From the March 2001 Idaho Observer:

“The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended”

Mark Alan petitions court to let him go on grounds that he has committed no crimes under common law;

United States files memorandum seeking to reject application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

SPOKANE, Wash. -- A Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on behalf of Mark Alan (Rabenold) February 26, 2001, by longtime family friend Dan Black of Chelan, Wash. The writ claims that Mark Alan “...was arrested and taken into custody by alleged officers of the United States of America without cause and without notice of any crime and is being held without bail in Spokane County jail without being informed of the nature and cause of the restraint of his liberties, or evidence of any crime all being in violation of your Applicant's due process of law.”

The four-page writ mentioned other items that indicate Mark Alan has been denied due process of law.

The following day Deputy U.S. Attorney Thomas Hopkins responded by filing the “Government's Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Quash and the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.”

Hopkins acknowledges that Mark Alan claims that he is being held in violation of due process of law. “The Court should reject the application because Mr. Black is neither a party to the action nor an attorney representing Mr. Alan. Furthermore, the application lacks merit because Mr. Alan was arrested on an arrest warrant after the issuance of a Criminal Complaint on February 9, 2001. The Court provided Mr. Alan with a timely detention hearing. A federal grand jury now has returned an Indictment against him. Thus, Hopkins reasoned, “Mr. Alan has been provided with due process.”

According to Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.”

The Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was adopted into the Constitution from the British Common Law, has been used to protect people from being prosecuted for victimless crimes. In other words, according to the U.S. Constitution, if there is no victim there is no crime.

The only victim being offered as a cause of action against Mark Alan in this matter is a federal marshall who cliams that the windshield of a car being driven by Mark Alan hit his hand.

According to Hopkins, who is representing the interests of the United States of America in this matter, a person has received due process if a federal agency files suit against a man though its own rules preclude such a filing. He also believes that due process is served when, in the act of serving legal documents for said agency, a federal marshall files a criminal complaint for pretended injuries sustained while in the performance of duties that should not have been performed in the first place.

According to the United States of America, incarcerating this man and obtaining a grand jury indictment and groundlessly denying OR release is due process.

Note: Hopkins, in his memorandum in support of denial, named “Mark Alan, aka, Mark A. Rabenold, aka Mark Alan, Rabenold, and Mark Alan (Rabenold) as the Defendant. But it was just an answer to motions filed by Mark Alan.

On an order filed by Judge Imbrogno March 1, 2001, MARK ALAN was named, followed by the “akas” listed by Hopkins--further proof that the federal government is attempting to trick Mark Alan into accepting responsibility for the legal fiction it is attempting to prosecute?