructed court. Such mere suggestions are not the remedy herein sought, nor can monetary compensation satisfy this appeal.

The said transcript omits the court’s ordering defendant/appellant Olaf Childress to “Turn off that recorder!” and fails to note additional instances where the judge yelled at him to “Sit down!” It behooves the State of Alabama to recognize technology long available that would more accurately record what is said in a courtroom, even the tone of each participant’s voice, so that a further action might proceed much better informed.

The transcript, in introducing Honorable Harry Wilters, Prosecutor Michael Dasinger and Olaf Childress on page 1, indicates but a single one of the four cases tried. On page 3 it then erroneously names “Honorable Robert Wilters Jr.” as the presiding judge. On page 25 it has “Judge Reid,” where defendant/appellant Olaf Childress had referred to Judge Wilters. Incidentally, the intervening pages note, among prospective jurists, a building inspector, a federal government retiree, an EIA office manager, a paralegal, a Board of Education member, a defense contractor and a Baldwin County Corrections Center employee: hardly an impartial pool of the defendant/appellant’s peers. On page 44 the transcript again has Olaf Childress referring to Judge Wilters as “Judge Reid,” before whom the defendant/appellant has never stood, whereas Court Reporter Rheannon Miller has often done so, which circumstance manifestly shows who is in error here. Numerous additional distortions and omissions in her report are not elaborated upon now for lack of proof, such as when Judge Harry Wilters, not his colleague Judge Reid or Judge Robert Wilters, several times ordered defendant/appellant Olaf Childress at the very first to turn off his audio recorder. But that which Court Reporter Rheannon Miller has typed up will suffice to verify the errors noted here.

On page 46 the transcript has defendant/appellant Olaf Childress asking Judge HARRY Wilters: “Why would I pay $1,250 additional to the $1,900 that Judge Reed -- Judge Raines relieved me of in Silverhill if I was not convinced that due process had not been found in Silverhill? Is that not my purpose for being here?” This change of spelling from “Reid” to “Reed,” plus other errors cited above, should give indication of an unreliable report, possibly suggesting Olaf Childress as the stuttering incompetent which was not the case at all.

The recorded testimony by Police Chief Kimberly Wasdin on pages 66-69 contains so many lies and distortions as to render impossible correcting them in the absence of any disinterested secondary witness, but at least the court reporter noted it faithfully, including even on pages 98-99 that part where Olaf Childress attempted to inform the jury that his arrest warrant was falsely created one day AFTER the roadblock. But querying Ms. Wasdin got court-blocked, viz:

“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?”

On page 101 Judge Wilters has ordered defendant/appellant Olaf Childress to sit in the witness box if he has anything further to say, whereupon, as the latter begins from there, Prosecutor Dasinger reminds the judge:

“MR. DASINGER: -- are you going to swear him in?

“THE COURT: Raise your right hand, please.”

So once again the prosecutor’s prompts carried the day for this inattentive Judge.

On page 115 appears a probably honest mistake in Ms. Rheannon’s quote from the defendant/appellant’s closing:

“The owner or damaged party may file any complaint calling for an arrest warrant to issue, without which no crime. Yes. This does fly in the face of the various police state wars on drugs, poverty, terror, and blank failures. But it’s -- it’s blank of the neglect.”

The misquoted sentence was actually: “This does fly in the face of the various Police State wars on drugs, poverty, terror, and bank failures. But it’s -- it’s BLANK of the Land.” Thus did Olaf Childress avoid using the word LAW, which might have brought down upon his head yet another order to “Sit down!”

On pages 127-128 Judge Wilters names a fine of $500 for failure to renew license tag, whereat the transcript records another prompt:

“MR. DASINGER: Your Honor, I think on that one the fine, by statute, is maybe $25.

“THE COURT: $25?

“MR. DASINGER: “yes sir. Let me --

“THE COURT: Not less than $25. I’d just as soon put it $25.

“MR. DASINGER: You’re correct.”

“THE COURT: All right. Failure to obey a police officer, $1,000.

“MR. DASINGER: Your Honor, in Municipal Court we only have jurisdiction of up to $500.

“THE COURT: All right. $500 -- $500 in all of them. Did I say $1,000? All right. As to resisting arrest, $500, six months in the Baldwin County Jail. I’m going to split that sentence and order you to serve seven days. The balance will be supervised probation for a period of two years. You may have him. I know I’ll make headlines in your paper, but I like your paper anyway.”

Olaf Childress had already paid fines of $1,900 on those four charges at Silverhill. A balance of $100 was thus called for, which would have indicated DOUBLE JEOPARDY, of course. But that was not the end of it. More judicial vindictiveness would follow his trial of February 3, 2009, in front of Judge Harry Wilters, possibly as a result of the defendant/appellant later having filed a notice at Bay Minette Circuit Court on February 26, 2009, that he would bring these denied and unheard arguments to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

Notice of Objections

On the 2nd day of July 2008 defendant/appellant Olaf Childress had come before Judge Ken Raines of Silverhill Municipal Court as ordered to do so in the above-cited cases designated later when he appealed CC08-2148, CC08-2149, CC08-2150 and CC08-2151. Convicted on all four charges and fined without his defense having been considered, although he had offered to read his objections aloud before both courts, neither Judge Raines on that date nor Judge Harry Wilters of the Baldwin Circuit Court on the 3rd day of February 2009 would hear them. The lower court merely glanced at his brief and pronounced the defendant convicted; nor was the Baldwin Circuit jury allowed to hear these arguments. This further appeal is based on numerous and continuously accumulated pre-trial and trial errors of law and facts. The Notice of Objections given to the lower court stated essentially what follows here for review.

The defendant/appellant hereby objects to being subjected to a trial when there is no legitimate charge of a crime before the court, a violation of procedural due process. No verified complaint has been filed with the court, hence no charge can be formed until a verified complaint has been filed.

“The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions, from unreasonable seizures or searches; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue, without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.” (Article I, Section 9, Alabama Constitution). Objection is hereby made that the court refuses to distinguish a signature made under oath from a mere signature made without an oath.

The defendant/appellant hereby objects to entering any plea before the court since there is no legitimate charge against him, hence no plea has been entered nor will be entered until such time as a lawful charge has been filed. The alleged charges said to be before the court have not been verified by a lawful complaint, which, as but one of the objections, if cured would still not require his pleading before a court that lacks jurisdiction.

The defendant/appellant objects to the diminished use of due process as clearly defined before the Civil War, and demands the proper and only constitutionally authorized meaning of due process which before the war was strictly procedural and rigorously careful to produce the proper writs at all times. This contestation is brought forward by a mere executive-designed form making allegation of certain violations. No lawful court summons has been issued nor can issue until a verified complaint (among other mandates) is filed per Alabama law. It should be noted that, among the mere three amendments to the 1819 Alabama Constitution, nothing has changed that part of the law of the land as herein cited to mean anything except what it stood for in the said Constitution. See Van Horne v. Dorrance’d Lessee 2 Dall. US 309 (1795).

The defendant/appellant objects to the form used by this court to take life, liberty and property without recourse to the common law, outside of which there is no due process. See Hoke v. Henderson 15 NC 15, 25, AM Dec. 677 (1857). No legislation, except in full accordance with its Article V, may otherwise diminish the U.S. Constitution’s strictures against a court’s taking of life, liberty or property.

This demand is invoked by the due process clause, Article I Section 9 of the Alabama Constitution of 1819 as lawfully amended up until 1861, prior to the Civil War, since which time no lawful amendment has altered the part thereof as here cited. Thus, due process is to be understood in its original meaning when first used in said constitution prior to the Civil War and specifically before the congressional overthrow of the lawful government in 1861 which resulted in replacing State governments with new governments by military force having no constitutional power and causing the fraudulent 14th Amendment to be declared ratified in strict violation of the due process/procedures required by Article V of the United States Constitution, also further violating the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment protecting the States from federal/confederate (synonymous terms until the Merriam Webster Company applied falsified definitions in 1864) government as per Barron v. Baltimore 7 Pete US 243 (1833), Fox v. Ohio 5 How US 410, 434 (1847), Smith v. Maryland 18 How 71 (1855) and Withers v. Buckley 20 How 84 (1857). In other words there is no de jure authority to displace the powers of the States with a federal/confederate government. See also Attorney General Jeremiah Black’s 1860 opinion warning the President against violating the Constitution by invading the States should the government choose that option. The question before the court will be, “Did the government provide due process when taking life, liberty and property from the States and their people in the 1860s and thereafter?” This is strictly a judicial question that cannot be dismissed as a political matter.

Since the so-called 14th Amendment never ratified, it follows that “laws, codes, statutes and amendments” claiming legitimacy thereafter as if integral to the valid law of the land are in fact null and void. See Calder v. Bull 3 Dall US 386 (1798), Foster v. Essex bank (a modification of Calder v. Bull) 16 Mass 245 (1819), and Wales v. Stetson 2 Mass 145.

The defendant/appellant waives none of his rights whatsoever at any time, and demands full protection of his God-given rights. All proceedings are hereby objected to, and any participation by Olaf Childress is strictly under threat, duress and coercion because fearing for loss of life, liberty and property if appearance is not made. Objections hereby stated and all future objections stand perpetual throughout the course of this and every further proceeding.

The instant matter

The defendant/appellant names as his grounds for appeal the following:

01. Denial of due process

02. Failure to furnish demanded proof of jurisdiction

03. Denial of the right to have a verified complaint filed against himself

04. Denial of the right to be charged with a crime before being forced into a trial

05. Denial of the right to the usage of the common law

06. Falsely exercised jurisdiction based on the 1865 military occupation of this quondam sovereign State of Alabama

07. Unconstitutional subjection and adherence to a de facto foreign government claiming its fraudulent 14th Amendment modified the law of the land in 1868

08. Forced recognition of unlawful statutes, codes and acts in direct contradiction to the law of the land

09. Liberty and property taken without due process

10. Subjection to a false definition of due process

11. Subjection to a forced process under the fraudulent 14th Amendment instead of the law of the land

12. Seizure of liberty and property by force without a warrant supported by oath

13. Forced seizure of property without due process

Claims against Silverhill Municipal and Baldwin Circuit Courts

Both trial Judges 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 amended.

The trial judges erred in not proving jurisdiction once challenged.

The trial judges erred in disregarding the objection that no verified complaint had been filed and no charge was before either court since there was no complaint supported by oath causing a summons to issue.

The municipal court erred for never issuing a legal summons since there was no verified complaint giving way for a summons to be issued.

The trial courts erred when perjuring their accounts that a plea was entered by the defendant/appellant, as stated on the abstracts of court records. The Notice of Objections supra filed with the lower court proves that the defendant never entered a plea, but objected to his rights being trespassed upon and waiving none of them at any time.

Questions before this court

01. Did the trial court err by denying due process seizure?

Due process is an offspring of common law and must be made use of when not waived by an accused. See Hoke vs. Henderson 15 NC 15, 25 AM Dec. 677 (1857).

02. Is the court not obligated to prove its jurisdiction once challenged?

No matter how many private motorists choose to relinquish their right to travel the public roads unmolested when police officers unconstitutionally detain them at feudal age roadblocks demanding “Show me your papers,” the paucity of citizens when accused of such a putative crime as disobeying that illegal order who challenge its legitimacy takes nothing away from the argument’s merit. The defendant/appellant reminds this court of a case called Missouri v. City of Independence wherein a justice of the Supreme Court stated, “The mere good faith of assertion of power has been abolished.” Refusing to specifically answer questioned jurisdiction is therefore a denial of due process.

So both trial courts erred in summarily dismissing without hearing such a crucial argument as the defendant/appellant was attempting to make in his defense, namely that failure to answer or even consider his question of jurisdiction proves the law of the land is in limbo as demonstrated by that unconstitutional roadblock of May 29 at Silverhill, Alabama; where, far from the Mexican border, the defendant/appellant, an Alabama Citizen motorist, was stopped by police, yanked from his private vehicle forcefully and thrown in jail, while U.S. Border Police fear getting charged with crimes themselves for using sufficient force to arrest illegal alien drug smugglers who travel the Texas highways relatively unmolested; all of which clearly proves the 1865 et seq occupation power’s disregard for the Constitution, its failure to guarantee a Republican form of government and its inability to sustain questions of de jure authority.

03. Is it mandatory for the court to have a verified complaint under oath before it can issue a summons and accept charges claimed against an accused person otherwise to be tried merely upon an executive writ making allegations unsupported by oath or affirmation?

The defendant/appellant reminds the court that both the United States and the Alabama Constitutions forbid the seizure of any person without a warrant supported by oath or affirmation.

04. Is it not part of procedural due process that a person be first charged by a verified complaint supported by oath or affirmation?

Procedural due process absolutely demands a verified complaint. Due process requires the proper writs (due writs) and all procedures must stand in exact order as prescribed by the law of the land (see Due Process before the Civil War, 1910, 1911 Edition, Harvard Law Review, by Edwin Corwin; American Journal of Legal History Vol 19 (4) 1. (1975), Keith Jurows; 18 Calf. Law Rev. 583 (1930) Due Process before the 14th Amendment; Zylstra v. Corp. of Charleston 1 bay (SC) 384; Calder v. Bull 3 Dall US 386 (1798); and 2 Pet US 657, 182 Hoke v. Henderson 15 NC 15 which should be compared with White v. White 5 Barb NY 474 (1849). Furthermore, due process should be defined in its original meaning, to wit: “the common law and statute law existing in the State at the adoption of our Constitution” (speaking of the South Carolina Constitution); see State v. Simmons, 2 Speers (SC), 761,767 (1844), since Alabama has the same common law as South Carolina and but one common law exists for all our States except Louisiana which entered the Confederacy under the common law of France, leaving us to understand then that State vs. Simmons applies in Alabama. The mere filing of a paper showing a so-called complaint is not sufficient to comply with the course or the procedures adopted to deal with a situation under due process as prescribed by both the Alabama Constitution and Alabama statutes.

05. Is due process denied if an accused has not waived his right to the common law?

Memorandum of law
Classes of citizenship

Defendant/appellant Olaf Childress here uses the more generous word capitalization of earlier times to make abundantly clear his legal arguments.

01. The 1819 Constitution of Alabama recognizes but one class of Citizens in this Union of States, as described in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution (1:2:3).

02. This court is herewith mandated to take judicial notice of the Constitution of the Alabama Republic.

03. Excluding “Indians not taxed,” since they are not under consideration in this matter, we are left with two other classes of individuals defined in 1:2:3 of the U.S. Constitution, to wit: “free Persons” and “three-fifths of all other Persons.”

04. The term “three fifths of all other Persons” referred to the Black slave population and all others of races other than “White” who could not and did not have Common Law Citizenship of one of the several States of the Union, at the time the Constitution was adopted. For an in-depth analysis of this fact, see the cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856); U.S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 39; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 74 (1873); Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43 (1872); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); and K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 239 (1927); et al.

05. The Thirteenth Amendment, putatively ratified in 1865, served only to abolish slavery within the corporate United States. No race other than the White race could claim Common Law Citizenship of one of the several States, which Citizenship was afforded the protection of the Constitutions. This is discussed in depth in Dred Scott v. Sandford supra.

06. Further proof that this argument applies to the State of Alabama is found in Article 3, Section 4, of the original Alabama Constitution (1819) which states “No person shall be a representative, unless he be a WHITE man…”; ibid 5, “Every WHITE male… shall be deemed a qualified elector…”; ibid 8, “Elections… according to the number of WHITE inhabitants therein…”; ibid 10, “The General Assembly shall… divide the State into the same number of districts, as nearly equal, in the number of WHITE inhabitants…” and ibid 12, “…and no person shall be a senator, unless he be a WHITE man…” (emphasis added). These provisions very clearly excluded all other races from being Common Law Citizens of Alabama and from having the full protection of the State and Federal Constitutions. This was the case even before the famous Dred Scott decision. Notably the Alabama Constitution was altered after the “14th Amendment” so as to delete all references to “White” male Citizens, and today it refers only to “persons.”

07. Following the decision in Dred Scott, supra, Congress allegedly enacted and ratified the so-called 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America which gave only a fraudulent “citizenship” status to those who were deemed excluded from this Common Law status under the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution. This unfolds in detail in court cases surrounding the 13th and 14th Amendments, a very significant difference which is of great importance to the instant matter.

08. Such cases as the Slaughter House Cases, supra; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908); K. Tashiro v. Jordan, supra; among many others, all declared that under the law, “there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States.”

09. The defendant/appellant is not responsible for the errors of the past and elects not to dwell at length on this subject. However, the so-called 14th Amendment must now be discussed and, as abhorrent as it may sound it is a matter of fact and law that this is the position (intentional or unintentional) which forms the basis of the law with which we live today.

10. In brief, as a result of the 13th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Union of States known as the United States of America was founded by “White” people and for “White” people, and only “White” people could enjoy the Rights, Privileges and Immunities afforded and protected by the Federal and State Constitutions. This fact is most eloquently set forth in Dred Scott v. Sandford, supra, in stating that “... if a Black nation were to adopt our Constitution verbatim, they would have the absolute right to restrict the right of citizenship only to the Black population if they chose to do so…”

11. To overcome the decision in Dred Scott, supra, the so-called 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America was allegedly ratified “at the point of a bayonet” and “declared” to be a part of that Constitution in the year 1868. However, an examination of the ratification by the several States shows that various improper proceedings occurred which, in effect, nullify the Amendment. “I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted.” – State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936 (1975); see also Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266 (1968) for historical details.

12. Defendant/appellant Common Law Citizen Olaf Childress will not digress into an in-depth dissertation on the “ratification” of the so-called 14th Amendment because the only necessary point to be made here is that the so-called 14th Amendment had a profound effect upon the Union of these United States. This effect continues to the present time and conflicts with the law of the land.

13. The original Constitution for the United States of America (1789) refers to Common Law Citizens of the several States in the Preamble, in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1 (4:2:1), and in numerous other sections. Always, the word Citizen is spelled with an upper-case “C” referring to this class of Common Law Citizen as a “Citizen of the United States,” i.e., as a “Citizen of one of the United States.” See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870).

14. In contrast, the so-called 14th Amendment utilizes a lower case “c” to distinguish this citizen class whose status makes them “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as a statutory “citizen of the United States.” Similarly, “Person” was spelled with an UPPER-CASE “P” prior to the so-called 14th Amendment, as opposed to “person” with a lower-case “p” in Section 1 of the amendment itself.

15. In law, each word and use of that word, including its capitalization or lack of capitalization, has a distinctive legal meaning. In this case, there never was the specific status of a “citizen of the United States” until the advent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27) which was the forerunner of the so-called 14th Amendment. See Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855). The definition of the “United States” is discussed in the next section of this petition.

16. Before the “14th Amendment” was declared a part of the U.S. Constitution, there were a number of State “residents” who could not enjoy “Common Law Citizenship” in one of the several States under that Constitution, because they were not “White.” The effect of the so-called 14th Amendment was to give to all those residents a citizenship in the nation-State that was created by Congress in the year 1801 and named the “United States.” See 2 Stat. 103; see also U.S. v. Eliason, 41 U.S. 291, 16 Peter 291, 10 L.Ed. 968 (1842); U.S v. Simms, 1 Cranch 255, 256 (1803). The original Civil Rights Act of 1866 was not encompassing enough for the political powers that emerged thereafter, so it was expanded in the year 1964; but the original legal effect was the same, namely, to grant “citizens of the United States” equivalent rights to the Common Law White Citizens of the several States. In reality, however, those “equivalent rights” are limited by various statutes, codes and regulations and can be changed at the whim of Congress.

17. Clearly under the Federal and State Constitutions “...We the People” did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers “delegated” do not equate with powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority simply because some “law” is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do, so long as it does not damage, injure or impair the same Right of another individual. The concept of corpus delicti is relevant here, in order to prove some “crime” or civil damage.

18. The court cases surrounding the 13th and 14th Amendments all ring with the same message: “These amendments did not change the status of Common Law Citizenship of the White Citizens of one of the several States of the Union.”

19. This is the crux of the controversy because the so-called 14th Amendment makes citizenship a privilege and not a “Right.” See American and Ocean Ins Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (1828); Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).

20. It was the intent of the so-called 14th Amendment to change the status of the Common Law Citizens of the several States. See People v. Washington, 36 C. 658, 661 (1869); French v. Barber, 181 U.S. 324 (1900); Mackenzie v. Hare, 60 L.Ed. 297. Intent is always decisive and conclusive on the courts.

21. However, over the years, the so-called 14th Amendment has been used to create a fiction and to destroy American freedom through administrative regulation. How is this possible? The answer is self- evident to anyone who understands the law; namely, a “privilege” can be regulated to any degree, including the alteration and even the revocation of that privilege.

22. Since the statutory status of “citizen of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (1866 Civil Rights Act) is one of privilege and not of Right, and since the so-called 14th Amendment mandates that both Congress and the several States take measures to protect these new “subjects,” then both Federal and State governments are mandated to protect the privileges and immunities of ONLY these “citizens of the United States.” See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).

23. Of course, the amount of protection afforded has a certain price to pay, but the important fact is that the “privilege” of citizenship under the so-called 14th Amendment can be regulated or revoked because it is a “privilege,” not a RIGHT. It is here that the basic, fundamental concept of “self-government” turns into a King “governing his subjects.”

24. One can be called a “freeman,” but that was a title of nobility granted by a King. To be really free encompasses a great deal more than grants of titles and privileges, and Alabama Citizens do not need any grants to receive what we have already possessed since birth.

25. Over the years since 1789, because our forefathers would have rather fought than bow to involuntary servitude, the “powers that be” have slowly and carefully used the so-called 14th Amendment and the Social Security Act to force primary State citizenship into relative extinction in the eyes of the courts. Nevertheless, this class of Common Law Citizens is not extinct yet; it is simply being ignored, in order to maintain and enlarge a revenue base for Congress.

26. Since the State of Alabama has been mandated by a so-called 14th Amendment to protect statutory “citizens of the United States,” and since the People in general have been falsely led to obtain “Social Security Numbers” identifying them as “U.S. citizens,” the State of Alabama under prompting by the Federal Government has used the licensing and registration of vehicles and people under the “equal protection” clause for the “Public Welfare” to perpetuate today’s scheme of revenue enhancement and regulation. This has been implemented, in part, by promoting the fiction that the Common Law “Citizens of a State of the Union of several States” can be regulated to the same degree as statutory “citizens of the United States.”

27. Defendant/appellant Olaf Childress contends that both the State of Alabama and the Federal Government (known as the “United States”) are committing an act of GENOCIDE upon the Common Law State Citizens of the several States by perpetrating and perpetuating the “fiction of law” that everyone is a statutory “citizen of the United States.”

Failure to disclose

28. Because only “White” people had primary Common Law State Citizenship under the Constitution, Congress created a different class of “citizen” and legislated rights, privileges and immunities intended as mirror images of the Rights, Privileges and Immunities enjoyed by the Common Law Citizens of the several States.

29. Unfortunately, the “United States” (District of Columbia) is a democracy, not a Republic. It is governed basically under authority of International Law, rather than the Common Law, and its people hold citizenship by “privilege” rather than by “Right.”

30. Certain power-mad individuals, commonly known today as the Directors of the Federal Reserve Board and the twelve (12) major international banking families, have used the so-called 14th Amendment to commit “legal genocide” upon the class of Common Law Citizens known as the citizens of the several States. This has been accomplished by the application of Social Security through fraud, deception and non-disclosure of material facts for the purpose of reducing the Union of States to a people who are once again enslaved by puppet masters, in order to gather revenue for the profit of international banks and their owners.

31. A well-known, understood and quite indisputable fact is that a privilege granted by government is regulatable, taxable and subject to any restrictions imposed by the legislative acts of its governing body, even including alteration or revocation by that authority.

32. Defendant/appellant Olaf Childress can prove that the “Social Security Act” is, in fact, a private decree involving only the territory of the “United States” acting in its limited municipal capacity, applying to its statutory “citizens of the United States” under the so-called 14th Amendment. Yet this Act has been advertised and promoted throughout the several States of the Union as being “mandatory upon the public in general,” rather than a “private” act.

33. The result is that, when Common Law Citizens of the several States apply for and receive Social Security Numbers, they unwittingly give up their primary Common Law Citizenship of a State and exchange it for that of a statutory “citizen of the United States.” It is most interesting that any State has the power to “naturalize” a non-Citizen, but today almost everyone is naturalized as a “citizen of the United States” under purview of the so-called 14th Amendment. The long-term effect of this procedure is that the Common Law White State Citizens are an endangered species, on the verge of extinction, and only the “subject class citizens” may survive to be ruled at the whim and passion of a jurisdiction never intended by our Founding Fathers in framing the original U.S. Constitution.

Jurisdiction of the court

34. Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment has had a far-reaching effect upon the several States of this Union, because Congress mandated that it would protect its new statutory “citizens” and that each of the States would also guarantee to protect these special statutory “citizens.”

35. This Nation was founded upon the fundamental principles of Common Law and self-government, with limited actual government. In contrast, the “subjects” of the “United States” are considered to be incapable of self-government and in need of protection and regulation by those in authority.

36. The majority of statute law is civil and regulatory in nature, even when sanctions of a criminal nature are attached for alleged violations.

37. Among those rights secured by the Common Law in the Constitution regarding “criminal” cases are the right to know the “nature and cause” of an accusation, the right to confront an accuser, and the right to have both substantive and procedural due process.

38. It is a fact that neither the Silverhill Municipal Court nor the Baldwin County Circuit Court disclosed the nature and cause of the accusations, nor did either of them afford “substantive” due process or produce a “corpus delicti” to prove damage or an injured party.

39. The final proof is that the rights given to an accused in such cases are “civil rights,” rather than Constitutional Rights. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals can hear a Constitutional question, but it cannot rule upon the merits of the question, because the Constitution does not apply to regulatory statutes. They are set in place to regulate and protect the statutory “citizens of the United States” who cannot exercise, and are not given, the right of individual self-government.

40. The Federal Constitution mandates that “counsel” be present at all phases of the proceedings. In contrast, Courts often conduct arraignment proceedings without either counsel for the defense or counsel for the prosecution being present.

Conclusion

41. This Court is proceeding under a jurisdiction which is known to the Constitution but which is foreign to the intent of the Constitution unless applied solely to those individuals who do not have Common Law access by “Right” to the protection of the State and Federal Constitutions.

42. Whether this jurisdiction be named International Law, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Legislative Equity, Statutory Law or any other name, it is abusive and destructive of the Common Law Rights of the Citizens of the several States. The Constitutions of the Alabama Republic and the United States of America mandate that these rights be guaranteed and protected by all agencies of government. This is the supreme Law of our Land.

43. The limit of police power and legislative authority is reached when a statutory “law” derogates or destroys Rights which are protected by the Constitution and which belong to the Common Law Citizens of the several States who can claim these Rights.

44. Defendant/appellant Olaf Childress is a White, male Common Law Citizen of the Sovereign Alabama Republic. This declaration of status is made openly and notoriously on the record of these proceedings.

45. As an individual whose primary Common Law Citizenship is of the Alabama Republic, Olaf Childress claims all the Rights, Privileges and Immunities afforded and protected by the Constitutions of the Alabama Republic (1819) and of the United States of America (1787), as lawfully amended.

46. Olaf Childress has never, to the best of his knowledge and belief, knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily surrendered his original status as a Common Law Citizen of the several States, to become a so-called 14th Amendment Federal citizen who is subject to the jurisdiction of the “United States.”

47. These Courts have proceeded in a legislative jurisdiction which allows a “civil” statute to stand as evidence of the Law in a “criminal proceeding,” and affords only “civil rights,” “procedural due process” and the right to be heard on the facts evidenced in the statute, rather than the Law and the facts. Defendant/apellant Olaf Childress was not allowed to quote the Law either at Silverhill Municipal Court or Baldwin County Circuit Court, and each time attempting any reference to the Law at his jury hearing was told by the Court to cease such defensive arguments or he would go immediately to jail.

48. It is now incumbent upon this Court to seat on the Law side of its jurisdiction and order the plaintiffs to bring forth an offer of proof that the defendant/appellant Olaf Childress can be subjected to a jurisdiction which uses civil statutes as evidence of the fundamental Law in criminal cases, which refuses to afford all Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and available to the Defendant in criminal matters, and which practices procedural due process to the exclusion of substantive due process, wherein only the “facts” and not the “Facts and Law” are at issue.

49. Should the prosecution fail to bring forth proof that defendant/appellant Olaf Childress has surrendered his original status as a Common Law “Alabama State Citizen” for one that is essentially in “legislative/regulatory equity,” then the Court has no alternative but to dismiss this matter of its own motion in the interests of justice for lack of jurisdiction.

50. While the petitioned ruling would set a course rendering eventually possible the recovery of presently-occupied offices both North and South that were militarily usurped after the Civil War, and portend for a time even much confusion, yet such difficulties must not deter this Court from recognizing the boundaries of that Federal Government created by the several States when together in accord, for the alternative is worse. Whether the defendant/appellant Olaf Childress was “properly licensed” by today’s authorities to enter upon the public roads is of no consequence; the question here concerns due process of Law. The very jurisdiction of these Courts is hereby challenged; but they refuse thus far to hear any argument that the “14th Amendment” failed to ratify; and, if it did not, then a long-overdue Constitutional crisis is at hand which many public officeholders want no part of. True courage is required for blind justice to raise her scale so that all the world might see this unsheathed sword of expedience sitting in judgment of itself get off the forum. God help us!

Records of proceedings as received by defendant/appellant from Baldwin Circuit on April 10, 2009

Pages 124, 125, 127 and 128 of the (pdf and hardcopy) records of the proceedings thus far, as received by defendant/appellant Olaf Childress from Baldwin Circuit Court, contain gravely misleading information. These forms may have been back-dated, inserted possibly by Prosecutor Michael Dasinger in support of his Client Kimberly Wasdin to excuse Silverhill Police Chief Kimberly Wasdin’s detaining and falsely arresting Olaf Childress in disregard of the 1819 Alabama Constitution’s Article I, § 9: “The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions, from unreasonable seizures or searches; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.”

Pages R 130 and R 131 have apparently been replaced by the Court Reporter, Rheannon M. Miller. Anyone might see those pages as Ms. Rheannon R. Miller originally sent them to Olaf Childress, a transcript for which she charged $650.00, at www.gulftel.com/firstfreedom/t130.pdf and at www.gulftel.com/firstfreedom /t131.pdf.

Missing from the same compilation is a two-page document that was presented in evidence by the defendant/appellant at his February 3, 2009, jury hearing as referred to on page R 91 where he was questioning Witness K. Wasdin’s ADDITIONAL ARREST NARRATIVE CONTINUED, to determine whether or not that was a cut-and-paste job to get her so-called facts straight, inasmuch as it jumps back and forth between font sizes throughout.

Defendant/appellant Olaf Childress had demanded to see the warrant for his arrest, so TWO have been produced, both of them after the fact. The first is at page 126, dated May 30, 2008, the day AFTER his arrest. The second is at page 125, dated May 29, 2009, and disclosed in this compilation for the first time. But punishing Ms. Wasdin, who was merely doing what has become practiced habit in an unfolding Police State and certainly requires investigation, is not the relief sought by Olaf Childress; nor is compensation for his losses of freedom, money and other property. The solution looked for is that this Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals BEGIN the overdue cure for America’s worsening condition as stated in the 4th paragraph on page 81:

“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. Relieving us of such continuing distresses as these roadblocks by declaring the court system itself and all so-called amendments to the Alabama Constitution since 1865 as de facto rather than de jure authority would prevent the bloodshed which is sure to soon follow; and I hasten to add that this is merely a prediction, no threat of any kind. What we seek is a true and just remedy that reinvests unto ourselves and this State the sovereignty recited in our de jure Alabama Constitution’s Article I, § 2: ‘All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit: and, therefore, they have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.’”

Many confederations have risen and collapsed throughout history. The Court’s ruling sought here need not cause anything worse than what is otherwise sure to follow shortly if we do not act to stop this ending of life as we have known it. Today’s visible forms of justice, even if more pro forma than actual, have at least kept alive the idea of a Constitutional Republic.

While it is not within the immediate power of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to regenerate America’s original Constitutional Government, yet, to quote President John F. Kennedy: “The longest journey begins with a first step… Let us begin.”

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of May 2009 with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights,

Olaf Olsen Childress

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

Citizen of the Alabama Republic

P. O. Box 385

Silverhill, AL 36576

Tel. 251-945-5130

Proof of service

I hereby certify that on this 1st day of May 2009 a copy of the foregoing has been served by first class U.S. mail to all of the following addresses:

Court of Criminal Appeals

CR-08-0896

P.O. Box 301555

Montgomery, AL 36130-1555

Baldwin County Circuit Court

312 Courthouse Square, Suite 10

Bay Minette, AL 36507

Judge Harry Wilters

312 Courthouse Square

Bay Minette, AL 36532

Judge Ken Raines

P.O. Box 309

Silverhill, AL 36576

Attorney Michael Dasinger III

18410 Pennsylvania Street

Robertsdale, AL 36567

Alabama Attorney General Troy King

Alabama State House, Suite 310

Montgomery, AL 36130-0152

Police Chief Kimberly Wasdin

Town of Silverhill

P.O. Box 309

Silverhill, AL 36576

Officer Carla Wasdin

Baldwin County Corrections Center

Bay Minette, AL 36507

Investigator Nathan Lusk

Baldwin County Corrections Center

Bay Minette, AL 36507

Court Recorder Rheannon Miller

Bay Area Reporting, Inc.

2102 Government Street

Mobile, AL 36606

Olaf Olsen Childress