Hari Longfellow Heath
c/o Box 126,
Santa, Idaho,
Non-Appellant
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, FOR THE COUNTY OF BENEWAH
STATE OF IDAHO (sic) )
) Case # CR 99-00443
Plaintiff in Error; )
Non-Respondent; )
)
vs. ) NOTICE OF NON-APPEAL
)
HARI LONGFELLOW HEATH (sic) )
)
Defendant in error; )
Non-Appellant. )
______________________________________________________
NOTICE OF NON-APPEAL
COMES NOW, the Non-Appellant, Hari Longfellow Heath,
a sovereign and natural born man, living upon the land
known as Idaho, who is now living in exile from his
home, a condition caused by a system of power which
has replaced the people's system of justice, perverted
their laws and defies civil government in a
constitutional form; and who hereby gives NOTICE that
he is not appealing the injustices perpetrated against
him in the instant case for the reasons shown
hereafter, and;
WHEREAS: The instant case is predicated upon a
conviction manufactured by said system of power for
the purposes of political persecution, a personal
vendetta of the county prosecutor, and to maintain the
status quo of said system of power, and;
WHEREAS: This case is based solely upon the alleged
"sighting" of the Non-Appellant "driving without a
license," for a fraction of a second, by deputy Bob
Loe, who's "observation," if true, would likely have
occurred through two automobile windshields while
traveling at highway speeds in opposite directions,
and;
FURTHERMORE: deputy Loe allegedly pursued the
Non-Appellant, yet was unable to find or make contact
with the Non-Appellant or his vehicle, although deputy
Loe reported he did contact another driver who was
allegedly ahead of the Non-Appellant and who
reportedly also did not see the Non-Appellant or his
vehicle, even though he would have been in a position
do so, if the event truly had occurred, and;
WHEREAS: Said deputy Loe is well known in his
community for less than honorable conduct, including
but not limited to taking bribes, theft, unlawful
searches/trespass, destruction/theft/concealment of or
falsifying of police records and/or court papers, and;
WHEREAS: Deputy Loe then reported his momentary
"sighting" with no contact to Benewah County
Prosecutor Douglas Payne, who sought to make use of
this fleeting opportunity and prosecute the
Non-Appellant and satisfy his personal vendetta
against the same at public expense, and;
WHEREAS: This is not the first time Payne sought to
satisfy his personal vendetta against the
Non-Appellant at public expense. On a previous
occasion Payne stalked the Non-Appellant into the
Gun's and Pawn store, in what would later appear to be
an effort to charge the Non-Appellant with a crime.
When the Non-Appellant left the store and got into the
van which his wife was driving, someone, most likely
Payne, called in a report of an "unlicensed driver",
giving a description of the van. Deputy Loe responded
to the call and observed the Non-Appellant's wife
driving, ran her license and found her license valid.
Payne was unsuccessful on this attempt to satisfy his
vendetta. This is known because a friend of the
Non-Appellant was both listening to a police scanner
and was a witness to the stalking event and later
reported it to the Non-Appellant, and;
WHEREAS: Said vendetta is predicated upon the
Non-Appellant's prior litigation regarding the right
to travel for private non-commercial purposes without
a license, which was extensively litigated much to the
chagrin and embarrassment of prosecutor Payne; wherein
Payne, magistrate McGee and judge Kosonen willfully
ignored higher court rulings, the law, statutes, the
Constitutions, rules and procedures in order to ensure
the Non-Appellant's conviction in that previous
matter, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant further litigated that
matter in federal court as a violation of
constitutionally secured rights which caused
prosecutor Payne and others further embarrassment,
and;
FURTHERMORE Prosecutor Payne filed a "Criminal
Complaint" in the instant case, swearing under oath to
facts which he did not personally know to be true, and
which are of a questionably legitimate nature, given
the duration and substance of the alleged inculpative
event, thereby making an "UNQUALIFIED STATEMENT OF
UNKNOWN FACT" (Idaho Code 18-5408), a felony act of
perjury, specifically defined by the Legislature as:
"An unqualified statement of that which one does not
know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that
which one knows to be false," and;
WHEREAS: The Legislature has specified the Contents
of a complaint in Idaho Code 19-505:
"The complaint must set forth the facts stated by the
complaining witness, tending to establish the
commission of the public offense and the guilt of the
defendant" [emphasis added], and;
WHEREAS: Prosecutor Payne, prima facie, is not and
cannot be a complaining witness, in the instant case
and is therefore unable to swear a complaint under
oath without committing perjury, and;
WHEREAS: The Legislature has also established, as a
matter of law, in Idaho Code 18-5405, that:
"It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury that
the accused was not competent give the testimony,
deposition or certificate of which falsehood is
alleged. It is sufficient that he did give such
testimony or make such deposition or certificate,"
and;
WHEREAS: As the record of the instant case
evidences, Prosecutor Payne did not adhere to the
requirements of Idaho Criminal Rule 3 by failing to
file an affidavit from the complaining witness, deputy
Loe, thereby leaving the substance of both the
probable cause to initiate a proceeding and the
court's jurisdiction in question as this case is both
predicated on perjury and unsupported by affidavit,
and;
WHEREAS: Idaho Code 19-101 declares that "No person
can be punished for a public offense except upon a
legal conviction in a court having jurisdiction
thereof," and;
WHEREAS: Payne's "SWORN CRIMINAL COMPLAINT," filed
in the instant case is a jurisdictionally foundational
document which fails to establish jurisdiction, being
predicated upon perjury and a failure to adhere to
both the statute and rule regarding the requirements
of a complaint, yet the Non-Appellant continued to be
prosecuted, and;
WHEREAS: upon these matters being brought to the
attention of district judge Kosonen, on appeal, judge
Kosonen dismissed the appeal saying it was "without
merit," thereby defiling the law and the Legislature,
so as to protect his guilty comrades in the system of
power, and;
WHEREAS: When the Non-Appellant performed according
to the duty imposed upon him by 18 USC, Section 4 and
filed a criminal complaint of the foregoing and other
misconduct in the instant case, pursuant to Idaho Code
19-504, said criminal complaint was not prosecuted,
even though properly sworn and filed (CR00-100,
Benewah county), and;
WHEREAS: The Attorney General's office was contacted
requesting their prosecution of that matter, yet they
refused to do so, while similarly, the court informed
prosecutor Payne of the said pending criminal action,
who, as a defendant in the matter, was statutorily
required to turn it over to the Attorney General's
office for prosecution, yet he failed to do so, and;
WHEREAS: The aforesaid system of power shunned its
duty to promote justice by failing to prosecute the
clearly evidenced felonious conduct of court officers
Payne and McGee, as they continued to
prosecute/persecute the Non-Appellant in the bogus
instant case, and;
WHEREAS: Although the system of power ignored the
valid criminal complaint against Loe, Payne and McGee,
Payne sought to hide the fact of their criminal
defendant status from the jury in the instant case
with a Motion In Limine and McGee "found" the
Non-Appellant in "contempt" for mentioning the fact
that a criminal complaint was filed against Loe, Payne
and McGee to the jury, therefore evidencing that Payne
and McGee acted in concert and used their positions in
the system of power to avoid culpability for their
felonious conduct while punishing the Non-Appellant
for exposing said conduct, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-appellant has previously and
extensively presented to the same court officers
numerous higher court rulings supporting the right to
travel non-commercially without a license, all of
which were willfully ignored by the said court
officers, including district judge Craig Kosonen on
appeal, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant has also previously
evidenced the defective, unenforceable as written and
constitutionally unauthorized nature of the statute,
Idaho Code 49-301, which the Non-Appellant was charged
with violating, along with the constitutionally
secured rights which were violated in its enforcement;
and even though the court was duty bound by statute to
"answer all questions of law arising during the course
of the trial," said court willfully failed to answer
said questions with any legal substance, and;
WHEREAS: Idaho Code 19-3915 states: "The court must
decide all questions of law which may arise in the
course of the trial, but can give no charge to the
jury." yet, when the Non-Appellant read this statute
into the record at trial and attempted to bring
questions of law before the court and jury, in the
aforementioned previous case, the jury was removed
from the court room and the Non-Appellant was
threatened with shackles and imprisonment for contempt
if he mentioned the law one more time to the jury, as
the system of power abhors laws which limit their
exercise of unfettered power, and;
WHEREAS: "That it is a maxim of the law, that the
judges respond to the question of the law, and juries
only to the question of fact. "The answer to this
objection is, that, since Magna Charta, judges have
had more than six centuries in which to invent and
promulgate pretended maxims to suit themselves; and
this is one of them. Instead of expressing the law,
it expresses nothing but the ambitious and lawless
will of the judges themselves, and of those whose
instruments they are." It is not my intention here to
impugn all judges, as the Supreme Court and higher
court judges generally understand the Constitution and
the Common Law and rule wisely. However, many lower
court judges do not rule in a way consistent with
Constitutional principles, and do violence to our
heritage. Many judges do not even live up to that
part of their own maxim, which requires jurors to try
the matter of fact. By dictating to them the laws of
evidence, that is, by dictating what evidence they may
hear and what they may not hear, and also by dictating
to them rules for weighing such evidence as they
permit them
to hear, they of necessity dictate the conclusion to
which they shall arrive; and thus the court really
tries the question of fact, in every cause. It is
clearly impossible, in the nature of things, for a
jury to try a question of fact, without trying every
question of law on which the fact depends." (From
Lysander Spooner's Essay on the Trial by Jury), and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant has previously
evidenced substantial peripheral issues necessary to
legal prosecution, such as the magistrate and
prosecutor's provably unlicensed condition, wherein
they were required by statute to be licensed to
practice law before they could operate a court and
prosecute the Non-Appellant for driving without a
license, yet they failed to be so licensed, of which
the Non-Appellant obtained proof thereof by way of
subpoena, but was not allowed to offer said proof upon
the record by magistrate McGee, further denying
justice, truth and the law, while simultaneously
seeking to manufacture a conviction, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant has been thoroughly
shown in numerous cases by those in the system of
power that justice is unavailable, the Constitutions
are irrelevant and the law is a mere tool of
convenience to be discarded when it is adverse to the
interests of the system of power that has replaced the
people's justice system and civil government, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant had no desire to prove
any rights or question any laws or correct any legal
wrongs, and was in no way seeking any such opportunity
in the instant case, as may have been the case
previously, and;
WHEREAS: Professor Albert Einstein has well defined
"insanity" as repeating the same behavior and
expecting a different result, and;
WHEREAS: the Non-Appellant has no desire to be
insane and expect any different result from the system
of power that has replaced our justice system, and;
WHEREFORE: the Non-Appellant, preferring sanity, did
not seek to repeat any previous methodology of
defense, having been shown by the system of power's
fierce defiance of the Constitutions, laws,
procedures, rules and all else that would seem
reasonable to those who would have an expectation of
justice, and;
WHEREAS: since it had been a mystery to many
Americans how courts can operate, on so many occasions
across the land with such defiance to the
Constitutions, laws and all things good and just; and
Americans, by nature being adventurous, curious, and
ingenious when necessary, we the people, in this
information age have extensively communicated and
sought to understand this malcondition of injustice,
by application of attempted remedies and communication
of the results thereof amongst ourselves, for the
maximum mutual advancement of our understanding of and
the cure for the apparently terminal and malignant
condition of the third branch of our government, and;
WHEREAS: Many Americans have expended great effort
in this cause, at much personal cost to themselves;
often also suffering greatly from the injustice of the
system of power which we have tried to comprehend and
re-establish into some constitutionally responsible
form, and;
WHEREAS: There has been much experimentation,
turning every stone that may be turned and pursuing
all remedies which have a glimmer of hope, our nation
being worth the effort, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant, having previously
attempted a defense based upon law, case law and the
Constitution; and having experienced the same court's
vehement reaction to the same; and not wishing to be
insane and expect a different result from any similar
application of law, the Non-Appellant chose instead a
method that, even though bizarre in its premises, as
reported, promised a positive result, and;
WHEREAS: After diligent study of this new method,
the Non-Appellant attempted to apply it in the manner
in which had reportedly been successful. True to the
form of raw power seeking to prevail no matter what,
those in the system of power refused this method of
remedy as well, and plundered on towards their
pre-ordained conviction, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant was unable and unprepared
to use any "legal" defense and undesirous of being
"insane" for so doing, as there were no apparent
viable options for defense of the Non-Appellant, in
the face of a vendetta prosecution where everything is
subject to the whims and "discretion" of the judicial
officers in the system of power conducting their
tribunal, so as to quash a dissident, and;
THEREFORE: Let the facts be submitted to a candid
world that;
WHEREAS: There is a systemic failure of the
"justice" system in America, and;
WHEREAS: Today, we find our nation in a state of
judicial anarchy held hostage by a system of power
through various unconstitutional schemes and the
collection and expansion of power by the judiciary, as
Thomas Jefferson explained would happen in his 1821
Autobiography:
"Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal
judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the
question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and
grapple further hold for future advances of power.
They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners,
steadily working to undermine the independent rights
of the States and to consolidate all power in the
hands of that government in which they have so
important a freehold estate.", and;
WHEREAS: Originally entrusted to interpret our laws
and maintain access to courts of justice, TO WIT: the
Idaho Constitution declares: "Courts of justice shall
be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded
for every injury of person property or character, and
right and justice shall be administered without sale,
denial, delay or prejudice (Article 1, section 18)"
and the Federal Constitution further compels judicial
officers compliance with its mandates: "The...judicial
officers, both of the United States and of the several
states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to
support this Constitution;...(Article 6, section 3),"
yet, instead, the judiciary has evolved into a
creature of not so subtle lawlessness, and;
WHEREAS: The Constitutions are no longer the
foundation of government, but rather they have become
treated as documents to be used when convenient to the
judiciary or ignored, defiantly, whenever they do not
suit their purposes; for truly, who will call the
mismanagers to account? And;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant previously attempted to
call the mismanagers to account and enforce his rights
secured under the Constitution by filing a federal
suit for a remedy based upon a law of Congress (28 USC
1343), for which the court itself sought requests for
sanctions to punish the Non-Appellant for having the
audacity of believing he had any rights and a law of
Congress could be used by a citizen to obtain a civil
remedy, and;
WHEREAS: Over 900 similarly formed cases were filed
across the nation, yet all were dismissed by the
system of power, thereby denying the people law,
justice, remedy and redress, so as to protect those in
the system of power, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant has previously
experienced the federal system of power, wherein, the
Non-Appellant was prosecuted/ persecuted in the clear
prima facie absence of jurisdiction, while violating
the commands of the Constitution to provide a jury in
a criminal prosecution, so as to manufacture a
conviction based upon a provably perjurious and false
accusation, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant has also experienced the
court of judge Kosonen, wherein the provably
fraudulent acts of the State Tax Commission were not
allowed to be proven by using the obscure and
unlegislated Civil Rule 84(s), while denying both the
constitutional command of Article I, Section 18 of the
State Constitution to freely administer justice
without sale or denial, and the Legislature's command
that the Declaratory Judgment Act "shall be liberally
construed and administered," and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant has previously appealed
to both the federal and state court's of appeals, who
have craftily avoided the substance of issues and the
law, or completely ignored the same so as to protect
those in the system of power, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant sought a simple remedy
from the instant case in lieu of a full appeal, by
filing a declaratory action questioning the single
issue of the jurisdictional foundation of this case in
light of prosecutor Payne's failure to comply with
both Rule 3 and the statute governing the filing of
criminal complaints, as well as his prima facie
legislatively defined perjurous conduct. Judge Kosonen
again protected those in the system of power by
dismissing the action under another obscure
and improperly titled statute (IC 6-610), while again
denying both the constitutional command to freely
administer justice without sale or denial, and the
Legislature's command that the Declaratory Judgment
Act "shall be liberally construed and administered,"
and;
WHEREAS: The system of power has created a new class
based animus called "constitutionalist" and classified
the Non-Appellant and others as such to demonize them
as an enemy of the state for their presumed belief
that the Constitution should create and limit the
powers of government, and;
WHEREAS: It has been the Non-Appellant's all to
common experience that judicial officers routinely
ignore constitutional commands and defy the contents
of clear and substantial case law, rules and statutes
when they do not suit their goals--the collection and
maintenance of power, while persecuting those citizens
who legitimately question unconstitutional or illegal
governmental activities, and;
THEREFORE: The citizens, in whom "all political
power is inherent" and for whom "government is
instituted for their equal protection and benefit" are
denied such a government and any civil remedy by the
system of power, leaving the people nowhere to apply
for justice, and;
WHEREAS: When those that are solemnly charged with
upholding the law, ignore the law, then there is no
law; there is only lawlessness, and;
WHEREAS: Judicial "discretion" is a method that
gives the anarchists on the bench the "authority" to
have their way with whomever comes before them,
disregarding law, or selecting from among the many
conflicting laws and rules for one that benefits the
purpose of the moment, and;
WHEREAS: Ample case law usually exists to support
either side of an issue. Volumes of case law on a vast
subject matter have already been decided, and usually
several different ways, so judicial activists have
plenty of legal outcomes to chose from. Add in the
"broad discretion" given to trial courts, which are
rarely overturned on appeal, and what "is", is, is
whatever the judge decides "is" should be that day, as
Thomas Jefferson explained: "This member of the
government... has proved that the power of declaring
what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining,
slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the
Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to
attempt," and;
WHEREAS: It has not been a sudden event, but slowly,
step by step, we have been conditioned to the changes
made by the now independent judicial branch as they
have developed their system of power, and;
WHEREAS: Thomas Jefferson saw it coming: "For
intending to establish three departments, coordinate
and independent, that they might check and balance one
another, it has given, according to this opinion, to
one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the
government of the others, ... The Constitution on this
hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the
judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any
form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer
Roane, 1819, and;
WHEREAS: By creating the rules the system of power
controls the proceedings before them. By controlling
the attorney's, they control the legal questions which
come before them. Through the monopoly of the Bar
Associations, those who won't conform are eliminated.
With a broad and unfettered "discretion" they have
empowered themselves to define just what the law is.
By controlling the evidence and the testimony they
control the facts. By controlling the jury they
control the verdict. With a claim of jurisdiction they
can "find" their authority to determine any subject.
With a simple dismissal, or a judicially legislated
doctrine like "estoppel," or the sealing and blocking
of a case, they can prevent any question from being
heard. By controlling the question they control the
answer. The shelves of the law libraries are filled
with answers to carefully controlled questions, ready
for the next round of judicial plunder by the system
of power. And after the citizen has been plundered of
his rights and property, and seeks remedy and redress,
what does he find? More judicial legislation creating
the great wall of "Immunity," and;
WHEREAS: Many forms of immunity abound, but the
judiciary has created for itself and its prosecutors
the doctrine of "Absolute Immunity." This unlegislated
judicial fiat proclaims that no matter how corrupt or
violative of your rights or the Constitution
government actors in the judicial branch are against
you, you cannot sue them for damages, and;
FURTHERMORE: No such Immunity "laws" exist in the
statutes because legislators haven't made such laws.
They are a constitutionally prohibited act of
"judicial legislation." One more brick in the wall of
judicial anarchy, barring any redress for the citizen,
and;
WHEREAS: the relationship between master and
servant has been reversed and we the people serve our
new masters in government with taxes and tribute. This
is evident by courtroom conduct compelling that "all
rise" as the public's master, referred to as "your
Honor" proceeds to the bench for another session, and;
WHEREAS: Caught in the web of pretended offenses
where, all too often, no one but the "defendant" has
been offended, the judicial officer lays a "claim" of
jurisdiction to determine who gets what's left of our
lives and fortunes as constitutional provisions
securing our rights are damned or ignored, and;
FURTHERMORE: We the people are treated by the
judiciary as mere property, whose rights exist only by
the permission of government, subject to judicial
discretion. Time after time, Americans who believe
they have rights antecedent to government have
challenged the tyrannical corruption of the third
branch only to find themselves beaten down by a
judicial officer, who willingly departs from the
government laid down by the Constitution and embraces
a new regime, and;
WHEREAS: Thomas Jefferson explained it well in 1807:
"The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary
independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel
of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant
to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings
to its own will," and;
WHEREAS: Idaho's Constitution grants to the
Legislature the power of creating the lesser courts,
thus keeping a check and balance between the powers of
the three branches of government, however, no longer
"ordained and established" by the Legislature, our
lower courts have become the province of the Supreme
Court. Yes, there are statutes establishing the lower
courts, but the "rules" supersede those statutes
according to judicial fiat and provide the procedures
which ordain the lessor court's conduct and control
their operation. The functional utility of the lessor
courts is controlled in house through "rules"
recommended by committees of lawyers and "adopted" by
the state and federal Supreme Courts, and;
WHEREAS: Just as the Supreme Courts have done with
the Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, they have
also adopted Rules of Evidence. The Rules of Evidence
control the evidence and that is the prime directive
for "the ambitious and lawless will of the judges
themselves, and of those whose instruments they are,"
as Lysander Spooner expounded in his Essay on the
Trial by Jury, and;
WHEREAS: In the quest for the consolidation of power
unto the system of power, control is the goal. By
controlling the rules of the game, the judiciary
controls the game, and;
WHEREAS: "The accumulation of all powers,
legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same
hands, whether on one, a few or many and whether
hereditary, self appointed or elective, may justly be
pronounced the very definition of tyranny." -- James
Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 47, and;
WHEREAS: this system of power that has replaced the
people's civil government resides in that greatest of
all monopolies, the Bar Associations, which claim as
their members, all judges, all attorneys, many
legislators, much of the executive branch members, and
an army of attorneys who have infiltrated the
administrative agencies, which have become a branch of
government unto themselves, and;
WHEREAS: The Idaho State Bar (ISB) is a creature of
artful construction, TO WIT: By legislative fiat,
all those who "practice" before the courts must be
members of Idaho's "fully integrated Bar" -- a
monopoly which can and will prosecute anyone who
commits the "unauthorized practice of law." But this
is only the beginning of the artifice which controls
those who parade their cases before the judiciary,
and;
WHEREAS: Pretending to be a part of government lends
the appearance of authority, which in reality the ISB
doesn't have. The ISB doesn't actually license anyone.
No licenses are issued. As nothing more than a private
club, the ISB cannot issue licenses. But the ISB does
have "members in good standing." Can an "agency" of
government have "members in good standing?" Such is
the purview of a private club, yet this "agency" also
has its' "members" vote for the commissioners which
operate said "agency," and;
THEREFORE: The artful contrivors in the lawyering
class have attempted to make the ISB an "agency" to
justify it's existence and consolidate power. On their
website they claim the ISB is a "self governing
state agency" and the ISB operates under power and
authority delegated by the Idaho Supreme Court through
its "rule making power" and under statutory authority
of the Legislature." They further claim "The Idaho
State Bar is the administrative agency of the judicial
branch of the State of Idaho," and;
WHEREAS: " there's a constitutional problem with
said scheme, TO WIT; Article IV, section 20, of the
Idaho Constitution limits administrative agencies to
not more than twenty departments under the executive
branch; and FURTHERMORE: Article V, which creates
and defines the judicial branch does not grant the
Supreme Court any "rule making power," nor does the
Constitution authorize any "administrative agency of
the judicial branch of the State of Idaho," and;
WHEREAS: "Article II, the separation of powers
article, prohibits any person or collection of persons
from one branch of government from exercising the
powers properly belonging to another branch unless
there is an express provision for such an exercise of
power. "Rule making" is an act of legislation, not a
judicial act, and administrative agencies are an
executive function, and;
WHEREAS: The pretension that the ISB is an agency of
the judicial branch of government is a clever ruse,
but the constitutional fact is there is no authority
for the Supreme Court to create the ISB, and what's
more, they are prohibited from engaging in its'
legislative and executive functions by Article II.
Therefore they have no authority to license lawyers or
prohibit the "unauthorized practice of law," and;
WHEREAS: Even though the ISB is illegitimate as the
foregoing evidence indicates, they still pretend to be
a legitimate authority and will prosecute any
competition for the aforesaid pretended offense
because the consolidation of their system of power
requires it, and;
WHEREAS: Those who go against the grain of such a
system of power will have their "member in good
standing" status revoked, and the outcomes of their
future cases adversely predetermined--because the
system of power can, and;
WHEREAS: Law could and should be a simple thing
designed first and foremost for the people themselves;
a system that is clear, predictable, comprehensible
and usable by the average person; something one can
rely on, and;
WHEREAS: "Laws are made for men of ordinary
understanding and should, therefore, be construed by
the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which
may make anything mean everything or nothing at
pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson,
1823, and;
WHEREAS: Instead of simple justice we have a
convoluted and contradictory system designed for
perpetual litigation with an inherent design to
accomplish the obstruction of true justice, and;
WHEREAS: Courts cannot be predicted, even on
seemingly clear issues, because the layers of
contradictory case law laid down for decades give ripe
opportunity for the whimsical discretion of the
presiding judge. One rule or statute may command
certain conduct, while another commands a
contradictory result. Fill a law library with enough
rules and statutes and the judiciary is unfettered in
their ability to pick and chose the outcome of any
given matter. Justice can be obstructed, truth can be
ignored and the Constitution shunned as all experience
of the Non-Appellant hath shown, and;
WHEREAS: When the system fails the people, to whom
will we apply for a remedy? And;
WHEREAS: Some pretended efforts to remedy the
problem have been attempted in Idaho by establishing
the Judicial Council to take complaints of judicial
misconduct. However, from 1995 through 1999, 915
complaints were lodged with the only result being that
one judge was reprimanded. Tax dollars were spent on
the Judicial Council members and their staff in return
for a near zero accomplishment, and;
WHEREAS: With no enforcement teeth to remedy or
redress judicial anarchy our nation succumbs to the
corruption of the third branch, and;
WHEREAS: "Power is the great evil with which we are
contending. We have divided power between three
branches of government and erected checks and balances
to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check
on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the
power of the judiciary, I predict that we will
eventually live under judicial tyranny" - Patrick
Henry . And;
WHEREAS: When those that are solemnly charged with
upholding the law ignore the law; then there is no
law; there is only lawlessness, and;
WHEREAS: When there is no law, what is pretended as
law becomes only theater--a Judicial theater--a
theater of operations--a judicial war zone, demarcated
by the court's bar and their army of controlled
attorneys, and;
WHEREAS: America, having been sucked into the black
hole of judicial anarchy, is now a vacuum filling with
the bodies of over two million prisoners, the majority
of whom did no harm to another or their property in
the commission of their "crime," and;
WHEREAS: The legislature, often acting in excess of
any constitutionally granted authority, has manifested
a multitude of manufactured "crimes" against the
state, for purposes of socialistic control of the
formerly free citizenry; thereby causing the
citizenry, now re-manufactured into criminals, to
become victims of the state which was originally
instituted for their equal protection and benefit,
and;
WHEREAS: Their families are ruined in the wake of
an all consuming system of power as it gorges itself
on people and their property, unchecked by any
effective civil process, and;
WHEREAS: The Non-Appellant began his encounters with
this system of power, innocently believing that
justice was available; that law was the rule and could
be relied upon; the decisions of the Supreme Court
actually meant something and due process was more than
a mere theatrical facade to conceal the system of
power's kleptocratic plunder, and;
WHEREAS: The overwhelming experience of the
Non-Appellant hath shown that justice is nowhere to be
found; that law has become nothing more than a
perverted tool used by the minions in the system of
power as they collect more power unto themselves, and;
WHEREAS: Honor has been perverted by the system of
power and the title "Your Honor" is now the antithesis
of its original meaning, and;
WHEREAS: It has now become obvious that modern-day
judges must fully cover themselves with a robe of
black to hide the darkness within; for evil has become
the nature of the system of power which employs them,
and no other color will adequately cloak the evil
darkness within them, and;
WHEREAS: The system of power has refused assent to
laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public
good, and;
WHEREAS: The system of power has obstructed the
administration of justice by refusing assent to laws
for establishing judicial powers, and;
WHEREAS: The system of power has erected a multitude
of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers, to
harass our people and eat out their substance, and;
WHEREAS: The system of power has combined with
others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving
assent to acts of pretended legislation, and;
WHEREAS: The system of power has deprived us in many
cases, of the benefits of any genuine trial by jury,
and;
WHEREAS: In every stage of these oppressions, we
have petitioned for redress in the most humble of
terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only
by repeated injury. The system of power, whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define
a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people,
and;
WHEREFORE: The Non-Appellant, now having lost any
innocent beliefs he may have had, favoring truth,
justice, a government of laws, reason and decency; he
must now act according to what hath been revealed by
his experience;
AND WHEREAS: That experience now includes state and
federal courts, at both the trial and appellate
levels, which have proven themselves corrupt beyond
any shadow of a doubt. Such a fact being apparently
nothing new, as the Supreme Court wisely included the
conclusions of Representative Perry during his debate
of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 in the Mitchum v.
Foster case (92 S. Ct. @ 2161),TO WIT: "Sheriffs,
having eyes to see, see not; judges having ears to
hear, hear not; witnesses conceal the truth or falsify
it; grand and petty juries act as if they might be
accomplices... All the apparatus and machinery of
civil government, all the processes of justice, skulk
away as if government and justice were crimes and
feared detection. Among the most dangerous things an
injured party can do is appeal to justice."
THEREFORE: The Non-Appellant hereby gives NOTICE
that he will not be appealing the instant case
further, even though in an honest system of law there
would be good cause to do so, because the
Non-Appellant does not wish to be insane and expect
any different result than all experience hath shown
him in his encounters with the system of power, where
all is for naught and evil is the ruling force of the
day.
Submitted on this ____ day of ______________, 2001,
by Hari Longfellow Heath,
who further sayeth not.