Promises, Promises (and Arguments)

08 Feb

The following case touches on issues of PROMISES (unilateral contracts?) and ARGUMENT and offers a surprising amount of insight in a relatively few pages: 100205 USA v Reagan ARGUMENT


Posted by on February 8, 2010 in Argument, Contracts, Promises


6 responses to “Promises, Promises (and Arguments)

  1. Terrence

    February 8, 2010 at 7:56 PM

    This is the first I’ve heard “AT ARMS LENGTH”. What is the significance?
    Is it different than “ALL RIGHTS RESERVED”, “WITHOUT PREJUDICE”, “UCC 1 –308”?
    If I said to a judge “I signed AT ARMS LENGTH”, and the judge asked “what do you mean”, how could I respond?
    If I were able to move into a court of law I would require an injured party.
    I also read U.C.C. §2-302, §1-203 for reference.
    Would/could a drivers license “AT ARMS LENGTH” separate the commercial driver ME from the traveler me? TX would not allow me to sign “ALL RIGHTS RESERVED” on my picture drivers license.

  2. adask

    February 8, 2010 at 9:35 PM

    If you look up “at arm’s length” and/or “arm’s length” in at least some of the editions of Black’s Law Dictionary, you’ll find that “at arm’s length” simply means that you are NOT acting in a fiduciary capacity and that you represent no other person or entity. In essence, you are that simply and exclusively as a natural man.

    For example, if I “Alfred Adask” disclaim my signature with “at arm’s length,” I deny any presumption that I have entered into a fiduciary/trust relationship with the plaintiff/prosecutor. I also deny that I represent any other entity–including “ALFRED N ADASK”.

    I believe that most court proceedings today operate on the PRESUMPTION that the defendant has voluntarily and knowingly entered into a fiduciary (trust) relationship with the plaintiff/prosecutor and/or that the living man (“Alfred Adask”) is representing a legal fiction named “ALFRED N ADASK”. If the defendant asserts that he appears “at arm’s length,” it appears that he defeats the PRESUMPTION that an implied trust relationship exists between the two litigants. Once that presumption is defeated, the plaintiff/prosecutor should have to produce WRITTEN evidence to prove that you’ve voluntarily and knowingly entered into a fiduciary/trust relationship.

    One or more of the editions of Black’s Law Dictionary that I’ve read at least imply that “at arm’s length” means that your only relationship to others (if there a relationship) is CONTRACTUAL. Under those circumstances, if claim to be “at arm’s length,” someone is going to have to PROVE with EVIDENCE that you have a relationship with the plaintiff/prosecutor that’s established by express contract or EXPRESS trust. Normally, your adversary will be unable to produce any written document to establish the underlying relationship. Even if such document exists, your signature can be challenged as having been for a very limited purpose and not to create a trust or contractual relationship.

    Using the “at arm’s length” disclaimer does not guarantee that you will “live happily ever after”. But it will throw a very big stick into the system’s spokes.

    I know. I was once arrested without warrant and extradited without warrant based on false allegations that I’d committed two FELONIES (5 year maximum sentence for each). But I’d signed all of my paperwork (including my waiver of extradition) “at arm’s length”. They couldn’t proceed against me. They held me for 344 days in a Level 5 Maximum Security jail and in the end simply threw me out without even giving me a probable cause hearing.

    It’s hard to describe 344 days in the slammer as a “victory,” but it was. Except for having written “at arm’s length” over all of my signatures, today I would probably be a convicted felon, unable to own firearms, possibly unable to vote, and perhaps liable to pee in a cup on command.

    And, in truth, my 344 days in Maximum Security was a blessing rather than a hardship. My faith was strengthened by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude. It was the single most intellectually fertile period of my life. I don’t want to go back, but I’ve said for years that if I’d known how much I would gain from being in jail, I would’ve fought my way in years ago.

    In any case, “at arm’s length” works–IF you study and understand what it means. It won’t work like attaching a “lucky rabbit’s foot” or a “4-leaf clover” to your paperwork. You can’t just say “at arm’s length” and expect the gov-co to bow down and worship you. You have to study the relevant concepts and KNOW what you mean when you say “at arm’s length”. If you’re not fakin’ it, the “at arm’s length” disclaimer can be powerful.

  3. B.K.

    March 27, 2010 at 6:55 PM

    in doing research for two pro se cases, I ran across your blog. Specifically the wonderfully enlightening article on Failure to State a Claim. Without going into great detail, my cases involve contracts: banking and the student loan racket. I am learning so much about how corrupt our judicial system is and how quickly politicians will plaster the label “anti-government” on anyone daring to shed light on their antics. The truth is we have some great laws and a great system, but for the corruption involved to hinder that system from working for the masses. So while we are not anti-government, we are righteously anti-corruption when we insist on the rights, especially unalienable rights, humans are privileged to. I wish there was a way to get people on board my advocacy of the “contract as promised” regarding postsecondary education. We are promised if we sign on the bottom line for loans and obtain an education, that we will have a better life, better opportunities. However, if those opportunities never materialize, we are still on the hook for a debt we were never able to afford in the first place. I borrowed $10,000 in loans, and two months after leaving school, during my “grace period”, my loans were placed in default. I was still unemployed. The law states I was supposed to have a grace period and I was never allowed a repayment plan. Collection agents for ED applied $59,000 in fees to my loans. My debt went from $10 grand to $64 grand. And now I am told there are no usury laws that apply to ED. Yet, over $700 mil is used from taxpayers to support these no-bid collection contractors. My goal is to eliminate or reduce their role in higher education and promote more career placement centers to insure student loan borrowers receive the promise of the contract and not the racket indebtedness. I would love for you to read my Complaint and Petitions and provide any mentorship, guidance, help spread the word about these cases, etc. Would you be willing to look them over?

    • adask

      March 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM

      I don’t know much about debt collection, but I’ve heard an interesting story of a man in Dallas who knew his business was going bankrupt long before it was obvious to his bankers, creditors, etc.. I’ve met the man that is the center of this story. I think the story is true, but I’m not sure.

      Knowing his business was headed into bankruptcy, the man applied for about 10 new credit cards from 10 different lenders and received all ten. Each had a $25,000 credit limit. He proceeded to “max out” all ten credit cards by purchasing $250,000 in clothes, food, cars, whatever.

      When each of the CC lenders started sending notices asking that they be repaid the $25,000 plus interest, etc., the man wrote back that he’d be happy to pay the bill if they would simply VERIFY each of the debts. Apparently, under the Fair Debt Collection Act (or perhaps some other act), debtors are entitled to ask that their alleged debts be VERIFIED before they are obligated to pay.

      VERIFICATION means that that someone must SWEAR UNDER OATH–based on direct, first-hand knowledge–that a particular debt is valid.

      In the case of the man who ran up $250,000 in multiple CC charges, the CC companies would have to find the original clerk that sold $132.16 worth of groceries to the man on January 17th at the Tom Thumb grocery store and then–if the clerk could clearly remember that particular sale (out of scores or hundreds of sales the clerk might’ve made that day) arrange for that clerk to be sworn in front of a notary to TESTIFY under oath that the clerk had, in fact, sold $132.16 in groceries to the man. The problem of finding the people who have direct, first-hand knowledge of the debt, and then seeing if they could even remember the sale, and then arranging for a notary to take the clerks’ testimonies was so great that all ten of the CC companies simply ceased all collection efforts and the man got away with $250,000.

      I don’t know if whatever law that allowed the man to demand his debts be VERIFIED (under oath) also applies to school loans. But if such law did apply, you may very well be the only living man who is able to testify under oath to the validity of the alleged debts. If you refused to VERIFY the debts, who could? Is there a clerk who distinctly remembers loaning you $10,000–or perhaps two instances of $5,000 each, etc.–and is willing to SWEAR UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY as to the time, date, and amount of that loan?

      Maybe there is; maybe there’s not.

      But if I were in your shoes, I’d find out if I had the right to demand that my alleged debt be VERIFIED. If it turned out that I had that right, I’d ask my alleged creditors to VERIFY the alleged debt. If they could verify, I’d try to pay. If they couldn’t verify, I might take my girlfriend out dancing.

      The reason the verification demand works is that virtually all debts are currently recorded on BUSINESS RECORDS. These business records are stored in computers. The data is entered by hundreds or thousands of overworked clerks who enter data without any understanding as to whether that data is true or false. Most clerks have no direct knowledge of the validity or even existence of the debt. Thus, data entry clerks can’t VERIFY a particular data entry. Generally speaking, neither can anyone else–except maybe the actual debtor.

      More, all business records are HEARSAY. They are data entries made by some clerk based on some other person’s say-so. HEARSAY is inadmissible as evidence in court. It can be admitted if the debtor doesn’t object. It can admitted as a premise in an argument, but not as evidence. To be entered as EVIDENCE, some one has to swear to (“verify”) its validity.

      It’s possible that someone else remembers your alleged debt clearly and is willing to swear to it’s validity. But if such person can’t be found and you have a right to verification, your creditors might stop their collection efforts much like the creditors reportedly stopped collection efforts on the man who got the 10 credit cards.

      As for looking over some of your documents, I’m always curious and I’m always pretty busy. I’d like to look. I don’t have time to look. If you send ’em I’ll see if time is available.

  4. Dan Glasho

    November 6, 2010 at 1:33 PM

    Lets talk about the “Straw Man”.

    The theory that our Birth Certificates have somehow been hijacked by the government, and that our names have been altered (via the use of all capital letters) in order to create some kind of fictional corporation, or fiction in law, is most likely laughable to judges and prosecutors. Lets look at this all capital lettered names issue logically.

    In America there are thousands of people who share the same first, middle, and last name. By law, corporations cannot share the exact same corporate name. Therefore, every John E. Doe out there can’t be the same “JOHN E. DOE”.

    I feel that the only reason why people’s names are written in all upper case letters is simply because, they make it easier for utility employees, government employees, and yes even judges and prosecutors, to read a person’s name.

    All government forms (and most of the utility bills) have been formatted to print the customer’s name (and most addresses) in all upper case letters. In addition… most of those same forms only allow space for 2 letters (both capital) to indicate the State where the customer resides. Granted, the two letter abbreviation for a State is “legal”, but it is not “lawful”. Lawful States are represented by 3 or 4 letters, e.g. Ark., Mich., Mont., Okla., etc., all of which use both upper and lower case letters and end with a period. That, however, is another issue all together different than the name issue. Judges do not consider the “upper or lower case letters”, because they are a moot point. No defendant has ever won a case on such a silly argument.

    When you get caught speeding in your vehicle, it was not some imaginary “straw man” who was driving your car, it was YOU! Yes, you, the flesh and blood person who violated the terms and conditions of the contract (i.e. Drivers License). The courts don’t need any type of straw man to charge the crime to, and they surely don’t need you to act as the fiduciary for some fictional character. As the old saying goes “You did the crime, you do the time”.

    Lets be honest. When we applied for our DL, we knowing and voluntarily agreed to obey all the traffic rules within our States, or else pay a fine if we were caught violating them. When we signed the DL, that was our acceptance of the terms and conditions of the contract. If we breach the contract, we must appear in a court and explain why we violated the rules. Most people admit they were in violation, and pay the penalty. Others, however, try to use some frivolous argument based on the“straw man” theory, to keep from meeting their contract obligations (to pay a fine) . How does that appear to the chancellor? Do you really believe they are going to let the defendant off because they used some frivolous argument? If we do, then we all need to go live in OZ, along with the Tin man, the cowardly Lion, and yes… the brainless straw man.

    • PatriotOne

      November 8, 2010 at 4:19 PM

      I did not get my drivers license because I wanted to declare that I know the LAWS of driving, I got it because I was forced under threat of arrest, imprisonment, and death.
      If I travel in these UNITED STATES and get pulled over (lets say I don’t have a license plate), and I do not have ‘my’ LICENSE my auto would be stolen (towed) and I would be arrested for “driving without a LICENSE”. I would be subjected to arrest and theft in every town I entered.
      General Motors have their regulations, GM cannot apply their regulations against FORD. Likewise, the USA’s regulations apply to the USA only, not to the People. But if the USA can trick you into getting a LICENSE by coercion, trickery, threat of arrest, have ‘you’ voluntarily agreed to submit?

      SLAVERY v Freedom


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s