Q: Well, Eric, if you aren't a person, then who are you?IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARION COUNTY, ARKANSAS
STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF
VS. Case Numbers: S2005-1110; S2006-625, 626, S2009-997,998
Eric Williams DEFENDANT
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO DISMISS ALL CHARGES AS I AM NOT A "PERSON" AS DEFINED IN TITLE 27-16-204(C)
Please note that a document filed with and annexed to my previously filed documents as Exhibit "A" thereto, addressing the proper designation of artificial entities mentioned or referred to herein; and also setting forth my persona and Political Status, as such may pertain to these matters, is likewise annexed and incorporated herein and hereat, in full, by reference.
Introduction
1. I come now purportedly as "Defendant" Eric Williams (incorrectly captioned as "ERIC WILLIAMS" in this Honorable Court’s various pleadings and documents filed by others in regard to this matter, acting on my own behalf, to present my Motion requesting that all charges lodged against me be dismissed as I am not a "person" subject to the codes of Arkansas, as is indicated by the Legislature’s definition of the word "person" in Title 27-16-204(c) . and I further state as follows:
2. I am not invoking the various statutes and Constitutional provisions of Arkansas as a "citizen" "person" purportedly politically entitled to seek protection in such references as a Constitutional right. My invocation of such references is from the perspective of a man born free on the land . I claim to be and I am of the Posterity of the Rebels of July 4, 1776. I claim my position on this land (both physical and political) as a matter of an inherited right. My antecedents lent their individual physical strength and risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of driving from this continent, the army of King George III. My purpose in referencing the statutes and Constitution of Arkansas is not for my individual protection but rather, to point out how the wording and phraseology of the relevant statutes and Constitutional provisions clearly indicate that it was the intention of the Legislature of Arkansas to provide a statutorily discernable means whereby those politically situated such as I, could enjoy the fruit of the success of our ancestors in their struggle to obtain freedom for their Posterity, of which I am among.
3. My endeavors here in this matter are for the purpose of pointing out to the enforcement officers of Arkansas that the government of Arkansas has, through the manner and style of the wording of the relevant Legislation it has created, intentionally written me out of the political jurisdiction of Arkansas.
4. My pointing out of the statutory omission of certain words and the statutory inclusion of other words is not to in any way suggest that the Legislature erred in the manner of the phraseology it employed but, rather, to the contrary, to point out that the phraseology utilized was intentionally designed by the legislators to exclude those of us who choose to avail ourselves of our inherited legacy, to follow our own will rather than be led, like sheep, by the will of others.
Discussion
1. The issues in this case actually have nothing to do with driving without a licence or failing to appear; the issues here are much more fundamentally important, having to do with honesty, integrity and an acknowledgment that the purpose of the common people is not to be care givers or sustenance providers for the government as seems to have been the evolutionary development of this political society. It is fairly well known by those who pay attention to such things, that the Federal Government has created huge underground bunkers large enough to sustain all the members of Congress and other "high ranking" government executives, with no such provisions for the common people; and that the Congress of the United States has created health care for itself to an unconscionably high level. Additionally, they have provided that after only one two year term in the Federal Congress that a member thereof can retire and receive his or her full salary for the rest of his or her life, while at the same time Social Security for the common people is reputed to be bankrupt.
2. How can this reasonably be done under a system of government where everyone is politically equal and where everyone is expected to earn and pay their own way every day? Not slide through a political playground for two years and then retire on the backs of the common people for the rest of their lives, at full pay and with full medical benefits.
3. Where is the honesty in government when Section 27 of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude and Kenford Carter tells me that such prohibition does not extend to driver licenses? What, exactly is the nature of the protection from involuntary servitude under this Constitutional provision if it does not include a prohibition of mandatory driver licenses? What else is there that is not included? A better question is what, exactly, are the limitations in regard to the government’s ability to micro-manage the lives of everyone in Arkansas?
4. But I contend that Mr. Carter is wrong on this issue and I further contend that the Legislature of Arkansas agrees with me on the issue of driver licenses, not with Mr. Carter. How do I arrive at my position? By paying attention to the way the statutes are written; giving the legislature credit for setting up the rules so that the Codes of Arkansas may be readily decoded by the astute to not apply to those individuals who cannot reasonably be determined to have volunteered themselves into obligations of political fealty to Arkansas.
5. The issue for this hearing is limited to examining the issue of whether or not I am a "person" as the word "person" is defined in Title 27-16-204(c) , who would be required to apply for a driver license under the codes of Arkansas. However, as I wrote herein above, the actual issue to be addressed and resolved is more fundamental; how can Kenford Carter properly establish that my claim of being outside of Arkansas’ political subjugation, based on my claim of my political status devolving upon me as an inherited right, being that I am of the Posterity of the Rebels of July 4, 1776 is invalid?
6. As I have previously pointed out, the relationship of my standing to Arkansas is a political issue, it is not a judicial issue. This court does not have standing to determine my political status any more than would this court have standing to determine the political status of the Queen of England. This is true because the political status of everyone can only be determined by each individual based on their own choice. How can it be reasonably established that those born prior to me have authority to declare I am subject to their whim? Or, that I can be subjected to the whim of a so called "majority" in a so called "election"?
7. The explanation as to how my political status is outside the jurisdiction of this court and outside the jurisdiction of the State of Arkansas is set forth in my brief attached hereto and filed and submitted concurrently herewith, and incorporated herein and hereat, in full, by reference; and likewise, as to my List of Mandatory Judicial Notice items also filed concurrently herewith, and incorporated herein by reference.
I, Eric Williams, respectfully demand that the charges lodged against me be dismissed due to the fact that Arkansas has no legitimate claim of political jurisdiction over me, and that I be accorded any and all additional relief to which I might be entitled.
Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion
____________ _________ _________ ______
Eric Williams
November 10, 2009
A: Yes.
Every now and then, some judge will decide that it isn't worth wading through the nonsense over a $50 fine, and will lean on a rookie prosecutor to dismiss the ticket. Then the sovrun wackos claim it as proof they're right.
