Alabama’s Mossad-trained stooges capture politically-incorrect hearse

By Olaf Childress

Driving north on Baldwin County, Alabama, Highway 55 at around 7:30 PM on May 29, 2008, I encountered four police cars flashing lights and stopping vehicles. Silverhill Police Chief Wasdin wanted to see my drivers license. I asked if she had a lawful cause for stopping me, whereupon that dyke summoned several police accomplices to my vehicle while yelling, “Get out!” I did not, but asked rather, “Am I arrested, and, if so, under what charge?”

“Yes,” she shouted, “failure to obey a police officer.”

“Wait a minute,” I replied, “I’ll show you the law forbidding your stopping me without probable cause; I have a copy of the Constitution right here.”

Wasdin yelled furiously, “Everybody complies with roadblock checks for licenses and insurance; now get out!” As I didn’t move, five officers dragged me from my hearse and over to her car, threw me in its back seat, locked the doors and, because I wouldn’t sign some kind paper without first consulting my lawyer, Officer Wasdin drove me straight to jail in Bay Minette. There I spent 18 hours being “processed in,” grilled and shoved around by Deputy Mock, who handcuffed me to a steel stool welded to the floor. They fingerprinted, photographed and repeatedly threatened that if I didn’t sign their papers without access to my lawyer, I would go into the main prison (a slave community of mandatory garbage pickup, construction and maintenance labor loaned out daily to private contractors, public officials, etc.) until my trial date on July 2.

Officer Bishop brought me the next day, Friday afternoon, at last to Sgt. Thickling’s interrogation chamber, where the latter said my wife had arrived and signed their papers, so all I had to do was countersign. I repeated that I had broken no law, and would agree to nothing without consulting an attorney. Finally, Thickling called and discussed the situation with the one I named; whereupon I was handed the phone, my lawyer advised me to sign, and I did.

So four appearance bonds required my presence at Silverhill Municipal Court on July 2, 2008, at 4:00 PM: “Expired Tag” $200, “No Proof of Insurance” $200, “Failure to Comply with LEO” $500, “Resisting Arrest” $1,000. My wife had forked over $1,900 even though we are 32-year property-owning local residents; and my hearse is a familiar sight, Chief Wasdin having waved at it several times. The vehicle displays magnetic battle flags on both front doors and “Death to the 14th Amendment” decorates the rear ones – plus, the back door reads, “”. Its air horns respond with “Dixie” to anyone who waves.

“(Almost) everybody complies” because Chief Wasdin and her accomplices intimidate them. That behavior can turn a Republic into a despotic Empire. How widespread is this practice? Wasdin told me roadblocks were set up simultaneously across Alabama, so I blame our Governor equally, and demand relief from such Police State tactics at three levels:

1. No stopping of drivers and yelling, “Show me your papers!” or searching and seizing a vehicle without warrant or probable cause, nor incarcerating any known local and peaceful property-owner pending his trial. (I paid Dixie Auto Body Repair a $135 ransom to recover my hearse and there’s no duty to obey a “LEO” (presumably “law enforcement officer”) when he/she/it refuses to even look at the Constitution’s injunction against what that LEO is ordering. (I offered to show Chief Wasdin her error.)

2. No staged police shows intimidating citizens and further derailing Constitutional law; a State resolution declaring the non-commercial rights of private citizens to travel public roads without paying licenses, fees or taxes however called, because such restrictions apply only to vehicles operated for business purposes; no licensing even of sin, for today’s secular law is disinterested in morality and we are here concerned only with noting the distinction between “permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful” and the unalienable rights of private citizens. (It is not unlawful to marry or procreate; one doesn’t need certificates to do these things. 

 Only after petitioning the State to license something otherwise prohibited, say a corporate charter that grants advantages beyond those of ordinary citizens such as impeding traffic with more than a private vehicle, does one owe any authority for a special privilege. Until Constitutional law derailed, no roadblock ever demanded that an organized church “Show me your papers!” And, while The First Freedom, this tabloid which I publish, accepts paid subscriptions, it’s a small, not-for-profit enterprise also requiring no license. My hearse which Chief Wasdin seized had no commercial value; I use it only to haul around a copy of the unratified “14th Amendment” for eventual burial along the Potomac, and for handout literature. 

3. No adverse ruling on this matter by the Silverhill Municipal Court on July 2 at 4:00 PM without first proving its jurisdiction in a sovereign State of Alabama.

I met with supporters just outside Silverhill at noon that day, and we spent three hours discussing what was at stake; why we, the people, must finally secure honest media to tell the world that the “Fourteenth Amendment” – like George Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction” – is a lie. Other legal expense fundraisers may follow during the next several months as the processes of defending my right to travel and prosecuting Policeperson Wasdin go forward. The legitimately-ratified U.S. Constitution ends with its 1865 Thirteenth Amendment, so the whole kit and kaboodle affixed in the meantime is null and void. Now I do recognize a de facto government occupying the North and South alike, setting up roadblocks under its “USA Patriot Act” and ordering us to “Obey your police!” which tumorous growth we hope and pray to excise.

OUT with the TRUTH – BURY the LIE!

The average Southerner in 1861 owned no slaves. That’s not why Alabama got invaded. Lincoln’s own prewar speeches make this quite clear. Nor is it why Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground, continuing his 40-mile-wide scorched earth rape of Blacks and Whites from what had been that fair city across Georgia to the sea. We’re tired of this slander. The only reason Lincoln gave for starting his War of Northern Aggression in Virginia was “to preserve the Union.” Heck, that’s the same excuse King George gave (no, not our current king) for invading the U.S. Actually, those bankers who put dishonest Abe into office wanted to keep the South paying 3/4 of the federal budget through tariffs. Against the illegally ratified “13th Amendment” that ensued, forcing Alabama in 1865 to free all slaves, no argument; but the “Fraudulent Fourteenth” is another story. It also provably bypassed Article V, but was falsely declared ratified by the War Party in Washington. The only thing thereby amended was a “facilitator’s” open road to tyranny. Section 1 of the “14th” named those Africans “…citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” ignoring the U.S. Constitution in order to set up puppet State governments across the South (as in many once-sovereign lands elsewhere today); in spite of which, the “amendment” thus far wouldn’t have made matters much worse.

In section 2, however, the intent becomes clear. Where the States had been wary of each other under Article I (no State should enjoy more federal representation than its population justified), this new dictum says, “But when the right to vote … is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age … the basis of representation therein shall be reduced…” Thus ended federalism in 1868. No longer is jealousy seen between sovereign governments. Nanny facilitators begin corrupting those former States into a single mold, and convince all inhabitants that they are no longer citizens of their States as before, but, along with the freed slaves, subjects of that ten mile square District on the Potomac.

Section 3 says Confederate veterans who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” may not “hold any office, civil or military,” an occupational decree impersonating a constitutional amendment. But why? Because they were busy reconstructing the false image of Reconstruction then as in Iraq today.

Section 4 anticipated, in 1868, a certain Christmas coup later known as the 1913 “Federal Reserve Act,” and got quickly to the point: “The validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned.”

In conclusion, Section 5 declares: “The [U.S.] Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” So Alabama and all the forcibly united States both North and South can now see what this “14th” portended. The United States Constitution has since lain in limbo and no subsequently legitimate laws have been enacted either at the “federal” or the “State” level; nor can be, until such time as the States recover their sovereignty.

Okay, the “15th Amendment,” yes, from here on they’re all in quotes now that the District’s “in” crowd has nullified the 10th Amendment. This 1870 fraud says a State cannot qualify voters as to whether they own property, can read and write, speak English, fill a ballot without assistance, pay taxes, understand the Constitution, etc., thus a State no longer exercises those “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.” Each biped votes. The “16th Amendment” income tax, inevitable child of the Fraudulent Fourteenth, proved the Politburo’s disdain for constitutional law on February 3, 1913 no less surely than did the “17th” two months following.

With the latter, all pretense of separate legislative chambers ended. No longer did we have a Senate of republican argument and a democratic House of Representatives – the members of both thenceforth being popularly “elected” from among those corporaticians receiving the Politprop’s nod. Whereas the original charter’s Article I, Section 3 said “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…” the “17th Amendment” decreed “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…” So they just chucked statehood, along with the 10th Amendment, and were done with it. Learn much more by subscribing to The First Freedom.

Just obey your local nuwop

By Olaf Childress

Revisiting Gone With the Wind for the first time in many revolutions (i.e., solar) the other night, I was struck by the sheer femininity of all those ravishing Southern belles, and not merely Margaret Mitchell’s depiction of how they looked and acted in the 1860s, but, halfway between then and now, Hollywood’s ability to locate females capable of reenacting such refined virtues. If today’s movie moguls wanted to glorify our cultural heritage (which they do not), where might they again look for a Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara, femme fatale?

On May 29, 2008, Silverhill, Alabama’s imposing Police Chief Kimberly Wasdin strutted from one detained motorist to the next, helping each of the half dozen police officers at her command with their 7:30 PM overtime-paid roadblock assignment. The victims submitted resignedly, rolling down glasses and producing demanded papers. Until my turn. Not able to proceed without acknowledging her presence, I cracked my window a bit to hear, “Mr. Childress, let me see your drivers license.”

“Do you have probable cause for this stoppage of travelers? You know such a roadblock is unlawful, I hope.” Her facial expression changed from one of command to fury.

“Get out!” she shouted.

Making no move, I replied: “I will not.”

“Give me your keys and get out of that vehicle right now!” she yelled.

By this time three of the more authentic men in uniform abandoned their positions of harassing others detained in both traffic directions – motorists quite likely fussing at my causing delay rather than valuing a defense of either their obsequiousness or ignorance – and walked over to see if the chief needed assistance.

“No, I can get him out of there without any help,” she dismissed them; but, maybe thinking her muscles mostly fancied, they didn’t return to the practiced system. Even though no guns were drawn, here was the shootout our more TV-affected bulls look for nowadays, and it requires resolution for them to just play backup behind Wasdin’s bulky version of Hollywood’s omnipotent female Rambo. You’ll find such gals on all of the New World Order’s battlefields. Staring at me from behind her left shoulder as others of his cohorts approached stood one officer baring gritted teeth, hands on hips, visually daring me to make any move that might suggest “resisting arrest” while waiting for her to give whatever order.

“Am I being arrested?” I asked.

“Yes, now get out!” she repeated.

“What’s the charge?”

“Disobeying a police officer. Move!”

“Wait a minute,” I replied. “I’ll show you the law forbidding your stopping me without probable cause; I have a copy of the Constitution right here.”

That apparatchik had no interest in due process; she was the law. Sitting amazed at this, I was “Yanked” from my vehicle and dragged by five uninformed but uniformed policemen to scalawag Wasdin’s patrol car, thrown and locked into its back seat, then hauled off to spend the night in jail.

What do we want?
By Olaf Childress

The Organizer of this group has just removed you from the group. Your racism has no voice here among our Constitutional beliefs.”

Thus replied the mastermind behind a Pensacola bunch of kids (i.e., in a military town) supporting Ron Paul for President. Knowing just how skittish a lot of people can be these days, I had divulged my credentials right up front when asking permission to address his next gathering, i.e.:

“The bad news, I’m a ‘racist’; the good, that much articulately written truth appears in each monthly issue of the newspaper I publish out of Silverhill. Some may worry that The First Freedom will do Ron more harm than good, but let’s put our cards on the table. TFF promotes Ron’s election, welcomes articles and suggestions. Not all Ron Paul meetups have a 24-page monthly newspaper. It’s ‘racist,’ but would start putting a qualifier in each issue that ‘Ron Paul does not necessarily endorse the views of this newspaper.’ ”

Such pleading didn’t help. It never does. “He’s a ‘racist’; case closed.” That group organizer might have invited me to at least one meeting in order to debate whether or not “racism” is unconstitutional; for I am a willing student if, while standing on his “Constitutional beliefs,” he can find that prohibition in my copy of our fundamental law.

Many among these young adults, taught since childhood that conforming to rules and getting along in society is today’s only option, fail to realize how disconnected that leaves them from their best interests. Such “independent” seekers will migrate to one or the other among “given” choices. Self-government means countering “Show me your papers!” with “Let’s see yours.”

Which leads to hearing a few dissident arguments, real deviation from those triple “options” the Poodle Press was proposing as presidential timber – The Three Stooges clowning for that office – until the New York Times declared it narrowed down to two. Naturally an informed voter would go for Ron Paul, but how many even knew he was still in the running?

The blackout was almost total. How did it come to this? Even the internet-savvy (Ron Paul’s support base) for the most part couldn’t get it into their heads that they comprised an elite minority, but only comparatively so; else why must such ones wallow with the conforming masses, and call any dissenter either “a racist” or acceptable company (as no other “choice” presents itself into their tele-advised reality).

This thing of a presidential “election” was so transparent, it offered no resistance to the touch. In other words it wasn’t there. I said as much from day one: the only way ZOG could pull off that chutzpah, i.e., pocket a Black and a woman co-presidency at its beck and call, required hiding the flaws of their third player until late in the show and only then exposing – the insane McCain.

Every problem presents but a single face of the coin whose obverse is opportunity. Want to cash in on that equation? Here’s the secret. Flip it over.

A challenge: Indoctrinated to accept the absolute equality of each and every person, no other choice, let it ride; illegal Mexican immigrants only perform the jobs nobody else wants, very well; and corporate capital is just interested in spreading democracy, same as our media always presenting Israel in a noble light for the good of all, play the game; they own the “news” and we’re far from reclaiming that forum. But our time is coming.

Can you sense a heads-up side in taking all this to its logical conclusion?

Equality! We go for it. Each Mexican has a right to celebrate his Cinco de Mayo, a separate heritage, culture, language and La Raza (an organization in the U.S. that’s receiving millions of dollars yearly from us taxpayers plus foundations determined to destroy our race!) – while literate Negroes enjoy many racially-conscious magazines and other media; also they’ve got NAACP pushing them to advance as one, and their exclusive organizations include legislative caucuses at both State and federal levels; they attend separate clubs for sheriffs and mayors, political lobbies solely for their kind’s betterment, no Whites wanted. The Jews are another story. Their segregated lobbies, synagogues, kosher inspection agencies, holo museums, racially-aware studios, magazines and other media abhor making the same empty threats as poor Mestizos and Negroes who wait in line at the public purse, for Jews are its keepers.

Equality! No, not on par with beggars at the trough: we’re claiming such separatism as enjoyed by those who pour the slop to politicians eating their own entrails. Join our Caucasian Defense League! a National Association for the Recovery of White People, La Raza Blanco, a Redneck Seal of Approved Grits, a Miss European America and enough media power to make the Jews quit their anti-Whiteyism. Nothing against them, of course (though they won’t see it that way); we’re just claiming equal rights to admonish miscegenation between our racial stock and non-Aryans, and will not tolerate such intolerance as denies the genocide at Dresden and Berlin. Off with the heads! of those investigating our media montages about – The Atrocity.

Heh heh, just kidding, Abe! But, quote that exclamation anyway, and you don’t even need to spell my name right. I invest one hour on bended knees at each sunrise praying for yours and mine, that both of our peoples may go on living as God made us. Nobody sees what’s in that antagonism better than does Horst Mahler on TFF’s July 2008 page 11.

But then Herr Mahler, like myself, is a victim of his persecution complex. Maybe in time we can learn, same as the public at large, to see those six million fingers you hold before all eyes. Meanwhile, the ones motoring around devoid of such vision keep running into roadblocks. I came upon one of Kommissar Chertoff’s Homeland Obscurity traps while cruising my “Death to the 14th Amendment” hearse back into Silverhill recently.

As explained by the Jewish mediacracy, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures can be violated if it’s done indiscriminately. In other words, don’t set up squads of goons in uniform to stop only those vehicles near the Mexican border, that’s racial profiling. And don’t expect policemen all across the land to even indiscriminately violate the Fourth Amendment, until you’ve whetted their appetites for criminality with sizeable overtime pay packages. After all, each of them, at least here locally, has signed an oath – solemnly swearing to support the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Alabama, “so help me God.”

In other words, to reach its transparent objectives, Homeland Obscurity is turning police officers into willing players who’ll sign any form shoved in front of them by a superior, no hesitation, go wherever and do the job. Which is what it would take (as stopping motorists, searching and seizing their vehicles without cause, is strictly criminal) to bring about the total Police State that Mr. Chertoff and the media are after. No, most of those “news” flunkies aren’t in on the Bilderberg war room’s briefings; they’re just part of the same “fringe benefits” that keep copping more cops.

It’s a sad state of affairs, and, if certain subscribers to this paper who’ve received my special bulletin will bear with me, after explaining the present case to others, I’ll detail what’s happened in the meantime.

At around 7:30 PM on May 29, 2008, I encountered four police wagons flashing lights and stopping motorists. Silverhill Police Chief Kimberly Wasdin wanted to see my drivers license. When I asked if she had a lawful cause for stopping me, that dyke called several police accomplices to my vehicle. “Get out!” she yelled. I did not, but asked rather, “Am I under arrest, and, if so, what’s the charge?”

“Yes,” she said, “disobeying a police officer.”

“Now, wait a minute,” I replied, “I’ll show you the law forbidding your stopping me without probable cause; I have a copy of the Constitution right here.”

Wasdin yelled furiously, “Everybody complies with these roadblock checks for licenses and insurance; now get out!” As I didn’t move, five officers dragged me from my hearse and over to her car, threw me in its back seat, locked the doors and, because I wouldn’t sign some kind paper without consulting a lawyer, Officer Wasdin drove me straight to jail in Bay Minette. There I spent 18 hours being “processed in,” grilled and shoved around by Deputy Mock, who handcuffed me to a steel stool welded to the floor. They fingerprinted, photographed and repeatedly threatened that, if I didn’t sign their papers without access to a lawyer, I would go into the main prison (slave labor community of mandatory garbage pickup, construction and maintenance workers loaned daily to private contractors, public officials, etc.) until my trial date on July 2.

Officer Bishop brought me at last to Sgt. Thickling’s office, who said my wife had arrived and signed their papers, all I had to do was countersign. I repeated that I had broken no law, and would agree to nothing without consulting an attorney, so finally Thickling called him; the latter advising me to sign, which I did.

So four appearance bonds required my presence at Silverhill Municipal Court on July 2, 2008, at 4 pm: “Expired Tag” $200, “No Proof of Insurance” $200, “Failure to Comply with LEO” $500, “Resisting Arrest” $1,000. My wife had forked over $1,900 even though we are 32-year property-owning local residents; and my hearse is a familiar sight, Chief Wasdin having waved to it on several occasions. The vehicle displays magnetic battle flags on both front doors and “Death to the 14th Amendment” decorates the rear ones, plus “” on the back door. Its air horns respond with “Dixie” to all who wave.

“Everybody complies with these roadblock checks!” and few argue about them, as such goon squads intimidate busy citizens who don’t realize it’s important to carry a copy of the Constitution and at least try to defend our disappearing rights. How widespread is this practice? On the way to jail, Wasdin told me roadblocks had been set up simultaneously all across Alabama, “so just blame our Governor as well.” I wrote him accordingly, a copy of which appeared on page 23 of the July 2008 TFF.

Most readers of this newspaper received notice about what had taken place, and my thoughts on turning such a Police State challenge into an opportunity. Nathan B. Forrest used to shift the invader’s attention suddenly from bravado to a rout, and that possibility was what we had to focus our thoughts on if the principle for which Jefferson Davis spoke hadn’t eluded us entirely. We weren’t going to maximize the initiative forced upon us without going all out, hitting these courts under a foreign occupation with undeniable law, holding mirrors to the faces of shameful judges instead of entering any kind of “motion” and demanding the proof of their jurisdiction. Which is where two schools of thought within our patriot community diverge.

A pair of Sovereign Citizens dropped in to advise me about going the Don Sullivan route. Like him, they and their spouses had filed papers with the probate courts cutting all ties to the District of Corruption, each proclaiming: “I, John Doe, sui juris, do hereby exercise the remedy found in Sec I of the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-308, and affirm and declare that I have made an ‘explicit reservation’ of all common law rights, ‘without prejudice’ U.C.C. 1-308, NOT to be compelled to perform under any contract of adhesion, quasi-contract, contract implied in law, implied consent legislation, bankruptcy or any other trick or artifice under color of law, which I have not entered into knowingly and intentionally. I will not accept the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract, commercial agreement or bankruptcy, and do hereby declare and affirm that I have not and will not waive, relinquish or otherwise surrender God-given unalienable rights or common law rights which are protected by the United States Constitution, the Alabama Constitution and the Bill of Rights of both the U.S. and State Constitutions thereunder, by word, deed, mistake or performance anent any unrevealed contracts, commercial agreements or bankruptcy that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally.

“This explicit reservation of rights under U.C.C. 1-308 also serves notice upon all administrative agencies of corporate government (federal, State and local) that I have not accepted, and will not accept, the liability associated with a compelled benefit of any unrevealed contracts of adhesion, quasi-contracts, contract implied in law, implied consent legislation, bankruptcy or any other trick or artifice under ‘color of law.’ In addition, notice is served upon the United Nations Secretary General and all non governmental organizations worldwide that I am not a subject of nor subject to any edicts whatsoever which may emanate from these de facto dictatorial (fictions of law) agencies, declaring my allegiance to Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe and to Him only.


The advice of these two gentlemen was welcome. Both of them, like correspondent Don Sullivan, are walking law libraries. I recall having met Mr. Botee at a League of the South lunch in Magnolia Springs years ago, where Bill Mori of the Alabama Flag Initiative, along with Kiwi and the others, couldn’t believe he had successfully defied the occupation courts on several occasions for driving with no tag or license. That is, until we walked outside and inspected his beautiful new pickup’s hand-painted tags.

When he parked his luxury car the other day outside my office, it again displayed no mark of the ZOG.

Because our streetwalking media won’t talk about such defiant motorists bypassing their hiked skirts, few people know that the usually moneygrubbing U.C.C. courts do not want unknowing patrol cops writing them up. As Don Sullivan reported after the judge dismissed charges against him for driving with neither license, insurance nor tag (TFF, May 2008), “Putting our heads together, the best explanation we could come up with was that the judge had been so degrading and disrespectful towards me so that the trooper would not feel like he had completely lost the battle.”

Why do the courts here, unlike those in Germany where such dissenters as Horst Mahler go directly to jail never to pass GO nor collect $200 for wasted time, have no desire to prosecute Americans Botee, Bork and Sullivan? It’s because they desire to keep that Monopoly board’s secrets secret. The fear here, of course, is that a Ron Paul Revolution may awaken our people to the rights they still have, whereas over there judges are concerned that those who’ve copied every decadent habit this country could teach them might now discover its virtues.

L. B. Bork and Joseph Rorie are letting the cat out of the bag so that all who would know the truth may free themselves at last of this federal monopoly. Bork, author of The Red Amendment, a treatise that takes apart the unratified baggage hung onto the U. S. Constitution, informs citizens at his website exactly how we might join that growing throng of liberated individuals.

But, when he heard that I’m more for freeing the State of Alabama from its many federal “guidelines” than just myself, L.B. suggested Joseph Rorie – “the Cat Man,” who heads South Carolina’s Article V Group – was the gent I should learn from instead of himself, as he would meow me a better legal map for purrsuing that alley.

Which I well knew, as Joseph’s clever way of writing the fraudulent “Fourteenth Amendment” story was published in this newspaper starting with #711 (Nov. 2005), and you can still order it from this newspaper. Or, for the more serious Constitutional scholar, there is an earlier series by Arthur Burns and other experts on the U.S. Constitution starting with The First Freedom’s April 2005 issue (#704) and continuing through October 2005 (#710). In other words, I walked into that courtroom not altogether unprepared for whatever the judge tossed my way at the 4 PM municipal court session on July 2, 2008.

My daughter Irene and I wheeled into the parking lot at Silverhill’s one restaurant at noon that day to discover film producer Jeffrey Hill, who had spotted the big battle flags on her car doors, pulling in alongside to introduce himself. He had driven down from north Alabama the previous day and spent all morning interviewing on camera various locals, many of whom hadn’t heard about the May 29 Police State roadblock on the south edge of our small town.

“Some of those didn’t even know who you were,” said Jeffrey. “A few just looked blank regarding ‘Mr. Childress,’ but knew about ‘Olaf,’ and a few said, ‘O, you mean the guy with the hearse.’ ”

We three were half finished eating when in walks Deacon Bill Cox in battle regalia as usual, having ridden his Harley down from Pike Road. His Confederate Cavalry Corps buddy T-Reb Morgan would meet us later at the courthouse. He loaded a buffet plate and sat down as I was telling Jeffrey about finding Bill near a protest gathering some time back over at Mississippi State while there to interview the elusive Morris Dees of Southern Puberty Lechery Center fame (and, uh, fortune).

The four of us after lunch motored down to the scene of Chief Wasdin’s crime. As the camera rolled, I pointed to the South Boulevard street marker and explained that here’s where the roadblock and shakedown had taken place, so this present afternoon we would sit in Silverhill’s new courtroom witnessing its rapid cost recovery. Down the hill from where we stood, one could see Ray Byrd’s Dixie Auto Salvaging, the sign out front sporting a battle flag. That Police State roadblock had parked my hearse in his impoundment enclosure and Ray, who doesn’t want to “get involved,” nor join us on camera by his sign, had collected $135 ransom from me.

We then drove the two miles out to my place and, under our backyard oak tree, I pushed the hearse’s button playing “Dixie” on its air horns for producer Jeffrey, who was happier to see those battle flags than the nuwops had acted in conducting their May 29 roadblock. He panned old “Death to the 14th Amendment” all around, while learning about its twofold mission: to raise forgotten truths and virtues from the past, and eventually inter a defunct fedguv’s counterfeit slavedrivers license when State pallbearers shovel honest dirt onto its lids. The solemn vehicle’s back door, decorated with “Ron Paul” stickers and a magnetic “” sign, swung open so that his camera could peer inside at its rollers on which a coffin containing sample copies of American Free Press, The Truth At Last, The Duke Report, The Nationalist Times, American Family Voice, The Idaho Observer, The First Freedom and various pamphlets glides out at patriot gatherings just far enough that its half-lid opens clear of the roof, allowing folks to collect and take home an education for all who wish to discover their heritage – and resuscitate its very soul.

We next walked to the barn in which that coffin spends most of its time; and, while raising its lids for a peep at all those patriot tabloids, together with the two signs “Out with the truth!” and “Bury the lie!” I gave a talk on Kommissar Chertoff’s Department of Homeland Obscurity: the absurdity and dishonesty of fedguv-financed roadblocks shaking down towns like Silverhill, while arresting border guards for doing their duty alongside the shallow Rio Grande, where the word is “Don’t look/don’t see.”

“What is the New World Order?” asked Jeff. “And tell us why you’re fighting it.”

“The Jew World Order,” I replied, “is a disease embedded deep in the subliminal. Most carriers never know they’ve got it. Especially today’s police remain unaware of having become evil. All of us want to belong, and cognitive dissonance kicks in when somebody says we’re infected with a foreign idea, even after we’ve passed their ‘racism’ tests, etc., with flying colors.

“The world’s foremost ‘racist’ belongs. His people comprise but two percent of the population; with their collaborators thrown in, perhaps three-hundredths of that total. We who oppose those roadblocks amount also to no more than 3%, and such a pair of competing teams calls the score on that whole 94% up in the spectator stands.

“But, while we write, produce and direct less than ten percent of what 94% absorb from the communications media, the JWO controls, in addition to our ‘legal tender,’ over ninety percent of this world’s presses and entertainment monopolies. We fight an uphill battle. Why? Because that roadblock is there. How? One tabloid newspaper at a time, dollar DVDs by the Jeffrey Hills in our movement, and the internet. We can!

“With cognitive dissonance staying the innate fight of our people – a majority but not the whole 94% which takes in Negroes, Mestizos, etc. – there is the challenge. We shall cut this number of Whites Without a Clue to 92%, then 88% and up that slope! Let’s defeat their propaganda by plying the truth: Jews have hoarded the gold in order to capture the media with which this JWO paints its aggression as holo-victimhood! Say it: ‘Heritage, not hate; a spade is a spade and the Jew is a Jew.’ Whisper it. ‘Jew.’ Now out loud. ‘Jew!’ (Pray for him.) It’s late, let’s get to that hearing.”

Arriving at Silverhill’s town hall court, the Deacon spots and calls out to his biker comrade among those loitering outside. I walk past him and begin pumping the hand of the only Black there that day. “So this is our Confederate Cavalryman? How do!” A real sport, he laughs and enjoys the joke. After introductions all around, we enter the den, half a dozen of us taking the second row behind some convicts brought in by a deputy, I on the aisle just right of my wife.

Judge Raines calls fifty or so of those summoned and present in the courtroom, plus maybe another 50 who aren’t there, before calling my name. Weird! Silverhill is a small town. But, ever since the fedguv began sending “revenue sharing” (bribes) to once much-less-criminal municipalities and counties, we’ve been getting all these new K-12 indoctrination centers, jailhouse compounds and bigger courthouses.

I hand the judge my signed Notice of Objections based on lack of due process under the 1819 Alabama and the 1787 U.S. Constitutions as both stood in 1860 (I have the Alabama Archives’ copies thereof), thus challenging his and the entire de facto government’s jurisdiction inasmuch as the “14th Amendment” didn’t ratify; and he thanks me. I walk over and give a copy of same to the prosecutor, then return to my seat. Judge Raines, without reading it, lays the sheet aside and continues calling others forward. I watch the prosecutor and Chief Wasdin for some twenty minutes debating intently what to do about this. He then hands a note to the judge, who summons me back up.

“What you’re claiming has already been decided,” he says. “I have no other choice than to confirm our jurisdiction.”

Returning his big smile, this defendant replies: “I know just where you’re coming from, judge, but here we’ve a due process problem. Merely alleging that the ‘14th Amendment’ was ratified won’t cut it. Having proofs that it didn’t, I will read my Notice of Objections to you if something therein isn’t clear.”

“How do you plead to the charges?”

“I plea nothing. You’ve no jurisdiction.”

“You will take an oath or go to jail.”

“Let the record show it’s under duress.”

Chief Wasdin, whose imagination is a match for her bulk, is called to testify. (Had I but witnessed the scene she describes!)

“You may now question this witness’s [baited] testimony,” advises Judge Raines.

“I have nothing to say.”

“Then you are guilty on all charges.”

Fines eat my $1,900 appearance bond. That digested, they tell me to come up with an additional $1,900 if wishing to appeal. Ha! I estimate it will take six months of contesting this four-count conviction and “court costs” (boy, do they know a sweet racket or what?) before we go against that police chief.

ADDENDUM: MUCH LATER, we learn that the above film maker Jeffrey Hill, and longtime acquaintance Bill Cox, whom I introduced to each other at lunch, no doubt had worked together before. Bilcox was an SPLC spy! See the January 2011 issue of TFF for details on him, and we’ve never heard back from suspected federal agent “Jeffrey Hill.”

The fraudulent 14th amendment
The First Freedom

June 24, 2008

P.O. Box 385

Southern Judicial District

Silverhill, Alabama [36576]

Office of the Governor

Alabama State House

Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Dear Mr. Riley,

Would that there were merely one or two questions that I, Olaf Childress, might ask of you and expect a simple reply; but, because of ongoing fraud, distortion and duplicity layered, embedded and engraved upon our minds about history and “law of the land,” the missing answers just multiply. However, as advised by Joseph Rorie, I shall cut these inquiries to a few. It’s hard knowing where to start, since I have been subjected to the public/government school system. And yet, insofar as an ill-educated background permits, and hoping my private studies suffice, I shall attempt to brief you on certain historical facts that baffle me as regards citizenship, due process (before, during and after the Civil War), the Union Army’s participation in the Article Five process of amending the U.S. Constitution, Congressional (Union of Northerners) usurpation of those Article V mandates and the outright overthrow of principles well settled in our jurisprudence at that time.

Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, quoting the typical daily Senate statements, added “What is said every day: the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet, and establish military power over them until they do adopt it” (Congressional Globe, Feb. 20, 1867, page 1644). This was not mere talk; they did just that, and the Reconstruction Acts prove it.

State citizenship has been the proper (and, may I add, “only”) status that our forefathers possessed before that military enforcement of the “14th Amendment” upon our country. This so-called 14th amendment supposedly created a new “United States citizen” (U.S. vs. Susan B. Anthony, Van Valkenburg vs. Brown, the Slaughterhouse cases, Crosse vs. Board of Supervisors of Elections 221 A 2nd 431 1966, Twining vs. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 1908, etc.). Though the proposed amendment never complied with Article V procedures and mandates and so cannot be considered constitutionally ratified, it is forced upon us. The Utah State Supreme Court in 1968 lamented in Dyett vs. Turner, saying, “We feel like slaves in a galley.” Neither you, nor any jurist at any level, will find military power authorized in Article V which requires the willful votes of State legislatures and forbids the deprivation of State suffrage except where States consent. Guns pointed at the head are not consent, nor is a surrogate government installed by military replacement of properly-elected officeholders acceptable. A public official can only be “properly” taken out (Hoke vs. Henderson, Brown et al. vs. board of Levee Commissioner, White vs. White 5 Barb NY 474, 1849, etc.).

The Courts adopt a well-known escape hatch to avoid answering questions on this so-called amendment’s validity. First and foremost, the attacks and invasions of the Southern States were without due process of law, so the whole problem is a judicial question; i.e., did the government provide due process when taking life, liberty and property from the States and the people in 1861 and thereafter? Can anyone produce evidence of a single summons, judicial hearing of any kind or Court order finding the accused States “guilty,” or that they were judged and sentenced by Congress? No, such taking of life, liberty and property lacked any presence or adjudication of a Court. Jeremiah Black, Attorney General prior to those crimes, plainly stated that it would be illegal to invade States except by Court order. He further advised that, were the threatened States treated like enemies, they could retaliate in any form considered necessary, and that “…if Congress shall break up the present Union, by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their federal obligations? …then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the general government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions” (Official Opinions of Attorneys General of the United States, vol. 9, pages 516 and 526). Jeremiah Black’s decision would naturally stand as the official opinion of the United States Government according to section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act. What branch of government took heed, or even gave it any rank at all? While this remains strictly a due-process argument, the Court has been hiding behind a well-known, fraudulent wall of escape: “It’s a political question.”

Where in the history of due process can it ever be called mere opinion when due process is strictly a judicial function?

Any new meaning of due process after the United States Constitution of 1790 must go through Article V, so postwar changes have no standing (e.g., Hurtado vs. Calf. 110 U.S. 516, 1884, arrogantly stating that a grand jury would not be necessary “so long as the rest of the trial is fair”). Even when a Court alludes to doubts about the “14th Amendment” while hiding behind this wall, saying it cannot rule on the issue, I find that contradictory since the Court has made rulings concerning the validity of an amendment five times (Hollingsworth vs. Virginia, 3 Dall, 378, 1798; Hawke vs. Smith, 253 U.S. 231, 1920; Rhode Island vs. Palmer, 253 U.S.; Dillion vs. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368; and United States vs. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 1931). Which negates any trust in Courts that turn around and select a timeframe and an amendment not to rule on.

Article V of the Constitution holds State power superior to Federal license. States, use it! Don’t like how the Court defines Article VI, paragraph 2? Then, States, just put Article V into practice; show your State authority. Don’t want Federal government occupying ten square miles? States, put Article V to practice and give them two square feet. Do States feel like “slaves in a galley”? Then use that constitutional power and put those oars back in Federal hands! If States’ rights are null, so is the government (Kidd vs. Pearson, 247 U.S. 75-276).

Since the “14th Amendment” did not ratify, then first and foremost there is no such thing as a United States citizen as defined in post Civil War doctrines (Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300, 302, 1855).

As a single kind of citizenship exists, i.e., that of a State, I demand protection for my God-given rights. Take note that I said nothing about constitutional rights because there are no such. The Constitution of Alabama as adopted in 1819 and its amendments are for my protection and the only law of the land. Any other statutes, codes or acts placed upon the books being labeled “laws” that contradict true law have no authority, are null and void (Calder vs. Bull 3 Dall U.S. 386, 1798; Wales vs. Stetson 2 Mass. 145; Foster vs. Essex Bank 16 Mass 245, 1819; and the famous obiter dictum by John Marshall in what is “called” a case though it was not, the famous Marbury vs. Madison. By the way, that should have been Marshall vs. Madison, since it attempts to deny what Madison had proclaimed just three years prior in the 1799 Virginia Convention concerning the authority of the State Courts as the highest in the land. Wonder what happened to that opinion, made by the actual drafter of the constitution himself, and why it is not the prevailing concept today?)

In Barron vs. Baltimore 7 Pet. U.S. 243, 1833, It has been ruled and understood that our (State citizens’) rights are protected by the States. Some of the above cases reflect these differences of protection. But I find Alabama grossly negligent in allowing her citizens to be defrauded in a government- supported School system where nothing is taught concerning true citizenship. Why are we called U.S. citizens? Why are State citizens (and not U.S. subjects) “who are citizens in the State in which they reside” being conned into believing that they are U.S. citizens? Why has “State citizen” fallen into disuse, perhaps to disappear from history and our posterity?

Alabama knowingly allows this false teaching (that three-fourths of the States ratified the “14th Amendment”), publishes its policies thereunder, sends the message that “we are slaves in a galley.” Why hasn’t the State protected me from encroaching, usurping and tyrannical government, an unauthorized power trespassing upon my rights? Why are the Governor and State Legislature involved in this plot to render both the State and Federal Constitutions null and void by creating legislation and forms that reduce State citizens to mere subjects?

Will Alabama forbid de facto officers from trespassing on our rights and forcing drivers licenses upon citizens who are not on the road for hire, but only private travel?

Will Alabama cease using only the term “United States citizen” on all of her voting, licensing, and other forms by adding to them the term “State citizen”? After all, what is a State without indigenous and committed citizens? When will this State introduce into textbooks the historical truths of why the “14th Amendment” never ratified? As you can see, question follows upon question. I cannot ask them all, for each packs another loaded conundrum. In essence: will the State of Alabama stand for truth?

I ask you to exercise the de jure office you hold, though having come by it de facto. That “office” owes to me these protections and remedies I am demanding here, and not the person(s) possessing it. Because you are on record as a U.S. citizen and I find nothing that claims otherwise, this State office is held by a foreign person. Reading Ableman vs. Booth, quoted in the Jeremiah Black opinion above, we see two distinct spheres of jurisdiction. Therefore a State Governor’s office should be held by a State citizen and not someone from another domain. Though there is no “real” United States citizen, even understood as a fiction readily accepted by the ill-informed, that still spins out as a foreign entity; which dilemma causes conflict with and trespasses upon my rights. As all Federal offices were prior to the war filled by State citizens, they are now held de facto as well, unless we can determine that the people willfully and knowingly made such changes; but then they would have attended conventions and made amendments through Article V, which they did not. The U.S. Constitution is clearly talking about State citizens. When has such a citizen occupied any of the State offices, been a President or a Congressman?

The damages caused by fraudulent teaching in public schools has severed common knowledge from the people in such measure and duration that, to be truly informed, one must leave his generational time frame and study past public memory. The modern plenitude that overwhelms these commuting elements in people has dismantled necessary reasoning. So-called elections present few sound alternatives, since educational institutions have already pre-stored the present course in voters, classifying them ens legis rather than as natural persons.

Regarding the Law of Nations, in which Article 1 section 8 clause 10 has “To define and punish… offenses against the Law of Nations,” it will be remembered that this was written by Emmerich de Vattel in 1758 and incorporated into our Constitution word for word, as John Jay instructed his grand juries around the circuits. Legislation contrary to the Law of Nations goes against the Constitution and the several States. New international law supposedly accepting but contradicting Vattels Law of Nations has no binding force because no officeholder at any level is authorized to change the Law of the Land (Westervelt vs. Gregg 12 NY 209), either international or domestic. I remind you again that altering the Constitution can proceed only through Article V, as no amendment has nullified Article 1 Section 8 concerning this great part of our laws (United States vs. Smith 5 Wheat. 153, 160, 162, 1820; the Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat 1, 40-41, 1826; and United States vs. Brig Malek Abhel, 2 How. 210, 232, 1844); yet the government today violates every portion of it. Whether the importance of this is recognized by your office or not, I mention here without further elaboration the connection between this and the other problems mentioned above.

“The Constitution is certain and fixed: it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land. It is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the constitution: they owe their existence to the constitution: they derive their power from the constitution. It is their commission, and therefore all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The constitution is the work or will of the people themselves, in their original sovereign and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative or subordinate capacity: the one is the work of the Creator and the other of the creature. The constitution fixes limits to the exercise of the Legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt that every act of the Legislature repugnant to the constitution is absolutely void” (University of North Carolina vs. Foy 2 Howard NC 310, 1805).

Please note hereto attached affidavit giving your office the particulars of my status. It will stand in any Court of law, and can only be rebutted by overcoming evidence. If your office can prove anything to the contrary, this is my notice for you to present such evidence or accept all that is stated herein as binding truth. You should make a rebuttal either in writing or en silento. I think 30 days will be sufficient time for you to answer my questions and accept or disprove anything in the affidavit. Your silence shall be considered consent to all the facts therein.

“I said the Constitutional amendment had not been adopted.” (Senator Henderson, Congressional Globe, Feb. 20, 1867, page 1644).

Olaf O. Childress


I have given here ample proofs that the “Law of the Land” is on my side and that I am under the State’s protection concerning all of my rights. I believe you as Governor control that department and can issue me a letter of recognition along with an order that I may show any officer who detains or attempts to classify me as a “subject/ens legis” while charging or arresting me for practicing my right to journey without a drivers license in traveling for private purposes. This order should instruct any police officer to allow me free movement on the public roads.

I will as an act of courtesy make an identification card with a recent picture of myself, giving enough details to conclude my identity as a State citizen and the man bearing that document, so that anyone who requests the same could determine that I am the natural person possessing it.


I, Olaf O. Childress, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that the following statements are true to the best of my knowledge.

1. I was educated in the public school system.

2. I was never taught by the public school system the various differences in word meanings that dealt with the law of the land.

3. I was never taught in the public school system that the “14th Amendment” failed to ratify. Instead, it instructed me that the “14th Amendment” did ratify, and, as a result, I have acted against the true government of this land.

4. I was given to believe that only one type of citizenship existed in the United States of America, and as a result acted under such false teachings.

5. I am a natural born person with natural rights given to me by God Himself, and no other.

6. I have in the last few months come to know the truth about (a) the failure of the “14th Amendment” to ratify, (b) falsified definitions planted in the 1864 Webster’s Dictionary and reiterated in its subsequent editions, (c) lawful words and phrases such as “due process” and “liberty” having been changed by the post Civil War Supreme Court; and, as a result, I now realize my original status.

7. I am not a United States citizen as defined in post Civil War doctrines.

8. I am a citizen of the State of Alabama established in 1819.

9. I have accepted contracts relating to the United States Government because of false teachings that purposely hid the facts about my status, and, as a result, ignorantly entered into various of those commitments.

10. I am presently engaged in research that has revealed many truths heretofore kept from me by the public school system, as a result of which studies my ignorance has come to an end. Lately aware of my status as a freeman, I hereby denounce all contracts with this new military government that defrauds people into believing it a legal entity deriving lawful authority from the organic United States and Alabama State Constitutions.

11. As a State citizen I hereby proclaim myself an Alabamian by right and status.

12. When repeating words or phrases such as (but not limited to) due process, United States, Federal, Congress, citizen, State, liberty, jury, E Pluribus Unum, Union, person, etc., unless clarified by myself otherwise I use and read them off documents in their true meanings as defined before the Civil War.

13. I am a White male Christian born in one of the several States on October 27, 1932.

14. I believe natural laws come under Divine Law.

15. I believe that human laws, also known as civil laws such as the Law of Nations (written by Emmerich de Vattel), the United States Constitution and the Constitutions of the several States all fall under the authority of Divine and Natural Law.

16. I pledge allegiance to the original government established by the U.S. Constitution in 1789 and all amendments thereto passed strictly in compliance with Article V as sole authority for refining that charter, my faith therefore residing in the original constitution and amendments 1 through 12 only, since I can find no other amendment having properly passed the mandates of Article V.

17. I am a direct descendant of those people mentioned in the preamble of the United States Constitution, the same ones having ratified it in 1789.

Further, affiant saith not.

Dated this 24th day of June, 2008.

Respectfully Submitted,

Olaf O. Childress

in propria persona,sui Juris

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established (II Corinthians 13:1).

Witnessed the signature above:

Jarrod A. Mack

Noel Hollis

Michelle Kingston

Reply of July 1, 2008

Dear Mr. Childress:

Thank you for contacting me regarding States’ rights. I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinions with me.

Knowing the opinions of Alabama citizens on such important issues is vital to the success of this State. I encourage you to remain active in policy decisions that affect you.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me. If I can he of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely,












Olaf Olsen Childress

22151 Toler Road

Silverhill, Alabama




Notice of Appeal


Case number MC 08 000699

Case number MC 08 7644

Case number MC 08 7645

Case number MC 08 7646



Comes now the Defendant/Appellant in the above cases to appeal the convictions, sentences and orders of Judge Ken Raines of the Town of Silverhill Municipal Court in the State of Alabama on the 2nd day of July 2008. This appeal is based on numerous pre-trial and trial errors of law and facts.

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 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 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. 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. Forced seizure of my liberty and property without a warrant supported by oath

13. Forced seizure of my property without Due Process

1. The Appellant’s Claims against the Court of Silverhill

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 amended.

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 Defendant/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 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?

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 Missouri vs. City of Independence wherein the 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 the Court erred in summarily dismissing without hearing a crucial argument in his defense that the Defendant/Appellant was attempting to make, namely that Judge Raines’ failure to answer his question of jurisdiction proves the Law of the Land is in limbo as demonstrated by the unconstitutional roadblock of May 29 at Silverhill, Alabama, far from the Mexican border, where an Alabama Citizen Motorist was stopped by Police, forcefully yanked from his private vehicle 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 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 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?

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 Speers (SC), 761,767 (1844), since Alabama has the same Common Law as South Carolina and there is but one Common Law that 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. Henderson it was made clear that the Common Law must be rigorously observed, else there is no Due Process, lacking which, no lawful power ensues for taking life, liberty or property from a freeman.

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 Alabama and the other Confederate States of America. Due Process played no part whatsoever at that time and instance in taking life, liberty and property from these States and their People while forcing the so-called 14th Amendment down the throats of States that had properly denied its imposture, causing the same to fail for lack of ratification.

07. Does the State of Alabama have power to enforce its Statutes, Codes and Acts even if not derived from the Constitution?

The Appellant reminds the Court that the only powers the State of Alabama has are derived from the Alabama Constitution. No man in this Country is so high that he is above the Law. No Officer of the Law may set that Law at defiance with impunity. All Officers of the Government, from highest to the lowest, are creatures of the Law and bound to obey it. Lee vs. United States.

08. Does the State of Alabama have the power to take life, liberty and property without Due Process?

09. Does the State of Alabama have the power to modify the definition of Due Process and force the new definition to be accepted by an accused?

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 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 Alabama have the power to seize my person and my property and define that action as an arrest instead of a seizure?

The Appellant reminds the Court that both the united States Constitution and the Alabama Constitution protect the People from seizure, and neither of those documented texts contain the term arrest. Hence, the Police Departments have seized the Accused and his private motor vehicle, detaining in jail the former and in an impoundment under lock and key the latter without Due Process while calling it something else.

12. Did the Police Department of Silverhill, Alabama seize my property and my liberty without Due Process?

13. Did the Trial Court err in demanding an appeals bond before the appellant can be heard as a matter of Due Process?

Dated this eleventh day of July 2008                                                                                                FILED

Respectfully Submitted,                                                                                                                  Amy Macon

Olaf Olsen Childress, in propria persona, sui juris                                                                          7/11/08


Roadblocks not only on highways but also in courts

The First Freedom

Baldwin County Circuit Clerk’s office. This is Sue. How may I help you?”

“Olaf Childress here. Thirty days ago, Silverhill Municipal Court Clerk Amy Macon accepted $1,250 from me, and said that amount of bondage also bound you to announce within two weeks a jury hearing for this appellant’s arguments on where Judge Raines erred in summoning, briefly ‘hearing,’ and sentencing me last month to hand over $1,900 for my alleged ‘crimes’ of noncooperation at a police roadblock.”

Following a quickie search, the circuit clerk came back, stating: “Judge Partin’s Courtroom #4, Bay Minette, Alabama, on Friday, August 29, 2008, at 9:00 am. But this will just be an arraignment, not a jury trial. Your summons for that hearing has just now gone out in the mail.”

“But the arraignment, the ‘hearing’ and sentencing have already taken place, and now my appeal requires a jury to consider certain facts that weren’t admitted by the lower court on July 2. Please transfer this call to Judge Partin’s office.”

Which didn’t help, as Judge’s Partin’s secretary just repeated what clerk Sue had said.

My fear was not about all those delays and postponements one comes to expect of a system that wants no jury to hear the “fraudulent 14th Amendment” argument, a challenge to the occupation government’s jurisdiction whose Police State roadblocks today can drag a motorist from his “Death to the 14th Amendment” hearse for a night in jail and impound that leafleting vehicle. The problem was that Partin might simply drop charges, thereby disallowing the jury trial demanded. So, could we head this off at the pass? “Any ideas out there?” I asked on, and other such rebsites that we count on to keep us on top of things. The answers came fast.

“Perhaps if they drop charges, you could file a civil suit (with a jury) forcing the 14th amendment issue.”

“Jury tampering is the main issue no matter who does it: especially judges. Hit them as private corporations per Dun and Bradstreet data, meaning they are merely corporate entities messing with the judicial system.”

“What about damages and a civil case against the police chief and the county? Do they have immunity?”

“If you can, make them throw money at you.”

“Charge them with kidnapping, taking property without due process.”

“My only suggestion is to pray. When there is no redress, Isaiah 59 comes in.”

So we’ll do some or all of that, the part about praying for sure.

On the appointed circuit court hearing date seeing no potential jury pool in the courtroom, just the usual lawyers and their terror-stricken clients including jailbirds in bright orange pajamas, I knew right away this wouldn’t be the day.

As his first order of business, the judge asked, “Anybody here without a lawyer?”

I stepped forward. “You may remember me, the last holdout against that rural area garbage mandate without a referendum ten years back.” After the district attorney had browbeaten all others into “volunteering” to contract with the courthouse for prison laborers picking up their trash weekly, thus shutting out private haulers, I had dared to bring my own waste to the public landfill as usual.

“Yes, I remember you, Mr. Childress.”

He ought to. The prosecutor at that time had summed up before the jury with: “Do you realize that if you, who have complied with the rural area garbage mandate, rule this man isn’t guilty of trespassing into the public landfill and thereby interfering with government operations – two felonies – that, on Monday morning when the dump opens, all those others who disagree with this new progress will be lined up waiting to enter?”

The jury had up to that point more or less indicated they were with me. That is, until the assistant DA pulled out all the stops in his closing remarks.

So now this twice-convicted felon stood before the same judge, contesting yet four additional felony convictions as a result of that Police State roadblock. I had again failed to get in line and stay there.

Said Judge Partin: “You have a right to a court-appointed lawyer; do you want one? No? Then you’re representing yourself?”

“Your honor, I am myself, not merely a representation thereof.”

“Then do you waive your right to have a court-appointed attorney?”

“I waive none of my rights at any time. Counsel might be needed, but not now.”

Called forward again after Judge Partin had disposed of several other cases, I must enter a plea to each of the four charges. “Is this it?” I asked. “I’ve already been tried, convicted, paid $1,900 costs and fines and another $1,250 for an appeal before a jury. That means I’ve come as an appellant, not a defendant. You’re telling me that I’m to be retried?”

“You’ll get a jury hearing, but not today. You will return here on a Wednesday to be determined, and at that time learn on which Friday your trial convenes. Now, as to this first charge, resisting arrest: how do you plead – guilty or not guilty?”

“To save you time, I stand mute on all of the charges.”

The judge dismissed myself along with the attorney “representing” the Town of Silverhill. Outside that courtroom the ones who had come to lend moral support heard me explain where we go from here, and it’s a cinch. We can’t lose.

Why not? Because there’s victory in just showing up: answering anytime called out, converting challenges into opportunities. We don’t expect to “win” according to the standard definition.

For, in addition to the Olympic trophies taken home by the many champions the previous month, and other laurels awarded at sports events where both sides play by the rules, just as much satisfaction beckons each of us who controls his appetites for more than a conscientiously advisable share of glory, wealth, “safety,” power, humility, pride, regimentation, et cetera. Self-government begins with the flesh-and-blood individual at home. Balance is our model: the golden mean, as Horace puts it.

No human mind is devoid of its internal playing field. Cartoonists abstract this idea as two wee figures whispering into the ears from opposite shoulders: devil and angel. Neither of the latter ever wins permanently and totally, which is a disguised blessing during the course of our normal lifetimes. Indeed, what stimulus would remain to one kept from proceeding any further toward depravity or sainthood?

Not so the artificial corpus, which can in fact continue unchecked into the bowels of moral turpitude for several entire human generations. Consider the arguments we would present to a panel representative of our people at large. No, not such “peers” as the Uniform Commercial Code or the 9-11 Commission might summon as a jury pool of professional Post Office poster models, but an Aryan posse comitatus determined to find out why American police chiefs get all-expenses-paid trips to Israel for lessons on circumventing the law of the land when setting up admiralty (sea) law roadblocks.

When I explained to my list the results of this initial rehearing, one email opined, “In a divorce this is called the ‘cooling off period.’ They hope your fire goes out.”

I replied, “Won’t happen.”

And here’s another prospect that none of us are likely to see in a courtroom any time soon: a jury of our peers comparable with that panel O.J.’s lawyers procured. If my prayers should receive favor, and such a level playing field welcomes me, how to begin? Videlicit:

First of all [addressing that jury], I’m an appellant, not a defendant. Now the court may not want to see it that way, which is part of the problem I’ll explain – if due process is allowed into the picture and continues from here. I have already been tried, not actually heard but tried, by Silverhill Municipal Court Judge Ken Raines, who pronounced me guilty on four so-called criminal charges, his verdicts relieving me of $1,900 in court costs and fines. I appealed by paying another $1,250 for the benefit of being heard at this time regarding that lower court’s errors which are multiple. My demand for a jury caused this court to issue four separate summons for my appearance – to be retried for the same supposed four crimes and by the same prosecutor, Mr. Michael A. Dasinger III.

I don’t really expect to accomplish much today [continuing before jury], for we realize and discuss the fact more and more among ourselves that the Constitution is becoming a dead letter. Just the facts, please. Well, the facts are that it’s now against the law for a defendant to question the law or a court’s legitimacy. That’s why I want you to understand here at the start that I come before you as an appellant, not a defendant, regardless of how Mr. Dasinger may present the same old charges that I’m already convicted of.

But that police roadblock set up by half a dozen or more officers working overtime the evening of May 29, 2008, at the town limits on Highway 55 south netted a lot more than what was collected from myself at Silverhill’s new courtroom. The place is only a one-traffic-light crossroads, mind you, but it has lately built a new town hall together with a municipal court that was until recently lacking.

How could they afford that? The same way our Silverhill Police Chief Kimberly Wasdin managed to set up that roadblock: calling in troops from other municipalities with the help of federal grants. Summoned to appear there before Judge Ken Raines on July 2, we were astounded to see 50 or more defendants present, and as the judge called them up, I noticed that another fifty or so had not come. But I’m sure that each of the entire hundred paid, or is in process of paying, his share of the new municipal court’s construction costs back to the kitty, even as we continue sending the federal government such a sufficiency of revenues that it can return a small portion thereof with strings attached. You and I know this is the disease that’s killing our State, and the reason I’m introducing these thoughts up front is because, once we get into the particulars of my appeal, Mr. Dasinger will likely object to any further allusions to such matters of considerable gravity, by erroneously claiming they have no bearing on my arguments. And I fear the court will sustain most of his objections.

[Am I giving away the game plan? The only place these remarks will get a hearing is in The First Freedom, possibly also The Idaho Observer, The Nationalist Times and American Free Press.]

And while this court may strongly resist the arguments I’m about to make, possibly even instructing you the jury to disregard them as well, in my mind this appellant’s case is already won, for there’s victory in showing up when you’re called out. Here are the incontrovertible facts.

Approaching that police roadblock a few weeks back – all the other motorists meekly complying, stopping, greeting the six or seven officers, producing licenses and papers, accepting citations for what was amiss and driving on home to supper and an evening of TV – this one sovereign citizen necessarily stopped, for, with their physical roadblock they put themselves in the way of my motoring on peacefully.

I cracked the window a bit as Silverhill Police Chief Kimberly Wasdin approached and heard her say, “Mr. Childress, let me have a look at your drivers license and proof of insurance.” Well, I don’t feel any need for such risk management, as I’ve got more than sufficient liquid assets to match the average motorist’s liability coverage, and have recently begun to discover that only commercial drivers are subjects for licensing regulations, but that wasn’t what concerned me at the moment.

I said, “Do you have probable cause for this stoppage of travelers? You know such a roadblock is unlawful, I hope.” Her facial expression changed from one of command to fury.

“Get out!” she shouted.

Making no move, I replied, “I will not.”

“Give me your keys and get out of that vehicle right now!” she yelled.

Several officers walked over and asked if she needed assistance. “No,” she said, “I can get him out of there without any help.” But they didn’t budge. This was the kind of action many of our uniformed Rambos look for nowadays. One of those men, hands on hips and gritting his teeth, looked me over menacingly. Suddenly I realized what was coming.

“Am I being arrested?” I asked.

“Yes, now get out!” she said.

I inquired, “What’s the charge?”

“Disobeying a police officer. Move!” she commanded.

“Wait a minute,” I said. “I’ll show you the law forbidding your stopping me without probable cause. I have a copy of the Constitution with me.” But she had no interest in that; she was the law. Sitting there amazed at this Keystone circus, I was suddenly yanked from my vehicle and dragged by five uninformed but uniformed policemen to her patrol car, thrown into the back and locked in there, then Ms. Wasdin hauled me off to spend the night in jail.

So I trust that what now proceeds in this courtroom will be instructive to all of us.

The Constitution of the United States of America (1789) is the supreme Law of the Land. The State of Alabama Constitution must be construed in harmony with the law of the land; otherwise, Alabama violates its solemn contract with the Union of States known as the United States of America.

In 1819, Alabama became one of the several States in the Union of States known as the United States of America. Alabama is a “common law” State, meaning that the common law, as derived from the common law of England, is a recognized form of law in the State of Alabama.

The Town of Silverhill has invoked a “civil, regulatory statute” enacted in order to license, tax and control the driving of commercial vehicles as set forth in rules and regulations governing that privilege.

It was an unlawful abuse of procedure to use civil statutes as “evidence of the law” when the lower court charged appellant Olaf Childress with the four alleged crimes here under review.

Both civil and criminal matters “at law” require the complaining party be a victim of some recognizable damage. The “law” cannot recognize a “crime” until a victim comes forward and properly claims to have been damaged or injured.

Regulatory statutes, on the other hand, are enacted under the governmental police power to control activities not of common right. All statute law is inferior to, and bound by, restrictions of the Constitution. These “regulatory” statutes operate as “law” on the subjects of those statutes, and violations may involve criminal sanctions even in the absence of a victim or injury. But there is no federal jurisdiction over the appellant, and the principles of a jurist must make that distinction.

In the case of true crimes “at law,” the common law citizen Olaf Childress enjoys all his fundamental rights as guaranteed by the State Constitution, i.e., procedural due process. By contrast, in regulatory offenses “of a criminal nature,” statutory defendants cannot demand constitutional rights since only certain “civil rights” are granted in those actions, and only the right to be heard on the facts is allowed; protective rights and procedural due process are noticeably absent. Therefore, the court must be seated in some jurisdiction other than “at law” in order to consider an alleged violation of a regulatory statute.

The Appellant Common Law Citizen Olaf Childress hereby places all parties and the Court on NOTICE, that he is not a “citizen of the United States” under the so-called 14th Amendment, i.e., a juristic person or a franchised person who can be compelled to perform under regulations civil in nature. Moreover, the Appellant Common Law Citizen Olaf Childress hereby challenges the jurisdiction of the Court with this contrary conclusion of law. This Court is now mandated to seat on the Law side of its capacity to hear evidence of the status of the Appellant Citizen.

And that’s how I pray the court will suffer me to greet the jury.

On 9/12/08 arrived Judge Partin’s order of 8/29/08 for all evidentiary documents to be registered by the circuit clerk within 21 days, and exchanged between attorneys for the State and “defendant” Olaf Childress. With no intention of letting my appeal for proof of these courts’ jurisdiction miss any appointment, I delivered on 9/16/08 copies to the court and phoned the prosecutor’s residence, his wife saying he would return my call. On 9/18/08 he did, agreeing that we would meet and exchange papers after he had talked with Roadblock Police Chief Wasdin. I called him again on 9/23.

“Mr. Dasinger, it’s 21 days since we were given until today to exchange briefs. I am prepared to do so at your convenience.”

“I’ll furnish mine when they’re ready,” said Silverhill’s town prosecutor.

“You shall receive my papers delivered to your Robertsdale office this morning.”

 The First Freedom