| STATE of NORTH CAROLINA | in the GENERAL COURT of JUSTICE |
| COUNTY of NEW HANOVER STATE of NORTH CAROLINA | SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION |
| plaintiff | PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS & |
| v. | INQUIRY into RESTRAINT ON LIBERTY |
WILLIAM DAWSON GAGE
defendant
=====================================================================
Article I, Sec. 21. Inquiry into restraints on liberty.
Every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the restraint if unlawful, and that remedy shall not be denied or delayed. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
–Constitution of North Carolina
1) In the matter of STATE of NORTH CAROLINA vs. WILLIAM DAWSON GAGE—which in the context of this petition refers to the consolidated judgment of the cases in New Hanover County Superior Court 19 CRS 58808 (“felony stalking”), 20 CRS 57691 (“interfering with an electronic monitoring device”) and 20 CRS 57973 (“felony domestic violence protective order violation”)—defendant in his own voice as author of this document does hereby petition the judges of the Superior Court Division in this county for a writ of habeas corpus and an inquiry into restraint on (defendant’s) liberty imposed by the State of North Carolina according to the consolidated judgment of the three cases given above. Defendant asserts his right to such a writ of habeas corpus and inquiry into restraint on liberty pursuant to Article I, Sec. 21 of the Constitution of North Carolina, and insists that the court grant him his rightful remedy of inquiry into the restraints on his liberty with all possible haste, given the constitution’s provision that such “remedy shall not be denied, nor delayed”.
2) Defendant would show and illustrate to the court that his punishment for these alleged offenses has no legitimate basis in law in light of fundamental defects in the pertinent statutes, in light of the unconstitutional character of the “Post-Release Supervision regime” as such, in light of a flagrant conflict of interest within the prosecutorial offices of Benjamin David which ought to have precluded these offices from any involvement in defendant’s prosecution, in light of an extraordinary and nefarious “obstruction of justice conspiracy” that unites the 6 sets of criminal proceedings against the defendant in 4 different counties through the unlawful collusion and reciprocal enabling and reinforcement among the plaintiffs/”victims”/witnesses to commit further acts of perjury and to otherwise cooperate in malicious prosecutions.
3)These multiplied and extreme forms of illegality on the part of the State and its manipulated “victim”-witnesses were so obvious to defendant during the course of his pretrial incarceration in 4 different North Carolina “detention centers” as well as Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro, that he had only one viable choice when it came time to handle the charges in New Hanover County, and this was to enter a plea of “no contest”. Facing felony proceedings in 4 different counties of North Carolina, and being detained under unconstitutionally excessive secure bond (more than $800,000), it would have been virtually impossible—an unimaginable burden and pain upon the defendant’s body, mind, and soul—to take all of his cases to trial. Thus did the State abuse the provisions of NCGS 15A-1002 (“forensic commitment”) and unconstitutional excessive bail to decimate the defendant’s ability to make an effective legal defense, and defendant therefore was intimidated and forced into accepting plea bargains which he would not have taken were it not for his brutal pretrial detention lasting 16 months (bringing his total incarceration time to some 2 ½ years.
4) Defendant Mr. Gage contends that the restraints on his liberty entailed in his subjection to “Post-Release Supervision” are multiply unconstitutional. Accordingly, the imposition of Post-Release Supervision and the threat to arrest and detain defendant for “violations” of “conditions” is a fundamentally lawless and arbitrary act of violence and coercion by the executive authorities, which is to say the police power. In contrast with the regime of “supervised probation” in North Carolina, which is overseen by judges of the General Court of Justice, which “convicts” have the right to refuse (which therefore makes them capable of consenting to the conditions of supervision), the Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission exercises a quasi-judicial or extrajudicial power over Post-Release Supervisees while operating according to rules and policies which are mostly unknown to the public, which have the pronounced effect of denying defendants the right to the due process/due course of law.
5) The Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission and its regime of “supervision” and administrative power over “convicts” in the “custody” of the Department of Adult Corrections of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety is an instrumentality of the State which falls under the executive authority of the governor, who appoints the members of the 4-member commission, and who also appoints the Secretary of Public Safety who has authority over the “PPO’s” who implement and “enforce” the regime of supervision. It is well understood that the ways and means of supervision for probation and post-release supervision are nearly identical—the two systems are administered and enforced by the same cohort of officers, and the statutory construction of the various “conditions” is nearly the same for probation and post-release.
6) Yet the differences between the two regimes are profound as well as disturbing insofar as the Post-Release Supervision regime creates a kind of “shadow administration” which exercises both executive and judicial authority, which is insulated and detached from the lawful judicial authority of the General Court of Justice. The Post-Release Supervisors/Officers are equipped with the same kind of paramilitary armament and technologies which “law enforcement” possess, but their conduct is not easily subjected to scrutiny or sanction by the courts, if at all. The Post-Release Officers may adopt some of the characteristics of “law enforcement officers”, but they nevertheless operate on a separate plane of juridical existence from “law enforcement organizations”: Sheriff’s Offices and Police Departments (excluding “disciplinary hearings” in “detention facilities”, that is) do not exercise judicial authority and are subject (in theory) to oversight by elected city and town councils, county boards of commissioners, elected Sheriff’s, District Attorneys, Judges, and Clerks of Superior Court.
7) Defendant William Dawson Gage petitions the court for immediate and complete relief from the imposition of Post-Release Supervision’s rogue governmental hybrid judicial-police powers and the conditions of supervision dictated to him by the Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission, citing Article I, Sec. 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina. The Post-Release Supervision regime combines executive and judicial authority under the auspices of an unaccountable governmental entity, led by a fourmember commission appointed by the governor, which commission does not convene and deliberate collectively, but which operates as four separate quasi-judicial officials acting according to their own notions and conceptions about the law, and who are immune from judicial review by the appellate courts and whose decisions are not subject to appeal. This arrangement is in plain violation of the constitutionally required separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers required by Article I, Sec. 6. Accordingly, defendant petitions the court for a remedy to remove the unlawful restraints of Post-Release Supervision so as to protect defendant’s right to be free of tyrannical hybrid organs of State power.
7B) Petitioner Dawson Gage also contests the lawfulness of the presently-imposed restraints upon his liberty by questioning and disputing the legality and constitutionality of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety as such. Such a multiplied and consolidated organ of state power cannot but aggrandize ever-greater influence and is a fundamentally dangerous and unstable institution which should be dissolved by order of the governor, to be reconfigured in accord with constitutional law.
8) Defendant William Dawson Gage furthermore contends that his subjection to Post-Release Supervision is unlawful because the proceedings which led to the judgment and sentence in question were fatally sabotaged and compromised by a flagrant conflict of interest within the offices of the 6th prosecutorial district under the authority of Benjamin Randall David. Defendant in the fall of 2014 was a “special intern” in these prosecutorial offices, and in a short period of time became quite intimately familiar with the inner workings—the culture, the methods, the prevailing ideas about the law—of Ben David’s administrative machine. Defendant voluntarily walked away from this internship in the face of an impossible assignment given to him, and the terms of his departure were ambiguous. Defendant submits that in fact the District Attorney Ben David knew that defendant had learned a great deal—one could even say “too much”–about the functioning of his offices, and that this “special internship” placed the DA and the defendant in an awkward mode of acquaintanceship which ultimately contributed to the conflict of interest.
9) The conflict of interest did not end with the defendant’s “special internship”, for by December 2018, defendant was being held as an involuntary patient in Cherry Hospital, District Attorney Ben David was replying to desperate emails by defendant’s mother, making clear that he had already gotten involved in the criminal prosecution of the defendant. For the sake of full exposition of the ethical and legal transgressions committed by the District Attorney, the entire text of his email to defendant’s mother Hannah Gage is given below, and other correspondence between Hannah Gage and the DA’s office is also reproduced. i
10) Defendant and petitioner Dawson Gage argues that the District Attorney’s strange and threatening email to Hannah Gage is unimpeachable evidence of prosecutorial malfeasance. The DA’s office in New Hanover County (and this is true in most of the rest of North Carolina, but not to the same degree) has been manipulating and colluding with its “victim”-witnesses, but it might be more accurate to say that these perjuring plaintiffs were semi-secret agents of the State whose ostensible “occupations” or “jobs” were all caught up in the “non-governmental” adjunct and auxiliary arms of Ben David’s system of prosecutorial tyranny.
11) In the scheme of North Carolina’s constitutional arrangements, the function of the elected District Attorney is to take political responsibility for the prosecutorial power. The elected District Attorney, because of his or her democratic mandate from the people of their prosecutorial district, wields broad authority to choose which cases to pursue (and to what degree of intensity) and which to refrain from prosecuting: this is known as “discretion”. No judge nor officer of the law can compel an elected DA to pursue criminal proceedings against the DA’s wishes or will, and this power of “discretion” is perhaps the most fundamental feature of the prosecutorial power. It permits the DA, to pick and choose the cases their offices will prosecute, and thereby to exercise a superintending influence over the entire judicial process; if abused, the resort to “discretion” can result in unconstitutional deviations from “the equal protection of the laws”, a right which North Carolinians are guaranteed by Article I, Sec. 19 of the state constitution and the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Prejudicial or inequitable conduct of prosecutions by the District Attorney and their assistants can must also conform with the provisions of Article I, Sec. 19 of the state constitution which provides that “nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin”.
12) While there are widely accepted ideas of “prosecutorial malfeasance”, “prosecutorial misconduct”, and “wrongful prosecution of the innocent”, defendant and petitioner William Dawson Gage contends and argues unto the court that the cases which he here protests, challenges, and repudiates, the transgressions and insult to the rule of law are novel and possibly unprecedented, rendering the canons and language of established law inadequate to name and describe this most deliberate and protracted campaign of criminality, hatred, bigotry, and character assassination. The adjudication of this petition for writ of habeas corpus and for the remedy of an inquiry into restraints on liberty will have to comprehend and acknowledge the singular nature of the illegalities here alleged.
12B) The illegal, unethical, and immoral methods and procedures used to obtain the judgment and sentence resulting in imposition of Post-Release Supervision were obtained through profoundly unlawful ways and means employed by prosecutors, plaintiffs/”victims”/witnesses, law enforcement, State physicians & medical personnel and corrupt elected officials as part of an civil and criminal conspiracy to oppress and decimate the life of defendant William Dawson Gage.
13) The conspiracy involves such an overwhelming multiplication of civil and criminal wrongs that it amounts to an insurrectionary effort to overthrow the the rule of law and replace it with totalitarian police control to the benefit of the conspirators and to the infinite detriment of defendant William Dawson Gage, whose persecution would be continued indefinitely in defiance of the local, state, federal, international, biblical, and natural law. Defendant contends that the proceedings which have led the courts and the State to violently assault and control his bodily person, to incarcerate him under the most oppressive, barbaric and inhumane conditions in the history of the world, have no legitimacy whatsoever, but rather must be condemned and denounced by people, institutions, political leaders, and intellectuals around the world. Defendant declares his innocence as a matter of fact and law under North Carolina law, but invokes also the law of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the law of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the law of the People’s Republic of China, and recognized principles of international law where political asylum and the law of diplomatic immunity are concerned. The General Court of Justice must either be reformed, or dissolved altogether and replaced via amendments to Article IV of the NC constitution. But in the matter of this petition by the persecuted dissident and revolutionary communist William Dawson Gage, defendant declares the restraints on his liberty, violently imposed by the State of North Carolina, transgress and violate the above-recited bodies of law, and that the question of the lawfulness of “electronic monitoring” must be answered with regard to some conception of a “higher law”.
14) In support of this petition defendant would have the court confront the world-historical context for his persecution and political experiment, and to ponder the question of whether totalitarianism is regnant in the County of New Hanover, and where authorities with shameless impunity violate the rights not only of defendant and petitioner Mr. Gage, but against all kinds of figures of public significance: the dictatorial District Attorney Benjamin Randall David wields the prosecutorial power and his legions of “law enforcement organizations” as well as the “Community Corrections Office” of NCDPS to conduct an overwhelming program of invigiliation, surveillance, hostile invasions of residences and vehicles. Shady deviations and anomalies of jurisdiction, such as the frequent deployment of US Marshals within the corporate limits of the City of Wilmington as seen in the outrageous arrest of Devon Scott by the hybrid local/federal “task force” of Marshals, Sheriff’s and Police, which involved an unexplained federal intervention in State charges within the jurisdiction of the Wilmington Police Department.
15) Federal interference in the political situation in Wilmington is not without precedent, but the prosecutorial dictatorship of Ben David has proven capable of conscripting federal police forces into carrying out operations, generally speaking, of his own invention and design. Defendant experienced this during his 43 day pilgrimage and crucible in the District of Columbia from 17 October 2020 to 1 December 2020. During this period, the prosecutorial offices in Wilmington, High Point, Graham, and Hillsborough were all working with their county Sheriff’s, the Governor’s Office, NC DPS (Fugitive Division, Special Intelligence Division), the US Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to conduct an urgent and concentrated manhunt for the defendant while he careened around the District of Columbia from a hotel to one short-term-rental to another to another, furiously composing, publishing, letter-writing, emailing, SMS messaging, and studying law in preparation for a scheduled hearing on 13 January 2021 at which defendant would have had the opportunity to confront the representatives of the State of North Carolina and to successfully block his extradition by argument that NCGS 50B-4.1 & 14-277.3A.
16) Defendant argues unto the court that he had the unconditional right as a citizen of the United States to escape the totalitarian confines of the 100 counties of North Carolina and to travel to the District of Columbia to seek justice and redress of his grievances from the federal government. The “electronic monitoring” and “house arrest curfew” imposed by Judge Frank Jones in exchange for unsecuring petitioner a $500,000 bond for “probation violation” on 30 September 2020. The imposition of this monitoring was unreasonable and without lawful purpose in light of the bad faith expressions of continuing “fear for her safety” and “substantial emotional distress” on the part of plaintiff Carter Elisabeth Jewell, whose “victim rights input” governed my “supervised probation” and the imposition of the GPS ankle monitor. The equally deceptive and dishonest expressions of “fear for safety” and her meticulously compiled but totally dishonest and false record of “harassment” on the part of plaintiff Isabelle Anne Shepherd also figured into Judge Frank Jones’ decision to require the “electronic monitoring”. As in previous situations where release from detention is offered with the condition of “electronic monitoring” qua GPS ankle bracelet, the overwhelming and merciless oppression of the detention conditions in North Carolina “detention centers/facilities” led defendant to accept what would otherwise be an intolerable cruel and unusual punishment in order to continue working on his legal defense, his search for justice, his overtures to the news media, and to desperately and forcefully agitate against and protest his subjection to unreasonable, malicious, and unconstitutional house/arrest curfew.
17) Defendant Mr. Gage disputes the authority of the Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission to determine and impose conditions of “supervision” which were not included in the judgment and sentence entered by the Superior Court, and which terms and conditions of sentencing were agreed upon by the parties before presenting them to the judge, who accepted defendant’s plea of “no contest” and imposed a 8-19 month active sentence in the custody of the Department of Adult Corrections, with credit for time served prior to trial, which by time of the plea hearing amounted to more than 14 months.
17B) In such circumstances, the Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission, the NC DPS Post-Release Supervision Officers, the mysterious office called Combined Records where the “official” calculation of jail and prison time take place according to rules and practices that frequently miscalculate the time credit of inmates and convicts so as to prolong their incarceration, and the Bureau of Prisons as well, all these organs of State work together to arrive at the decision of whether petitioner would have to go to prison to “process”, or whether he would be “processed” at the New Hanover County Detention Facility and released from custody into the custody of (as it turned out) the Alamance County Sheriff’s. The powers that be decided to “process” defendant without a trip to prison, and I met Officer Casey Broadway of NC DPS “Community Corrections”, the Post-Release Supervision Officer who was assigned to “supervise” defendant, and who presented me with conditions of my PRS in the “intake” room of the New Hanover County Detention Faciltity, which included both “regular” and “special” conditions.
17C) The regular condition include forced submission to an invasive and unnecessary urine drug screen, which condition I did not have the right to reject or refuse given the mandatory and required acceptance of Post-Release Supervision. This means that the imposition of the PRS conditions is effected without my consent, defendant and petitioner Mr. Gage represents and contends that this crucial difference between PRS and the parallel regime of “supervised probation” involving denial of the right to refuse the conditions, which renders the Post-Release Supervisees unable to “consent” to the imposition of conditions which plainly and elaborately violate and deprive defendant’s constitutional rights. Defendant furthermore challenges and questions the very idea of a person’s “consenting” to surrender constitutional and natural rights in exchange for a certain limited and conditional and oppressively administered partial freedom: constitutional rights are granted to citizens unconditionally and universally, and any convention of law that would permit individuals to be stripped of constitutional protections in order to be subjected to the violent and lawless surveillance, arbitrary and sadistic authority over so many aspects of supervisees lives, and a general blanket authority by officers to threaten and terrorize their supervisees in the course of “supervision”. There are also additional practices and protocols within the NC DPS and the Post-Release Supervision regime which classify “offenders” according to various degrees of “dangerousness” and which also assign special infamy and extreme police authority to those “convicted” of “crimes of domestic violence” and intensify the ways and means of “supervision” accordingly.
17D) The defendant’s history in the General Court of Justice has laid bare the folly and failure, the scandal and the sin, of the regime of totalitarian police control of human relationships and social life which has been mercilessly deployed against him for a period of many years, and he petitions the court to remove the restraints on his liberty which cannot but be considered unlawful, unethical, immoral, and unnatural. Defendant grounds his petition in constitutional law and asks that the court rule on this petition in light of this constitutional, as opposed to merely technical or procedural deviation from law’s requirements.
18) The narrative of oppression and persecution by the State of North Carolina against defendant William Dawson Gage is partially included in this petition to impress upon the court that the lawfulness of defendant’s present captivity and the restraints on liberty enforced by Post-Release Supervision Officer Casey Broadway in league with various colleagues within the machinery of NCDPS, that this present case cannot be judged in isolation. The fundamentally unlawful character of defendant’s abduction, bodily restraint and captivity, and the curfew of 6p-6a which relegates him to the volatile and hostile environment of his family’s home at 6046 Leeward Lane can only be understood in light of the deeper history of repeated, constant, shameless, and often plainly visible illegalities and law-breaking on the part of the State of North Carolina in its several instrumentalities, as well as of private parties who pledged their support or were manipulated into serving the shared purposes of the conspiracy, which was expansive and elaborate with many moving parts, but which ultimately is operated from the offices of the 6th prosecutorial district.
19) The inquiry into the lawfulness of a restraint on liberty guaranteed by Article I, Sec. 21, and the requirement of a speedy inquiry, must approach the question of “legality” and “lawfulness” of restraints on liberty from the most elementary perspective, giving priority and full consideration of constitutional rights, natural and universal human rights, rights under foreign and international law, rights under immemorial common law, and rights which English-speaking peoples have understood, cherished, asserted, and defended, since these rights were established in Magna Carta, for instance, or the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina authored by John Locke. These deep or even ancient bodies of fundamental law have a claim and a certain eternal relevance and residual halo of validity in the context of the current regime which so manifestly rejects and profanes the traditional understanding of “the law of the land” (per legem terrae) which was given in Magna Carta, and which survives today in NC Constitution, Article I, Sec. 19.
20) In his “Essay on the Trial by Jury”, Lysander Spooner does a close textual analysis of this passage of Magna Carta, in order to discern the true meaning of “per legem terrae”. At the time of Magna Carta England was governed by a hybrid legal system which combined the immemorial common law with the statutory law enacted by royal decree and the canon laws of the established Church. The triumph of Magna Carta was in its compelling the crown to accepting limits on its authority which are embodied in the recognized rights of the people. This meant that “the law of the land” in Magna Carta meant the common law of England as opposed to the statutory law and absolute royal prerogative and power used to enforce the King’s decrees. The eventual victory of Parliament over the crown in the struggle for the right of legislation altered the character of the statutory criminal laws of the realm. Instead of deriving their validity from the power of the crown, they are legitimated by the democratically elected character of Parliament. If one surveys English and British history, it is not clear whether there has been a progressive tendency toward greater democracy and legitimacy of Parliament. The same fight over the status of state and federal legislatures in the United States reflects basic doubts and skepticism about the “democratic” aspect of the existing legislative institutions. The distortions of districting and the ideological mind-warping and propaganda methods of the various factions and constellations of the ruling elite have all confounded and undermined the democratic process and have led to widespread distrust in government and skepticism about the system’s very legitimacy.
21) The point Lysander Spooner made about “the law of the land” (per legem terrae) is that it was meant to refer to the common law of England, which originated in immemorial custom. This means that the “statutory law” of the Crown as embodied in Parliament is not the “law of the land”, which means that the exercise of police power and sanctions and control and interference by the agencies of the State is only lawful as a remedy and enforcement of the common law. Statutory law, that is to say, cannot be used to effect arrest, detention, outlawing, exile, loss of lands, goods, privileges, and all manner of restraints on liberty. If we accept this interpretation of “per legem terrae”, then North Carolina must bring about a revolutionary transformation of the General Statutes, in particular the criminal code and the criminal procedure act as well as criminal offenses defined elsewhere in the NCGS must be carefully revised and amended, which will mostly involve the repeal of statutory criminal prohibitions which cannot be premised upon some more basic tenet of constitutional or natural law.
22) Defendant petitions the court to rule the judgment and sentencing for felonious violation of a domestic violence protective order to be null and void, just like the “predicate” 50B DVPO, which in the case of “Jewell v. Gage” where the temporary DVPO was granted to the plaintiff on the basis of a “verified complaint” which was a tissue of lies, distortions, and hate speech. Plaintiff Ms. Jewell also disclosed her implication in two apparently separate prior actions against the plaintiff in the District Courts of New Hanover and Guilford Counties. In her complaint, Ms. Jewell made reference to “two other young women” she alleges were “stalked and harassed” by petitioner and defendant Dawson Gage. This cross-referencing of one “protective order” with another involves the “categorical imperative effect”, where the courts and various observers infer that “if one women/person gets a ‘restraining order’, then others also have reason to do so”. This is the defamatory and anti-social logic of “protective orders”, which spread like a viral epidemic throughout all 100 counties of North Carolina. 50C, 50B, and 14-277.3A are all supposedly meant to provide necessary governmental “protection” to the vulnerable women (the statute is confused when it comes to categories of sex, gender, and “relationship”, and also contains phrases which testify to the statute’s terrifying power and scope such as “are in a dating relationship, or have been in a dating relationship”. But the definition of “dating relationship” has been the subject of considerable controversy in the courts of North Carolina, and 50B defendants have repeatedly made a defense which disputed the “dating relationship”. This forced the appellate courts to tie themselves in knots over the statute’s circular and ambiguous constructions and definitions, since the nature of “dating” and “romance” is too primal, too incendiary, too radically compelling and consuming of one’s emotions, affections, and identity. The present jurisprudence on the definition of “dating relationship” has drifted into deeply problematic territory, with the Court of Appeals ruling that “non-exclusivity” of a “dating relationship” does not contradict the “over time” or “on a continuous basis” which round out this defective definition. So “dating” can include what might better be called “promiscuity”, but then there are sexual relationships between “roommates”, who in the language of 50B “live together or have lived together”, or “are or have been members of the same household”.
22B) In defendant’s own experience of two illegal arrests by US Marshals in the District of Columbia in the fall of 2020, the Marshals methods of “custody-taking” were barbaric as wells as frightening, though of course by this time defendant had gotten somewhat accustomed to reluctantly surrendering to law enforcement officers after edgy and dangerous confrontations at his garage apartment at 513 Orange Street, where the Wilmington Police Department repeatedly threatened to breach the door.
23) Defendant and petitioner Mr. Gage confesses to the court that the trauma and psychic turmoil caused by his political imprisonment and persecution by the State of North Carolina make telling this long and frightening tale and adequately formulating his unusual set of legal arguments almost impossibly difficult. The nature of injustice and victimization are to damage one’s capacity to remember the true story of one’s own life as an object of oppression. Nevertheless with this petition defendant William Dawson Gage sets forth a variety of arguments to the effect that the Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission and its subsidiary network of “hearing officers” constitute a hybrid executive/judicial instrumentality of State government in violation of Article I, Sec. 6 of the NC Constitution. The Commissioners are appointed by the governor, but operate in their own juridical plane divorced from the General Court of Justice, granting “Post-Release Supervision”, imposing “conditions” on “supervisees”, “modifying conditions”, and adjudicating the proceedings for “violations”, which are first handled by “hearing officers” at a “preliminary hearing” while the supervisee is being detained without bond per a “temporary revocation order” issued by the Commission (not as a body, but in the person of one or the other individual member). The judgments of “hearing officers” can be appealed to the Commission, but beyond that there is no right nor avenue of appeal.
24) The Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission and its apparatus of enforcement within the NC DPS cannot be seen as anything other than profoundly unconstitutional. It is plainly in violation of the “separation of powers” clause of Article I, Sec. 6. The PRS&P regime are also unconstitutional insofar as the Commission and its “hearing officers” constitute a de facto court of ambiguous jurisdiction, whose powers combine the executive power (the PRS officers arrest you, detain you) with the judicial power (the hearing officers preside over the “preliminary hearing” and judge the case according to their own whims and fancies as well as some unwritten body of ideological and practical guidelines for the administration of Post Release Supervision. This decision-making process is so different from the methods of a court of law as to thoroughly deny the “violators” and “supervisees” their right to the due process of law. The PRS Commission is also incompatible with the constructions of Article IV of the state constitution, which provides for and establishes the General Court of Justice, and makes clear that no other courts may be lawfully constituted in North Carolina.
25) This petition for an inquiry into the restraint on defendant’s liberty imposed by the State of North Carolina according to the consolidated judgment and sentence per plea of no-contest entered in January 2022, would have the court take judicial notice of the campaign of defamation, violent crime, breaking & entering, larceny, destruction of federal mailbox, attempted homicide, social media death threats, blacklisting, etc. which has been relentlessly and over many years been carried out by a conspiracy of officials and informal political operatives and false-witnesses disguised as “bright young professionals” and their minions from lower down the class ladder who they use to carry out the less reputable aspects of the hate-campaign, such as the physical attacks of Timothy Joyner and the aggressive and willful defamation efforts by Alexa Williams. The lawfulness of defendant’s restraints on liberty can only be understood with reference to the total situation, in which he has found himself the victim of unlawful civil and criminal wrongdoing again and again incessantly over many years. At a certain point the severity of defendant’s victimization by the predatory state and its collaborators rises to a level that discredits and invalidates any effort to arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish him, since his actions can only be understood as forms of self-defense against the many-headed monster of the totalitarian police state.
26) The General Assembly did not have lawful authority to establish the current regime of “Post-Release Supervision”, because the General Assembly is not the fountainhead or repository of North Carolina law: the General Statutes must conform with the constitutions, state and federal as well. The nature of our democratic system of government is supposed to include meaningful control and influence over the legislative branch, but the General Assembly has for many years confronted fundamental challenges to its legitimacy which lawmakers have been able to dismiss and ignore.
28B) Defendant’s entire history as civil and criminal defendant must be understood as a principled and entirely lawful course of conduct the purpose of which was to save North Carolina from totalitarianism and to spark a radical and revolutionary reformation of our social system, the downfall or overthrow of this unlawful regime, and the restoration of our true and lawful form of government.
29) Defendant contends that the proceedings against him, including that which has been used as the basis for the current restraints on his liberty, have no basis in law. The case files of the “civil” proceedings against defendant, including the various plaintiffs’ own submissions, when actually studied these court records attest to the rightfulness of defendant’s conduct, the bad faith and misconduct of the plaintiffs, the nakedly prejudicial judgments and commentary by the judges of the General Court of Justice, as well as a pronounced pattern of purposeful clerical misconduct and clumsiness and subtle anomalies found in the documentary paper trial maintained by the several Clerks of Superior Court.
30) Defendant William Dawson Gage does therefore solemnly petition the Superior Court and Appellate Divisions of the General Court of Justice for a writ of habeas corpus per Article I, Sec. 21 and NCGS 17. But the remedies of Chapter 17 do not exhaust the possibilities for remedies under Article I, Sec. 21, since the “inquiry into restraint on liberty” gives sense to the Latin phrase habeas corpus. The Habeas Corpus Act delegates the responsibility for habeas corpus proceedings to the judges of the Superior Court Division, of the Court of Appeals, and to the justices of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. It falls to the judiciary to decide how rightful hearings in open court of habeas corpus petitions should be conducted, but there can be no doubt that petitioner’s circumstances present fundamental questions of law and are symptoms of constitutional crisis which calls into question the legitimacy of the entire political system in our state. In light of this, petitioner requests that the conduct of proceedings incident to this petition be recorded in both audio and video. Defendant directs his urgent and solemn petition to Senior Resident Superior Court Judge G. Frank Jones, to Judge Lucy Inman of the Court of Appeals, and to Justice Sam Ervin IV of the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
31) This petition is also directed to the 75th Governor of North Carolina, Roy Asberry Cooper III, that he may be alerted to the subversion and defiance of the laws and North Carolina by the White Supremacist political conspiracy which is responsible for the world-historical persecution and oppression of poet & journalist William Dawson Gage. This is meant to address the deadly serious possibility that the authorities in New Hanover County will choose to defy the requirements of statutory and constitutional law and to smother this petition or deny it in a sham hearing. The unlawful persecution of the defendant by rogue agents of the State involves a declaration of hostilities against the true and rightful government of State of North Carolina as embodied in our written constitution which expresses the will of the sovereign people.
32) The District Attorney Ben David has suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, has participated in and protected an unconstitutional “secret political society”, and he has “prosecuted” defendant notwithstanding a flagrant conflict of interest which ought to have precluded his offices from participation in defendant’s “prosecution”. This petition disputes the lawfulness of the defendant’s subjection to Post-Release Supervision, but also disputes the legality of every single civil and criminal proceeding against him, and therefore petitions with reference not only to the current set of “restraints on liberty”, but to the entire unspeakable history of manifold “restraints on liberty”, and to the State’s persistent and continuing threat to once again illegally arrest and indefinitely detain him. Defendant alleges that he is the victim of a civil and criminal conspiracy of such a nature as to pose a threat to society as such and to our (self-professed) system of liberty under the law. He asserts the legitimacy and merit of his life’s work, and cannot but forcefully reject the campaign of personal destruction and political violence which he has so plainly and unjustly endured.
33) As delineated and witnessed in the above discussion, and as given in the litany of alleged wrongs which, once admitted and comprehended, cannot but vindicate and justify and exonerate the defendant, defendant represents and contends that the restraints upon his liberty by the State of North Carolina are unlawful. He asks that the court grant a swift and complete remedy to remove all these unlawful restraints on liberty, which will involve an assertion of judicial as well as executive authority against the presently unaccountable and Orwellian Department of Public Safety and the dismantling of the de facto court of ambiguous jurisdiction which is the Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission and its invisible system of control.
34) The General Court of Justice is the only court which our constitution provides for and establishes, and the punishment of defendant according to the arbitrary and dictatorial whims of the shadowy Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission is an unconstitutional conflation and commingling of executive and judicial power in violation of Article I, Sec. 6 and an unconstitutional shadow-panel and bureaucratic mechanisms invested with judicial authority and executive authority of “enforcement” which is understood to override and obliterate the constitutional and natural rights of Post-Release supervisees and their fellow citizens with whom they together constitute the sovereign people and body-politic of the commonwealth.
35) Contending and witnessing thus, defendant William Dawson Gage, as seriously and forcefully as can be, does petition the courts of our state, and demands that the court heed his cries of alarm and his learned arguments and act to rectify manifest injustice, which is to say, to grant defendant his freedom and rescue him from persecution and oppression.
36) Defendant avows his eternal devotion and loyalty to the State of North Carolina, and asks that the court take judicial notice of this fidelity to our State, its laws, its people, and its destiny on the part of the defendant, which ought to figure in the the reasoning about whether defendant has ever broken or defied the true laws of North Carolina.
37) Defendant justifies and defends his actions as acts of militant, creative, non-violent struggle, as self-defensive resort to the freedoms of speech and press, as matters of conscience and religious and spiritual convictions, and as maneuvers and methods in defendant’s rightful efforts to contest and struggle for political power as well as reputation and an audience for his work.
38) The restraints on defendant’s liberty include the violent and coercive “installation” of the cruel and unusual and unreasonable GPS ankle monitor, which effects a technological confinement and places defendant in an invisible 3-dimensional cage. It is argued by the ideologists of the State that “electronic monitoring” offers those subject to the power of the State an alternative to jail or prison in the form of the conditional liberty of “electronic monitoring”, and that the practice of monitoring is lawful because in general defendants opt to accept “monitoring”. But this is a Faustian bargain, for the “freedom” one has with the device affixed to one’s body is no freedom at all.
39) The true purpose of the ankle monitor is to torment and oppress and violate the rights of defendants and to injure their bodily persons and traumatize them psychologically and spiritually. It would never have become such a widespread practice were it not for the enormous profits that the private manufacturers and operators of these devices have reaped as the practice of monitoring was rapidly adopted across the country and around the world. But it is also to be understood as an avaricious and psychopathic attempt by the State to usurp or displace Almighty God as the un-watched watcher, the omniscient mind which observes and knows and remembers all things. The violent seizure of information and knowledge that the regime of monitoring has carried out and electronically recorded in the secret databases of the State: these are crimes against the sovereign people.
40) Under the almost unbearable pressures and in the midst of an emergency, defendant concludes his petition, leaving many pertinent matters unmentioned, but nevertheless speaking forcefully to the illegality of the present restraints upon his liberty, and demanding that his inalienable rights be recognized and respected by the State of North Carolina, and that he finally, once and for all, be emancipated and liberated from his captivity and abjection, that he may pursue his vocations and his very life in freedom and taste the fruits of justice which have been denied him for so long. ESSE QUAM VIDERI = “essence must appear”.
Composed by defendant from 19-26 April 2022, finalized and formatted 26 April
2022. Respectfully and thoughtfully submitted to the Superior Court of New Hanover County, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of North Carolina on this 27th day of April in the year of our Lord 2022.
William Dawson Gage 高大文
defendant/petitioner
6046 Leeward Lane, Wilmington, NC 28409
&
513 Orange Street, Wilmington, NC 28401
910-322-5853 | 910-262-7401
dawson@freewilmington.org | dawsongage@gmail.com @gageagainst | soundcloud.com/dawson-gage dawsongage.net | savenorthcarolina.net
_____________________________________
i “Ms. Gage,
Thank you very much for your email. I know of your son’s situation and share your concern that he urgently needs mental health treatment. I also have to protect the community. You are no doubt aware that there are many individuals in the community who have serious concerns regarding their safety when your son acts out. You have a very good attorney in Thom Goolsby. My ADA, Alex Palombo, is also very competenant. Currently, she is trying a first degree murder case with me. That trial is expected to end by this time next week. The week of December 17 has been set aside to bring matters before the court before the holiday season brings courts to a close. I urge you to reach out to Mr. Goolsby to see if he would agree with us that we should have your son’s case before a judge during that week for further review. (I have copied him in this email). We are in trial tomorrow and throughout next week if Mr. Goolsby would like to see us at a break or he can contact Ms. Palombo.
Sincerely, Ben David”