This page will continue developing frequently up until the trial.
This webpage, including all text, visual, and audio media throughout this webpage shall be introduced as “Exhibit A”, and will be placed into Evidence in front of Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven on Wednesday, July 23rd along with all of the contents throughout this website and all content throughout all websites hyperlinked throughout this webpage as well as all content hyperlinked throughout those websites- and all- when presented in part- shall be presented in entirety, without abridgement, for use in reference throughout this trial; this is for the safety and protection of Alexandra Distance Marie Wilson, as protected Under The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights within The Constitution of the United States of America- under any name or reference referred to by any party regarding thereof .
Trial will begin approximately 10:00 a.m., and Alexandra “Distance” Wilson will be in front of the Nevada County Superior Court courthouse early (~9 a.m.) in order to peaceably assemble with other civilians in order to educate regarding what she feels are “need-to-know codes and procedures” listed throughout this webpage that are publicly-accessible codes (and potentially relevant and applicable to cases other people may be facing as well).
This webpage has been peaceably assembled by Alexandra Distance Marie Wilson and is available to the public as permitted by The First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights and as protected Under the Laws of the United States; this webpage contains firsthand account of all the evidence she has compiled to the best of her knowledge, education, and earnesty; everything throughout this page which refers to “I”, “me”, or any other reference to self, shall translate with direct reference to “Alexandra Distance Marie Wilson (without prejudice U.C.C. 1-308)”.
These codes and other codes that are referenced via webpage hyperlinks shall be referenced throughout the evidence below.
Under 1 U.S.C. 204, the matter set forth in a main edition of the United States Code (together with its current supplement) establishes the law prima facie, except that the text of titles enacted into positive law is legal evidence of the law:
The United States Code can be found on the website of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives, and several codes throughout the United States Code can also be found on the official website of the Federal Bureau of Investigaion.
The following website contains the full text of Title 4- FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 1 – THE FLAG of the United States Code:
Everything throughout this page has been done in sincerity; I give my word that everything is true to the best of my knowledge and has been done with as much as I comprehend regarding how the public legal system operates, which unfortunately I was not taught in public school. There may be times throughout explaining this page to all persons present throughout The Court, that I will request to expound upon this presentation in order to bring more specific detail, amendment to accuracy, or response to any questions that may be presented before The Court and to myself. If I miss any essential steps or procedures while presenting the facts and case below that are necessary for The Court to hear in order for the evidence presented to by made permissable to The Court legally- or any technical procedure that I myself may omit due to lack of knowledge regarding proper legal process, then I give my full consent and request so should any civilian or court official present feel that they have probable cause to suspect that I am suffering of a Deprivation fo Rights Under Color of Law at any time and in any way- that they may please perform an Intervention of Right:
One example of a “federal statute” (as mentioned under Intervention of Right) that could be used to provide an “unconditional right” to “anyone” to “intervene” is:
Here is a section from Statute 1985 as mentioned in “Action for Neglect to Prevent“:
Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights is a compounded version of the following federal statute:
The main reason that I bring this up, is because I am simultaneously presenting four affidavits calling for the arrests of four separate persons; all of them have in one way or another operated in such a way that has used “vehicle code”, “municipal code”, and “policy” (i.e. “color of law”) to deprive me of my blatantly-protected Constitutional Immunities; three of these persons will be seen in the video just below and should be present today in the courtroom. Two of the persons who violated my rights while in positions of Constitutionally-bound authority, and who are charged with the primary goal of protecting and guarding The Peoples’ Bill of Rights- but instead did not and violated them, are police officers. One of the persons who violated my rights while inposition of Constitutionally-bound authority and is charged with the primary goal of protecting and guarding The Peoples’ Bill of Rights but did not is a Chief of Police. Each of these men used their positions of authority on both May 17th and May 21st, along with a misconstrued and purposefully warped California State Vehicle Code that was made to apply to my situation illegally as I clearly utilized my First Amendment in a peaceful and loving fashion within a publicly-owned space for reasons of national concern in order to stifle my civil expression as well as an unconstitutional Grass Valley Municipal Code that was brought to their attention as clearly unconstitutional several times with pleas to stop(in order to deprive me of my Fourteenth, First, and Fifth Amendment Rights, as everyone today will soon become witness to in the two videos below.
I would now like to direct the attention of The Court to the flag that is just to the right of Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven, which has “gold fringe” surrounding three sides of that flag which is not described within Title 4 of the United States Code. That flag looks like this:
Regarding E.O 10834 which permitted the “gold fringe flag” under http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10834.html
Regarding “military colors” of the gold-fringed flag:
Regarding “Conscientious Objector 1-0 and me not given proper position by military to file as one while obviously standing under Color of Military Law:
Your honour, I have reasonable suspicion to suspect that the above flag with the gold fringe surrounding three sides is not permitted to be in this courtroom without my permission, and I do not consent to any flag another than the Constitutional Flag as described within the United States Flag Code. This particular flag’s use in this courtroom is enabled via Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, by former President Dwight Eisenhower:
Sec. 24. (a) The Secretary of Defense in respect of procurement for the Department of Defense (including military colors) and the Administrator of General Services in respect of procurement for executive agencies other than the Department of Defense may, for cause which the Secretary or the Administrator, as the case may be, deems sufficient, make necessary minor adjustments in one or more of the dimensions or proportionate dimensions prescribed by this order, or authorize proportions or sizes other than those prescribed by section 3 or section 21 of this order.
(b) So far as practicable, (1) the actions of the Secretary of Defense under the provisions of section 24(a) of this order, as they relate to the various organizational elements of the Department of Defense, shall be coordinated, and (2) the Secretary and the Administrator shall mutually coordinate their actions under that section.
Sec. 25. Subject to such limited exceptions as the Secretary of Defense in respect of the Department of Defense, and the Administrator of General Services in respect of executive agencies other than the Department of Defense, may approve, all national flags and union jacks now in the possession of executive agencies, or hereafter acquired by executive agencies under contracts awarded prior to the date of this order, including those so possessed or so acquired by the General Services Administration for distribution to other agencies, shall be utilized until unserviceable.
Part III–General Provisions
Sec. 31. The flag prescribed by Executive Order No. 10798 of January 3, 1959, shall be the official flag of the United States until July 4, 1960, and on that date the flag prescribed by Part I of this order shall become the official flag of the United States; but this section shall neither derogate from section 24 or section 25 of this order nor preclude the procurement, for executive agencies, or flags provided for by or pursuant to this order at any time after the date of this order.
Sec. 32. As used in this order, the term “executive agencies” means the executive departments and independent establishments in the executive branch of the Government, including wholly-owned Government corporations.
Sec. 33. Executive Order No. 10798 of January 3, 1959, is hereby revoked.
In the United States military, each branch has its own flag, an organizational colour, sometimes also called a ceremonial flag. Each of these is 4 ft 4 in × 5 ft 6 in, some using 2.5 in gold fringe during specific instances. The ceremonial flag is paraded with a National Colour of equal dimensions in a colour guard, with gold fringe as necessary. The National Color is never dipped in salute, but remains vertical at all times, while the organizational colours and any guidons are dipped as necessary. When the National Colour is not cased, all persons salute the Colors. The finial is a nickel or chrome-plated spearhead, though the Navy uses different finials on occasion.
Each service attaches campaign/battle streamers, sometimes known as battle honours, for actions in which the service as a whole has taken part. These can either be war service streamers, which are in the colours of the appropriate campaign medal and have the name of the campaign embroidered; or unit citation streamers, which have the name of the action embroidered and signify that the unit’s performance in a specific action has been worthy of special mention. Units are also permitted to wear streamers of overseas awards they may have been presented with. These streamers are in the colours of the appropriate medal ribbon. The streamers are 3 ft × 2.75 in. The Army, for instance, currently has 178 service streamers, embroidering the name of each battle on each, as does the Air Force. The Marine Corps and Navy instead embroider award devices onto streamers to consolidate them, having 62 and 34, respectively.
United States Army
In the Army, most regiments, battalions of regiments, and separate battalions also have a stand of colours. The first is the National Colour, which is a 36 in × 48 in version of the national flag trimmed with a 2.5 in wide gold fringe, and is the equivalent of the Queen’s Colour in the British Army. The second is the Organizational Colour, which is the equivalent of the Regimental Colour; this is the same dimensions as the National Color, but is of a single colour representing the branch of the service that the unit is from; each branch also has its own fringe colour, which the Organizational Colour is trimmed with. In the centre of the Colour is the eagle from the Great Seal of the United States, but with the regimental coat of arms in the shield. The eagle has in its beak a scroll bearing the regimental motto, with the crest of the regiment’s coat of arms above it and the regiment’s name below. Attached to the Organizational Colour will be the campaign and unit citation streamers awarded to the individual unit – these are equivalent to the battle honours embroidered directly onto the colours of British and Commonwealth units. The Organizational Color was carried in lieu of a National Colour until shortly before the Civil War, when the Stars and Stripes became the National Color. Civil War era units sometimes carried alternative Organizational Colours based on their home state flags or of other designs.
United States Marine Corps
In the Marine Corps, each battalion-sized unit or larger maintains a set of colors. The organizational color identical to the Marine Corps battle color, excepting that the scroll will have the unit’s name instead of “United States Marine Corps”. It will also bear the streamers authorized to the unit, or scarlet and gold tassels if none are authorized.
Fringe is generally not seen on the National Colours when carried by Marine Corps unit (the exception being indoor parades). Instead, a red, white, and blue tassel is used to decorate.
While the Navy uses a number of maritime flags, such as the Ensign and Jack of the United States, the Flag of the United States Navy is normally seen only at ceremonies and parades. The display of streamers and fringe is consistent with that of the Marine Corps.
United States Air Force
U.S. Air Force (USAF) groups have the same National Colour as the Army; the Organizational Colour is ultramarine blue, with the group’s coat of arms beneath the USAF crest, which is an eagle on a cloud background. The fringe is in gold.
The Nation is at war and the vast, vast majority of our Soldiers serve honorably in and out of combat. Those very few Soldiers who are genuine conscientious objectors are either discharged or moved to a non-combatant position. Each Soldier’s situation is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The Army certainly accommodates genuine conscientious objectors, but it is important to remember that Soldiers serve in an all-volunteer Army because they chose to. New recruits sign a statement indicating they are not a “conscientious objector.” Applicants to the Army who were previously conscientious objectors must sign an affidavit stating that they have abandoned their conscientious objector beliefs and principles and that they are willing to bear arms and give full and unqualified service to the United States.
Calendar Year 2001 – 18 approved / 5 disapproved = 23 total (78% approved)
CY 2002 – 17 approved / 6 disapproved = 23 (74%)
CY 2003 – 31 approved / 29 disapproved = 60 (52%)
CY 2004 – 33 approved / 34 disapproved = 67 (49%)
CY 2005 – 39 approved / 35 disapproved = 74 (52%)
CY 2006 -38 approved / 15 disapproved = 53 (72%)
CY 2007 -13 approved / 12 disapproved = 25 (52%) (as of 31 July 2007)
The number of Soldiers applying to be classified as conscientious objectors remains small, about 0.01% of the force of, as of September 30, 2005 (active duty strength: 492,728).
Army Regulation 600-43, Conscientious Objection, dated 21 August 2006, defines conscientious objection as a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief. The Army Regulation recognizes two types of “conscientious objector” status: 1-0 and 1-A-0.
A Soldier may submit a 1-0 conscientious objector application when the Soldier is sincerely opposed, because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical or sociological) beliefs to participating in war in any form. This is an application to be released from the Army and can only be approved/denied by the Department of the Army.
A Soldier may submit a 1-A-0 conscientious objector application when the Soldier is sincerely opposed because of religious or deeply held moral or ethical (not political, philosophical or sociological) beliefs to participating as a combatant (including training in tactics or weapons) in war in any form. This is an application to be assigned to non-combatant duties. The Soldier’s General Court Martial Convening Authority can approve this application; however, only HQDA can deny it.
What happened at my pre-trial hearing?
When I appeared at my pre-trial hearing on June 25th, and Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven, asked me what my plea to these charges were, I responded with something I had been learning to recite so that I would say it properly in court that day.
“Your Honour, before I enter a plea I would like to make The Court aware of something: I am listed as a “Sovereign Citizen” on The Citizen’s Registry of The United States of America, and Under Uniform Commercial Code 1-207:
U.C.C. 1-207 states:
1-207. Performance or acceptance under Reservation of Rights.
[This section has moved to UCC 1-308. Text below is preserved for archival purposes.]
(1) A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest" or the like are sufficient.
(2) Subsection n(1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.
U.C.C. 1-308 reads:
§ 1-308. PERFORMANCE OR ACCEPTANCE UNDER RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.
“(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.
I continued: ” I reserve all my rights- without prejudice- Under Common- or Constitutional- Law.
Does The Court recognize that all Court Officials present recognize the Constitution of the United States of America the Supreme Law of the Land to which all Officers throughout this courtroom and trial are legally bound to defend and uphold- including all laws throughout the United States Code- under penalty of Perjury?
That said- the Supreme Court ruled last year that it is legal to record Officers of the Court, and I recorded the events that occurred regarding this trial. I would also like to do an audio recording of today’s hearing for First Amendment reasons.”
The First Amendment Reads:
In case the above graphic is difficult to read, here is what the graphic reads:
The First Amendment of The Constitution of United States of America (Section I):
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“Hmmmm. I’ve never had that request before- let me go do some research,” Judge Linda Sloven said (possibly not verbatim- but close to). She left the courtroom, and soon returned, saying, “The Executive Administrator of the Superior Court of Nevada County has informed me that it is against this court’s MEDIA POLICY. I’m sorry- but I’m going to have to deny your request.
Following her explanation, she against asked me how I plea, and I replied, “Your Honour- in all honesty to these charges- in order to be accurate- I am going to plea to these charges “Not Applicable” because I have Constitutional Immunity to each to these charges- HOWEVER- if I “MUST” choose only from the choices that you gave me- then “NOT GUILTY” would be the closest to being accurate- however “Not Applicable” is my truest response.
After the hearing, I wrote up the following letter- I was quite nervous after having my First Amendment Right denied there in the court room after already dealing with the emotional trauma of having my civil rights violated by the officers prior to this. I accidentally wrote “June Fifth” on the following contract rather than “Twenty-Fifth”- which I am certain had to do with the personal injury against my civil rights which caused me nervous anxiety and affected my ability to focus. HOWEVER- I wrote up the following and went to the Clerk of Court in order to find a “Media Request Application” as Judge Linda Sloven said I could ask for during the hearing, and presented it to the Executive Administrator who brought it to me:
I asked the Executive Administrator to sign it, but he refused, and told me relatively “possibly the Judge will sign it- I wasn’t there.” (This was before there was a signature on it.) So, I went back into the courtroom and waited until all the hearings were over, and then approached The Stand again, asking Judge Linda Sloven if she would sign the letter. She told me something close to, “I will tell you what- I cannot sign it- but if you sign it- I will include it in the docket. I didn’t know what a “docket” was, but it sounded good to me if it could be considered proof for later! After the hearing, I returned to the courthouse and purchased a copy of the docket- which included a copy of my signed letter (above) and also notes from Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven, below:
I looked up past rulings, and found these Supreme Court Rulings thanks to this great page Digital Media Law Project peaceably assembled!:
As you will notice here, if I were to sign the following “MEDIA POLICY” that was given to me by the NEVADA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, I would be signing into an Equity Contract with them that would basically be consent for them to interfere with my rights! Instead, I will be presenting The Court with the previous rulings listed, along with this copy of the “MEDIA POLICY” I was given by them- which now has red circles around parts which appear to be in violation with Law according to my comprehension of the Law at this time; I am seeking aid in determining if my allegations regarding this are accurate:
During the pre-trial hearing, I
It will be my testimony that Grass Valley Police Officers Jesse Cloyd and Cameron Landon, along with Chief John Foster (who handed me the business card of “Scott Clendenton” when I asked for his card), violated my civil rights while conspiring to accuse me of and citing me for violating a California State Vehicle while knowingly depriving me of my rights against my spoken will during the process. I cannot be legally construed as “guilty” to their charges due to Constitutional Immunity that I am granted from both The Fourteenth Amendment and The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and all three of these Court Officials appear to have knowingly violated.
All three of these Officers have taken a Constitutional Oath of Office, and were legally obligated not only recognize- but to uphold and defend my Constitutional Rights as their primary duty. Instead, these officers accused me of “panhandling” as you will see in the following video which I began recording at the beginning of our first two encounters.
Following this video, you will find the second piece of video evidence I intend to perform a motion to submit to Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven on Wednesday morning during the trial which begins at 10:00 a.m. alongside an affidavit calling for a “citizen’s arrest” of these three Officers of the Court pending Judicial Review of said affidavit by Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven– as you will learn all about in the third video entitled “The Courtroom Plan”.
In that video you will learn everything I have thus far learned about “Civil Rights Self Defense” including relevant, need-to-know United States Code and Civil Procedure that will help just about everyone on the planet peaceably and legally “deal with” the United States Judicial System as it is designed.
On a personal note- I believe that many of the things I’ve learned and am about to present should have been taught to us in public schools because this is a “public legal system”; to me it has felt like a deprivation of rights upon nearly all people for many years because people have simply not know how to communicate within the courtroom structure in a way that it was designed. I mention that because everything you are seeing here I have learned to do with little help- and it to me seems unfathomable that anyone would have to work this diligently just to know how to defend themselves properly in court! I hope I’ve done a good job- but either way- me learning all this stuff and presenting it will give us ALL (hopefully) a good shot at winning this case if justice truly exists within our legal system! Here’s the first video:
Below this next video, you will see all the codes that were mentioned throughout each of these videos, along with further evidence I intend to submit as part of The Courtroom Plan:
“”Exerting an citation or arrest for an unconstitutional statute that is known to the officer to be in violation of that person’s rights is like a cashier handing a customer a broken product as they walk out the door- blaming them for stealing it- & then telling them to take it up with the manufacturer!”
– Distance Everheart
Below I will present all the evidence I have thus far accumulated, and then present the facts from the pre-trial hearing that occurred on June 25th, and after that will present a truly unique “Courtroom Plan!” that I believe could change a lot of peoples’ lives for the better very soon! This will all be followed by my contact information.
Here is a photograph of the sign I was holding on both May 17th and May 21st which drew attention from the Officials:
At the time this event occurred, this website was primarily directed to our Indiegogo “Wildharvesting Cooperatives Across America!” Campaign that closes at midnight on July 22nd!
Here are the sections of the State Vehicle Code that these Officers appear to be conspiring to have me accused “guilty” of:
Now- before we continue- I’d like to inform every Civilian of one of the Civil Rights that you likely did not know that every Civilian retains as an assumed right. This will come into play later, because you will see how it could be used in court on Wednesday if need be: Now, let us continue (& thank you for reading this!):
Here is one of the United States Code that I believe these three Officers have violated against me with a total of five counts of this crime: two counts by Officer Cameron Landon, two counts by Chief John Foster, and one count by Officer Jesse Cloyd:
Also, I believe that we have all witnessed violations of the following United States Code, with two counts performed by Chief John Foster and one count performed by Officer Cameron Landon: Here is another crime that I believe the first video provides clear evidence that Officer Jesse Cloyd has violated:
As mentioned in the above video footage, here is the section on “Statements or entries generally”:
That said- i will be presenting all these past rulings as well as pieces of evidence to Her Honour, Judge Linda Sloven on Wednesday at the beginning, so I am asking as many Civilians as possible to please consider bringing a camcorder with you- and if you have a smartphone- please consider reserving a Livestream account before you arrive.
After seeking for both the San Francisco and Sacramento FBI offices to investigate the footage here and to be present int he courtroom as witnesses should this case of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law continue and to respond to my Citizen’s Arrest without success, I found out the following regarding a Supreme Court ruling from 2012, The State v. Mbodji:
:…filing of a complaint that is initiated by a private citizen is governed by the “citizen’s arrest” law. That law provides a specific procedure: “A private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks to cause an arrest or prosecution…may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney…”
In court Wednesday, I intend to present three signed affidavits for the arrest of all three of these officers while int he courtroom. n order made for the detainment and arrest of the three men involved with the crimes for these two days so that we may perform together in due process for these matters, and I may be provided Recourse alongside a
for the Judge to consider issuing an order that Police Officers will be required to carry high-power smartphones alongside their high-powered guns, so that if a Civilian inquires or indicates in any way that they Wish to see the “statute”, “law”, “code”, etc.- then the Police Officer will be required to read the statute verbatim (unless there is a dire emergency which prevents the Police Officer from performing this task in some way that the Police Officer feels may jeopardize their safety). If the Civilian responds with a “Legal Defense Response”,
“Legal Defense Response” shall translate “any relevant Statute or partial statute that sounds reasonably relevant, Constitutional Protection which may apply, or Court Ruling which may contradict the previous discretion of the Police Officer’s reasoning for inquiring, detaining, accusing, etc.
ANY VETERANS in the area: please contact me at 415-798-7457 or Distance@WildWillpower.org if you would love to attend!
I’m going to seek to delay the trial- but I don’t know if the judge will allow it yet- so be prepared for that. I was apparently supposed to let them know that 15 days ahead of time- but of course I wouldn’t have known I would need more time back then- nor did I “know the rules”:
Part 3 should be up no later than the morning of Tuesday, July 22nd.
Please consider bringing a camcorder in order to film the proceedings on Wednesday, July 23rd at 10 a.m. I will be there at 9:00 a.m. to answer any questions and help people better comprehend all these codes and how we intend to use them in the courtroom. Here are several key codes and Supreme Court Ruling that will submitted to Judge Linda Sloven by myself at the beginning of the trial so that she will know what to expect, and that it is all legal and of proper courtroom procedure: