IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
CIRCUIT COURT ) Notice of Appeal
STATE OF ALABAMA ) Case number CC 2008 2146
Respondent ) Case number CC 2008 2148
) Case number CC 2008 2151
Olaf Olsen Childress ) Case number CC 2008 2150
Appellant )
)
)
_____________________________________________
Comes now the
Appellant in the above cases to appeal the convictions, sentences and orders of
Judge Harry Wilters of the
01. Denial of
Due Process
02. Failure to
furnish proof of jurisdiction as demanded
03. Denial of
the right to have a verified complaint filed against me
04. Denial of
the right to be charged with a crime before being forced into a trial
05. Denial of
the right to invoke 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 which claims 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.
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. Forced
seizure of my liberty and property without a warrant supported by oath
13. Forced
seizure of my property without Due Process
14. Denial of
appeal hearing before a jury for which Appellant had paid the Town of
15. Subjection
to double jeopardy by a new trial instead of the appeal hearing demanded and
paid for by Appellant
16. Twice
punished for the same charges while arguments by the Appellant in his interest
were not allowed
17. Appellant
was not permitted to question prospective jurors regarding their qualifications
to sit in judgment
18. Appellant
was not permitted to fully question a witness, nor to complete his opening and
closing statements
1. The Appellant’s Claims against the
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.
The trial Judge
erred in calling a trial over the objection that no verified complaint had been
filed and no charge was before the Court since there was no complaint supported
by oath to cause a summons from the Court to issue.
The trial Court
erred for never issuing a summons since there was no verified complaint giving
way for a summons to be issued.
The trial Court
erred when perjuring its account that a plea was entered by the Appellant, as
stated on the abstract of Court records. The Notice of Objections 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.
2. Questions before this Court
01. Did the
trial Court err by denying Due Process seizure?
The Appellant
reminds the Court that Due Process is an offspring of the Common Law, and that
the Common Law is Due Process and must be made of use when not waived by an
accused. See Hoke vs.
02. Is the Court
not obligated to prove its jurisdiction once challenged?
Regardless of
the many private motorists who choose to relinquish their right to travel
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 the act’s legitimacy is of no consequence. This Appellant reminds the
court of a case called
03. Is it
mandatory for the Court to have a verified complaint under oath before it can
issue a summons and accept the charges claimed against an accused person
otherwise to be tried merely upon an executive writ making allegations
unsupported by oath or affirmation?
The Appellant reminds
the Court that both the
04. Is it not
part of procedural Due Process that a person be first charged by a verified
complaint supported by oath or affirmation?
The Appellant
reminds the court that 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, 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 vs. Corp. of Charleston 1 bay
(SC) 384; Calder vs. Bull 3 Dall US 386 (1798); and 2
Pet US 657, 182 Hoke vs. Henderson 15 NC 15 which
should be compared with White vs. 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 vs. Simmons, 2 pears
(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?
The Appellant
reminds this Court that in Hoke vs.
06. 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
07. Does the
State of
The Appellant
reminds the Court that the only powers the State of
08. Does the
State of
09. Does the
State of
10. Did the
Government provide Due Process when taking life, liberty and property from the
States and their people in 1861 and thereafter?
The Appellant
reminds the Court that this is a very serious Due Process question long
overdue, begging resolution and requiring a higher degree of qualitative and
competent jurisprudence than exercised by Judge Ken Raines at Silverhill Municipal Court, and again by Judge Harry Wilters at Baldwin County Circuit Court, when merely rubber
stamping a Police State action rather than responding to the objections herein
respectfully presented. Since Due Process is strictly a virtue of the Court,
then no other venue can answer a Due Process challenge. Such uncertainty cannot
be lawfully resolved by shunting it elsewhere or classifying the same as “a
political question.” Nor is the imposture avoided by any other means, since it
is a problem of Due Process for the Court alone to decide.
11. Does the
State of
The Appellant
reminds the Court that both the
12. Did the
Police Department of
Dated this 26th
day of February 2009
Respectfully
Submitted,
___________________________________
Olaf Olsen Childress, in
propria persona, sui juris