Pledges of Servitude?

Image via Wikipedia

A friend of mine (Rick) is facing charges for four traffic tickets.  He sent a copy of his defense to me.  It’s pretty good.  It’s not exactly what I’d do, but nothing is.

But I did notice one omission that struck me as potentially important:  In challenging the gov-co’s authority, Rick had denied that he’s a slave or subject to involuntary servitude (as prohibited by the 13th Amendment) but he neglected to deny that he had entered into a voluntary servitude (a fiduciary relationship) with the court, plaintiff, prosecutor, state, real party in interest, or even to the actual defendant “RICK DOE” (rather than “Rick Doe”) etc.

I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that the system relies on the presumption that each living man or woman (“Alfred Adask”) has knowingly entered into a voluntary servitude as fiduciary for the government, the plaintiff and/or the defendant identified by the all-upper-case name (“ALFRED N ADASK”).

I sent Rick an email reply that outlines some of my notions in greater detail–especially relative to pledges.  My understanding of “pledges” is rudimentary but growing. My email reply follows:

 

Deficit Spending

All deficit spending by government is a way to tax children for the “free lunch”/”benefits” promised to our alleged adults.  In order to keep buying the support of the current voters, the government is destroying the future for those too young to vote and even too young to understand.  These children trust American adults and American politicians to take care of them.  The adults and politicians instead take care of themselves and sacrifice the children precisely because the kids are too young to understand, too young to organize, too young to vote.

Deficit spending the political equivalent of abortion.  It destroys the lives of those most innocent and least able to defend themselves.  It destroys the future to protect the present.  It is an abomination.

 

Debtor’s Prison or Breach of Fiduciary Obligation? A Habeas Corpus that Worked.

Over the years, I’ve seen scores of habeas corpus petitions.  Virtually all have failed to cause a prisoner to be released.  In fact, I’ll bet that at least 95% (and probably 99%) of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus are routinely dismissed by the courts.

 

The Power of a Name

Most of my articles are conjectural.  My lines of conjecture are often curious, sometimes confusing, occasionally fantastic and, at times, even mind-numbing.  I try not to publish those articles that are mind-numbing.  The following article is an exception.  I hate to publish it because it seems “half-baked”.  The article contains an insight below that I deem valuable but incomplete.  Nevertheless, the insight (while a little “mind-numbing”) seems too intriguing to abandon until I can grab a little more clarity.

 

What do you “believe” about “belief”?

The following curious email exchange took place in December between myself and a friend who prefers to remain unnamed.  The exchange touches on the difference between “The State” (of the Union) and “this state” (the unincorporated association/territory/implied charitable trust of the singular United States) and especially on the bizarre importance of “belief” in our legal system.

The conclusions (or at least suspicions) about “belief” are somewhat challenging to understand and hard to “believe”.  Nevertheless, I think those conclusions/suspicions may be roughly correct.

In essence, I’m using this email exchange to explain what I “believe” about “belief”.

 

Notice vs. Notice Pleading

It’s a regular event for me to find myself somehow “compelled” to read something that I have no desire, energy or intent to read.  Maybe I’m just obsessive-compulsive, but I think the Good LORD sometimes “forces” me to stick my snoot in a book or article until I suddenly discover something that (for me, at least) is an important and even exciting insight.

The following PDF file concerns an A.D. 1918 article from the Harvard Law Review that was written to advocate that the American judicial system (which started with “common law pleading” and later changed to “code pleading”) change again to “Notice Pleading”.  The position advocated in this article was largely adopted and today “Notice Pleading” is the predominant form of pleading in the American courts.

I didn’t want to read the original article.  Didn’t have energy to read it.  Didn’t enjoy reading most of it.  But I felt “compelled” to read it all, just the same–and sure enough, before I was done I found what was for me, a number of important and powerful insights.  The effort was well worth my time and energy–and when the Good LORD “compels” me, it always is.

The entire text is about 10,000 words (about half is from the original author; half is my commentary and analysis).  If you’ll take time to read it, I believe you’ll be at least intrigued and you may also even learn something important.

Click to download:  1918 NOTICE PLEADING Harvard_law_review EDITED

 

Inquiries In Response to IRS Notice CP59

As I’ve explained in previous articles on the subject of “Notice” (try my search engine or click on the “Notice” category), I’m about 95% convinced that every notice creates the recipient’s right of inquiry. For example, if the IRS sends you a notice, the proper response is not to go silent or to to make statements, but instead to ask questions. If you can ask questions that the IRS is unwilling or unable to answer, you can argue that you’ve been denied procedural due process (notice + opportunity to be heard) by being denied “sufficient notice”. In theory, if the IRS refused to answer your questions, you would not have “sufficient notice” and the court could not acquire jurisdiction to conduct a “hearing” (“opportunity to be heard”).
In the past three weeks, I’ve also become about 95% confident that most of what transpires in our courts is done on the ground of an “action of account”.
What follows is a lengthy, pedantic and sometimes repetitious series of questions to an IRS Notice CP59 which essentially asked me to file a return for A.D. 2007. I don’t expect the IRS to read, let alone answer my questions. At least not at first. I don’t mind. I’m not simply asking questions; I’m also creating evidence. If push comes to shove, I suspect these questions (and more to come) may help persuade the IRS to retreat. If not, they’ll at least provide me with a significant education.  The PDF document below attempts to incorporate both the “right of inquiry” strategy that I believe attaches to every notice and some questions on “actions on account”.

090502 RESPONSE TO IRS NOTICE CP59 OF 090420 INDEX

 

Actions of Account

This may be one of the most important (or perhaps misguided) articles I’ve ever published.  This article describes my theory du jure that virtually all modern court proceedings (from traffic tickets to civil suits to felonies) may be, at base, “actions of account”—and, if so, how those actions might not only be stopped, but stopped easily, almost laughably.

The article is long (23,000 words).  I haven’t proofread it.  And it’s pretty much pure conjecture. I’m not sure how clearly I’ve conveyed my theory, but if you can understand this article, I think you might become as excited as I am.  I could be wrong.  I could be way wrong.  But my intuition is screaming like a woman in orgasm saying:  “Yes, Yesss,  Yesssss!!!”

Unfortunately, I sometimes suspect that my intuition has learned how to “fake it”.  If so, none of us, including me, can afford to absolutely believe the theory I’m advancing.  Nevertheless, for me and for now, this feels more like insight than theory—and important insight, besides.  I wouldn’t bet even money, but if you give me odds, I’d bet we just might be close to the proverbial “silver bullet”.