Pledges of Servitude?

23 Oct

13th Amendment of the nited States Constitution.

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:

Your document seems to be pretty well done.
But I noticed one line in particular that I suspect leaves an important omission:  “I am not a slave or an involuntary servant of the State or the United States (13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)”.
As you know the 13th Amendment prohibited 1) slavery; and 2) involuntary servitude.  But it did not prohibit VOLUNTARY servitude.
I believe that any fiduciary relationship is a “servitude” wherein the fiduciary voluntarily agrees to work for the best interests of his beneficiary.  Historically, those people who became officers of the de jure State were fiduciaries and We the People were the beneficiaries.  You can see some evidence of this at Article 1.2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas which declares (roughly) that “this constitution was established by the People of Texas and for their benefit”.  We the People are the beneficiaries.  They, the government, are suppose to be our fiduciaries (servants; public servants, in this case).  When they take the Oath of Office, they are supposed to enter into that voluntary servitude on behalf of the People of The State of Texas.
Government doesn’t want to be our (public) servant.  I believe that they have therefore devised various schemes to trick us into “voluntarily” entering into fiduciary relationships (“servitudes”) wherein the modern “government” is the beneficiary and we are its fiduciaries.
I only skimmed your document, but so far as I can see, you have failed to inform them that you are not only not subject to 1) slavery; and 2) INVOLUNTARY servitude; but also that 3) you deny that you have VOLUNTARILY entered into any fiduciary relationship/servitude wherein the gov-co is the beneficiary and you are the fiduciary.
I don’t know what the truth is, but I strongly suspect that they are proceeding against you based on the presumption that you’ve entered into one or more voluntary servitudes (fiduciary relationships) with the government of “this state” (not a State of the Union, but probably a territory) and you are being charged not as a debtor, per se, but as a fiduciary who has BREACHED his fiduciary obligations to “this state” (your presumed “beneficiary”/ “god”).
When I was hauled off to Missouri for most of a year, I signed all of my paperwork “at arm’s length” to signify that I was signing everything in a NON-FIDUCIARY capacity.  They had alleged I was guilty of TWO felonies–non-support of a child.  I knew the allegations were based on fraud.  Nevertheless, the Missouri court intended to find me guilty and imprison me.  But, that imprisonment would not have been based on my debt, it would be based on my alleged breach of fiduciary obligation to the child and/or her mother.
I don’t know why the court ultimately refused to prosecute me, but I’m convinced that because I’d signed all of my paperwork “at arm’s length”–including the Waiver of Extradition document that was signed and sealed by a Dallas court judge–they could not proceed against me.  I.e., I qualified my signature in the Waiver of Extradition in Dallas so as to agree to be extradited to Missouri on condition that I was extradited in a non-fiduciary capacity.  The Dallas judge signed and sealed that agreement making it absolutely admissible evidence.  Missouri unwitting accepted me for extradition under those conditions and didn’t realize what they’d done until I arrived on Missouri.
The allegations against me were based on breach of a fiduciary relationship (presumably a voluntary servitude), but Missouri had accepted me in a non-fiduciary capacity.  Therefore, they could not proceed against me.
They held me 344 days and then released me.  Spending 344 days in the slammer is hard to describe as a victory, but my alternative would be to have “voluntarily” consented to being a fiduciary, be convicted of breach of fiduciary obligation, and I’d be a convicted felon today–perhaps still peeing on command into a cup.
I don’t know that denying that you have voluntarily entered into a fiduciary relationship with the court, the city/county/state/US will save you in this matter.  But “voluntary servitude” is another “rat-hole” that you should also “plug” in your defense.
If I were you, I’d expressly deny under oath that I’d voluntarily entered into any fiduciary relationship (voluntary servitude) with the plaintiff, the court or any entity the prosecutor is alleged to represent.  If that sworn denial is properly made, you create an issue, a point of contention that strips the court of its capacity to presume that you are a fiduciary in this matter.  At that point, the prosecutor should (in theory) be compelled to produce evidence that you are, in fact, a fiduciary for the plaintiff/prosecutor/real party in interest.
I doubt that they’d dare to produce such evidence in court and “let the cat out of the bag”. But even if they did produce such evidence, it would almost certainly be document (say, an application for a drivers license, or a bank account “signature card” or some such) that bears your solitary signature.  The evidence wouldn’t be a contract because it wouldn’t have two signatures on it.  Therefore, there’d be no requirement for full disclosure on the document nor could there be a meeting of the minds since there weren’t two signatures, two parties, or two “minds” involved in signing that document.
The document would have only one signature (yours) and might be called a “unilateral contract” but I suspect that description would be misleading.  A one-person signature probably can’t be a “contract”–but it could be a pledge.  That unilateral pledge (by you and you alone) would probably be deemed evidence of you have voluntarily entered into a fiduciary relationship (voluntary servitude) with the plaintiff/prosecutor/state.
In the unlikely event that the prosecutor produced such evidence, your defense is probably pretty simple.  If the evidence against you is a document bearing only one signature (yours), then you and you alone know what the document means.

Again, if there aren’t two signatures, there can’t be a “meeting of the minds” where the meaning is agreed to or determined by both parties.  If you’re the only one who signed the document, you’re the only one who knows what you intended the document to mean.

If the prosecutor or judge says or implies that the document is evidence that you entered into a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff/prosecutor/state, you could simply and honestly say that you had no intention of voluntarily entering into a “servitude” (fiduciary relationship) when you signed the document; that you signed as a mere “witness” (or you might have some other honest explanation for your signature)–and that if the court tried to compel you to perform as a fiduciary in this matter based on your signature to the document, that such compulsion would subject you to involuntary servitude–which is absolutely prohibited by the 13th Amendment.
The tricks to this strategy are 1) create EVIDENCE that you have not KNOWINGLY and  VOLUNTARILY entered into a fiduciary relationship with any entity associated with the prosecution of the case; and 2) get that EVIDENCE into the case record.
You can probably create evidence by filing an affidavit of denial of fiduciary relationship into the county record.  You might do well to make sure that certified copies of such affidavit were submitted to the judge, the court clerk, the prosecutor and any entity that the prosecutor seems to represent.  And, if it were me, I’d get those copies to them long before the case came to court.  If they see what’s coming, they might make the case disappear.
If you wait to use the “non-fiduciary” defense until you’re actually in court at trial, you might get lucky–but more than likely, they’ll find you guilty and let you take your non-fiduciary argument up on appeal.
This non-fiduciary defense is not guaranteed to work, but it might work.  It’s an additional line of defense that I’d include if I were in your situation.
In the meantime, I’d make a habit of signing everything I sign with the “at arm’s length” disclaimer.  I’d be prepared mentally to deny that any document carrying only my signature was intended by me to be pledge to enter into a voluntary servitude.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the critical one-signature “pledges” in your case were the traffic tickets that I presume you signed when the tickets were issued.  I’d expressly deny under oath that I knowingly and voluntarily signed any of those tickets with the intent to enter into a “servitude” to the plaintiff/prosecutor/court/state, etc.  I might explain that I signed those tickets only as witness to the allegations written by the police officer.
Incidentally, if you look at the traffic tickets, you’ll probably find the traffic cop’s name printed out, or maybe his initials, but I doubt that you’ll find his signature.  If you do, it’ll probably be in a “box” that’s excepted from the rest of the ticket.
Or–if you find the traffic cop’s signature out in the “open” on the same ticket that contains your signature, then my speculation about the traffic ticket being a unilateral “pledge” to enter into a fiduciary relationship with the court/state/prosecutor etc. is probably mistaken.



26 responses to “Pledges of Servitude?

  1. PatriotOne

    October 23, 2010 at 6:51 PM

    Or, get the Judge, prosecutor, plaintiff to impeach themselves.
    I believe there MUST be an injured or deprived of a Right party. The plaintiff must have standing, cause of action, a deprivation or injury. All civil actions must involve a crime or contract.
    If the OFFICER is bringing the action that OFFICER must have suffered a deprivation or injury. Without such suffering there is no complaining party.

    Had (Rick) signed the CITATION Rick a/k/a RICK the two could become the same requiring the disclosure of a contract.

    “Marc Stevens:
    Standing is the same wherever you go, the important elements are (1) the violation of a right; and (2) injury.


    “Wigmore explains the American concept of the corpus delecti rule thus:

    [Every crime] reveals three component parts, first, the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss (as in homicide, a person deceased; in arson, a house burnt; in larceny, property missing); secondly, somebody’s criminality (in contrast, e.g., to accident) as the source of the loss,–these two together involving the commission of a crime by somebody; and thirdly, the accused’s identity as the doer of the crime.

    In most American jurisdictions, including Texas, the corpus delecti rules requires some corroboration of the first two elements-an injury or loss and a criminal agent…” Salazar v. State, 86 S.W.3d 640, 645.

    “It is too elementary that injury must be plead and proved before a cause of action arises to require the citation of authorities.” Whitesboro Nat. Bank v. Wells, 182 S.W.2d 516, 518.

    “It is axiomatic that standing is the first prerequisite to maintaining a suit. Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323, 324…Persons have standing to sue if they can show that (1) they have sustained some direct injury as a result of a wrongful act; (2) there is a direct relationship between their alleged injury and the claim sought to be adjudicated; (3) they have a personal stake in the controversy; (4) the challenged action as caused them an injury in fact, whether economic or otherwise…Because standing is a jurisdictional requirement, it may be addressed for the first time on appeal.” Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F3d 546, 555…”

    “The Supreme Court held that because the named plaintiff was unable to allege and show that he personally had been injured by the defendant’s actions, his lack of individual standing precluded the trial court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction…The court explained that [o]ur state constitution contemplates, that plaintiffs seeking redress in the courts must first demonstrate standing. Because the Texas constitution requires the presence of a proper party to raise issues before the court, standing is a threshold inquiry regardless of whether the plaintiff brings an individual or class action.” Polaris Industries, Inc. v. McDonald, 119 S.W.3d 331, 338, 339.

    “A “cause of action” constists of a plaintiff’s primary right and the defendant’s act or omission which violates that right. Stone Fort Nat. Bank of Nacogdoches v. Forbes, 126 Tex. 568, 91 S.W.2d 674, 676 (1936); Martinez v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 651 S.W.2d 18, 19…Moreover, a “cause of action” comprises every fact which is necessary for a plaintiff to prove in order to obtain judgment.” Krchnak v. Fulton, 759 S.W.2d 524, 526.

    “The requirement in this State that a plaintiff have standing to assert a claim derives from the Texas Constitution’s separation of powers among the departments of government, which denies the judiciary authority to decide issues in the abstract, and from the Open Courts provision, which provides court access only to a “person for an injury done him”. A court has no jurisdiction over a claim made by a plaintiff without standing to assert it. For standing, a plaintiff must be personally aggrieved; his alleged injury must be concrete and particularized, actual or imminent, not hypothetical. A plaintiff does not lack standing simply because he cannot prevail on the merits of his claim; he lacks standing because his claim of injury is too slight for a court to afford redress.” Daimler Chrysler Corporation, v. Bill Inman et al, NO. 03-1189, Texas Supreme Court, 2008.

    “The dissent argues that standing requires only, one, a real controversy that, two, will be determined. Those are requirements for standing, but so is concrete injury, because if injury is only hypothetical, there is no real controversy.” Daimler Chrysler Corporation, v. Bill Inman et al, NO. 03-1189, Texas Supreme Court, 2008.”

    I would like Alfred and Marc to mingle.

    • adask

      October 24, 2010 at 12:10 AM

      I have no objection to “talking with” Marc, or “collaborating” with Marc–but I’m 65 years old and kinda “out of touch”. I know how the meanings of words are constantly changing, so I just want to be sure that “mingling” isn’t some sort of gay thing–is it?
      Just kidding.
      Thanks for taking the time to provide so much information in your comment. I very much appreciate that time, the effort and the passion that’s required to generate so much information.
      Incidentally, if you have any contact info on Marc Stevens and you think he might be interested in being interviewed on one of my radio programs, drop me a line at
      Thanks again.

      • mAximo

        November 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM

        Great idea. Were Marc only to use your (rather than Libertarian)
        arguments, to rebut the presumption that he was in ‘the’ State of AZ
        by instead claiming he was never in ‘this’ dba state of bankruptcy &/
        emergency in his capacity as a fiduciary &/legal fiction, then he’d
        get out of the Libertarian ghetto. You can show him how the mortgage
        fraud was pulled off in a like manner: it pretends that borrowers
        who lived in their houses were renting to themselves, in order to
        apply the legal principle of abstraction to make them wear 2 hats:
        1. as the trustees of REITs; 2. as the renters. Income tax on wages
        pulls the same fraud on laborers by making them wear 2 hats as if
        regulated employers employing themselves, for which signing a 1040
        is a confession making them liable under IRC 3043. Prior to WWII,
        no laborer in an ‘ordinary’ occupation payed income tax – and still
        the case to this day in Puerto Rico, where one can see that’s so
        by reading the 1040-PR. It’s not that much different from the 1913
        1040 for the mainland. Both forms are available on the irs website.
        He also tackles income tax using the Libertarian apporach, and so
        needlessly makes something simple complicated. A $1 FRN is a coupon
        for a dollar off on debts (mortgages) & taxes. Thus, its value is
        dependent of having debts & taxes to discharge. It is not a coupon
        for goods & services like store coupons, since it is not by law
        legal tender for goods & services, which is why vendors may refuse
        FRNs, as well as e-dollars, for everything they’re offering to sell
        you. As States of the Union are prohibited from accepting both for
        debts & taxes, your explanation of how they can be forced to accept
        both in their civil law capacity to do business as territorial
        states, gets to the heart of the problem.

      • mAximo

        November 2, 2010 at 2:41 PM

        Sorry, the only statute that makes an ’employee’ liable
        for personal income tax is IRC 3403. Under 3402.n, such
        an ’employee’ may nullify the presumption that he’s self-
        employed by giving his actual employer the requisite notice.
        Please click on my screen name to see Cornell’s copy of 3403.
        Anyone ever succeed in using said presumption in order to
        take control of one’s 401k?

  2. My3suns

    October 24, 2010 at 10:51 AM

    Not that I’ve had the pleasure of signing a ticket lately, I would presume to say at this point, why not explain to any officer before he walks back to his car to write the ticket, “btw officer, I do not consent to unilateral contracts as you can see by the ucc1-308 Rights Reserved statement under my signature on my drivers license.”

    Now if he says, “what do you mean by that?” you can simply say that you reserve your common law right not to be compeled to perform under any contract that you don’t enter willingly, knowingly, or intentionionaly.

    The officer will most likely call that one in since he’ll be clueless to your comments. Someone hopefully will know that you’re not about to lay down and become a fiduciary to State sponsored extortion and you may just get away with a warning.

    I would like to ask the forum here what the difference may be between signing documents with at arms length or just using ucc 1-308 rights reserved?

    From what I’ve learned the most important objective in this liberty movement is to stay out of their courts!!! That is unless they drag you in there like they did to Jesus. When they drag you in the court you claim common law jurisdiction, ask for written oath of office statements for judge and prosecutor, and demand the accuser identify the accused.

    • adask

      October 24, 2010 at 10:59 PM

      “At arm’s length” is a common law reply that establishes that you are not representing an legal fiction, person or being other than yourself. It refutes any presumption that you are voluntarily acting in a fiduciary relationship.
      That may not be enough to guarantee a victory in court, but I believe it’s a very good start.
      UCC 1-308 might accomplish something similar, however:
      1) I’m always suspicious of the UCC since I’m virtually convinced that it’s an attribute of “this state” rather than The State. If that suspicion is true, then any time I use the UCC, I may be conceding that I’ve consented to act in the venue of “this state”; and,
      2) A mere “reservation of rights” does not, by itself, cause you to escape the jurisdiction of “this state” or the status of “fiduciary”. You have a “right” to leave The State to voluntary enter into “this state”. You likewise have a “right” to voluntarily choose to act as a fiduciary for some other person or entity. Thus, a mere “reservation of rights” includes your reservation of your rights to 1) enter “this state”; and 2) act as fiduciary/representative for some legal fiction.
      Do you see my point? The (privatized) system operates on the presumption that you have the rights to 1) enter “this state”; and 2) act as a fiduciary–and that you have voluntarily chosen to do so.

      How does your claim under UCC 1-308 to have reserved those very rights refute that presumption that you have voluntarily exercised those same, very rights?

      UCC 1-308 doesn’t appear to say that you are not “in this state” or that you have not chosen to act as a “fiduciary”. UCC 1-308 guarantees your right to do just that.

      So, if you don’t at least back UCC 1-308 (your right to choose to exercise your right) with an “at arm’s length” (an express declaration that you’ve chosen to NOT act as a fiduciary), I wouldn’t expect UCC 1-308 (all by itself) to give you much advantage.

      • PatriotOne

        October 24, 2010 at 11:58 PM

        I would think that by applying a statute you are binding yourself to that (and all other) statute.

        Saying “all Rights reserved” is not the same as saying “all Rights reserved UCC 1-207” (WHAT! another update? I have to read it all again?).

        If I am a free man I am not bound to/by GOV Co statute. So why would I want to use GOV Co statute to set (keep/set) me free? If I use statute to free me, all things being equal, GOV Co will use statute to seize me.

        I might use GOV Co statute to bar GOV Co, as I believe is statutes proper purpose.

        Isn’t the whole idea to not step into jurisdiction?

      • OatriotOne

        November 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM

        10 years ago I could write UCC 1-207 under my Sig. of the drivers license. When I turned in my UCC 1-207 MI for a TX (2008) license the customer service rep. behind the counter refused to accept any document I “all Rights reserved”. I was prevented from altering any document. I was also prevented from submitting ‘under duress’ fingerprints.
        The state of our nation seems to be without the States of the union. Thee People are refused to ability to remain human if they desire the mechanisms to sustain their lives.


        July 26, 2011 at 12:11 AM

        Before you sign anything under duress, in order not to be unfairly determined as in dishonor and incompetent, you may lawfully initial in large letters the letters V.C. where you will sign, then sign your name after- always after.
        What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally “under constraint”. This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.
        Now, at the earliest opportunity before the court or official, you can make it known that upon review of your signature it can be proven to have been forced under threat and coercion and so cannot be used as legally binding agreement.
        In some locations and in some prisons as this knowledge grows, it is possible that law enforcement officials may start to reject such signatures, adding more threat and force on a person to sign without using V.C. It is your choice remembering that if you allow such criminal intimidation and torture to prevail and do sign without protest then the system can simply lie and state you made such a sign of your “own free will”.
        So if they tear up the paperwork and demand you do it again, stating that such a signature is unlawful then such claims are against the laws of the Roman Cult Canon Law- the actual law that underpins their own statutes and regulations. However, if after several attempts they still refuse, there is a second method equally valid- the use of ellipse.

        The use of ellipse
        When the treat of intimidation or outright rejection of lawful protest is too great, then a second and equally valid method of signing under protest is permitted, namely the use of three full stops placed first, followed by the signature so that the three dots are not obscured by the signature.
        This is called an ellipse eg “…” and indicates that legally there was a form of words you wanted to state but were unable due to some event, in this case because of threat and coercion.
        Thus, at the earliest opportunity the ellipse can be revealed and it can be stated that you intended to write V.C. but were prevented therefore nullifying any agreement.

      • steve

        February 26, 2012 at 7:38 AM

        Thank You , Alfred

        for succinctly making that Point
        why enter into ” this State ” voluntarily

        I use ” non assumpsit ” above any Signature of mine

  3. Bobby G

    October 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

    The phrase “All Rights Reserved” appears to be speaking in the past tense (at one time I reserved my rights, but later I waived them). When dealing in the present, all claims must be present tense; “I am now claiming all my expressed liberties pursuant to the Bill of Rights.”

    In addition, the UCC states “A statute SHOULD be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law. …” (it should, but does it?). I must question the word “should”.

    Bobby G

  4. My3suns

    October 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM

    I’ll have to admit that I do like “at arms length,” a lot better than ucc1-308. It’s more Christian-like.


  5. Bobby G

    October 28, 2010 at 10:35 AM

    When reading statutes, be aware of the word “Shall”, which is not a command. Below are standing cases regarding its true meaning.

    The word “shall” in a statute may be construed to mean “may” particularly on the order to
    avoid constitutional doubt. Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Fox River Heights Sanitary District, 26
    NW 2nd 661.

    If necessary, to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, “shall” will be deemed equivalent to
    “may”. Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corporation, 165 AT. 136.

    “Shall” in a statute may be construed to mean “may” to avoid constitutional doubt. George
    Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7 NW2nd 891.

    As against the government, the word “shall” when used in statutes is to be construed as
    “may”, unless a contrary intention is manifest. Cairo and Fulton R.R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 US.

    The word “shall” in a statute may be construed as “may” where the connection in which it is
    used or the relation to which it is put with other parts of the same statute indicates that the
    legislature intended that it should receive such construction. Ballou v. Kemp, 92 F. 2nd 556.

    Bobby G

    • adask

      October 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM

      Texas Penal Code 1.04 defines “Territorial Jurisdiction” for “this state”. Sub-section (d) declares: “This state includes the land and the water and the airspace above the land and the water over which this state has power to DEFINE offenses.” [Emph. added]
      Point: The whole damned system of “this state” is based on DEFINITIONS. If you consent to the definitions of “this state,” then you are subject to the jurisdiction of “this state”.
      The previous list of cases wherein the courts have declared that “shall” can mean “may” is a classic example of the government use of DEFINITIONS to control the people. If “shall” can mean “may,” what th’ Hell means “shall” in an absolute sense?
      If the courts can decided whenever “shall” actually means may, we have rule by MAN rather than rule by LAW.
      “This state”–and its fundamental reliance on definitions and the power to make them mean whatever “this state” likes–is ultimately about Rule by Man rather than Rule by Law.

  6. My3suns

    October 28, 2010 at 8:31 PM

    Hi Al,

    Can you give just a brief definition of “this state,” versus “This State?”


    • adask

      October 28, 2010 at 8:58 PM

      I don’t know that I can give a “brief” definition, but I’ve tried to explore and describe the distinctions in a series of articles on my blog. You can find those articles by clicking on the “this state vs The State” link under the “Categories” heading on the right side of my blog.

      However, briefly, the term “The State” is used to signify the individual States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” in the Articles of Confederation. “The State” is the venue wherein almost every supposes himself to be.

      “This state,” however, appears to signify an alternative “territory” or “territorial state” that is NOT a state of the Union and therefore is not subject to the prohibitions or entitled to the rights accorded to “States” (of the Union) by the Constitution. Instead, as a “territory,” “this state” appears subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of CONGRESS as declared at Article 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States.

      • Joe

        July 22, 2013 at 8:12 PM

        There are some union states, including The State of Texas, that have defined their names with a capitalized “T” on the “the,” and there are others, such as New York and Georgia, that have not. I think the reason “the State of Georgia” is referred to that way in its constitutions is to tacitly admit that the People are sovereign and “the State of Georgia” exists to serve the People.

  7. Mile

    October 24, 2011 at 11:32 PM

    written law only applies to thoughs whom wrote it and only within the territory of the United States owned by the United States of America, to understand the difference one must read the Organic Laws. The first Organic Law is the Declaration of Independence which is you or I, the next three Organic laws starting with the Articles of Confederacy is the guarntee by ratification of the obligation to the Declaration of Independence of which the so Confederation is obligated to, the Northwest Ordinance is the land owned by the United States of America until they become sttaes at which time the lands remaining their in not sold are what remains of the said territory, then the United States Constitution becomes the Constitution by some revisions to the Articles of Confederacy which is called this Constitution which was not adopted by the United State instead George Washington took not the subscibed oath but the Oral Oath which made him and all after him an employee of Congress with his only duty to either abrove or send back legislation for the territories. in essence they made a business plan and all positions being what they are are only legislative and NO Article III courts exist, they are all agency courts or administrative under military law and in fact are really an illusion to an assumed reality. In conclusion very few people are United States citizens or Citizens of the United States.

  8. John

    March 21, 2012 at 7:02 PM

    Hi Al,

    I used to sign ‘my name’ with next or below “under protest” pissing off officaldom scab.

    Do you sign capitalized with below the disclaimer “at arms length”?


    • Adask

      March 21, 2012 at 8:37 PM

      I sign as follows:

      at arm’s length
      s/Alfred Adask
      Alfred Adask a/k/a ALFRED N ADASK

  9. steve

    March 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM

    I am uncertain why people think there is some remedy in using UCC ..
    why lock yourself into the commercial venue, isn’t that what we want out of ..??

    no one likes ” non assumpsit ” .. ??

    note also that the UCC section was moved .. was that to invalidate the use of it by people unawaer of such change ..?

  10. Cody

    May 24, 2012 at 4:35 PM

    If the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil, I think I just found the root of all sorts of evil in the Arizona Revised Statutes.
    Have you wondered why it’s so hard to beat a ticket? Have you ever wondered why fines keep getting raised to cover “costs”? Have you wondered why certain legislators are so vocal about raising the fees? Check out this little tidbit from the ARS. How about your state’s statutes?​FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=%2Fars​%2F12%2F00120-31.htm&Title=12&​DocType=ARS

    Is this ‘proof’ of a fiduciary relationship?

    • Igor

      July 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM

      Cody, when the link is “clicked” on, it goes to” “this page not found”

  11. Vincent

    July 20, 2012 at 1:01 PM

    I am no law expert, so correct me if my thinking is wrong, but in a traffic citation/ticket case, I think that if you go to the state and say “can I have permission to drive” (getting a drivers license) then you are subject to the rules the state lays out. A license is permission to do something that is illegal. If you go to an authority and ask for that permission by getting a license at your own free will you are recognizing that authority as the one you are subject to. When you sign the license you are saying I accept your jurisdiction to govern the rules and regulations to the privilege you are giving me. They say you want to drive with our permission then you need to follow these 2 million or so traffic laws or deal with these fine/penalties/consequences.

    Now if you were driving on the public roads (which I understand the people gave to the states years ago) with a car you own (not registered with the state and you hold a manufacture’s statement of origin instead of a certificate of title) and you do not have a license and you get traffic citations in which you were not causing damage to another party you could claim common law rights and depending on the legality of you traveling on the states roads without registration or a license you would have a very sound case against the traffic violations in my opinion.

    I still do not fully understand the legality of traveling without registration or a license at this point using common law theory and right to travel, but it is hard to argue that if you willing go out of your way to get permission to do something from some authority and then you break the rules of the permission granted to you with a vehicle you registered with the authority, whether you injured another party or not you will be subject to the penalties you signed up for (no common law remedy). If you don’t agree with the stipulations of the permission granted to you then you should not accept it and not sign the adhesion contract.

    I think this idea works the same for most licenses. They all have some kind of adhesion contract tied to them. Look at the license agreement that pops up with any software you buy. If you don’t agree with one of the terms then it won’t let you install or use the product. They are take it or leave it agreements.

    • Adask

      July 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

      I can’t prove it, but I suspect that virtually all modern “licenses” are granted in the venue of an administrative territory of the US such as TX, OK, NY or CA. I doubt that any licenses are issued within the borders of one of The States of the Union (such as “The State of Texas”). If you’re using a license, you may be “identifying with” the administrative territory rather than the State of the Union.

      While it’s true that the actual roads or highways have been granted to the administrative territories, it may also be true that the “right of way” on which the roads/highways were built may remain within the States of the Union. If this hypothesis were true, then the question becomes WHERE are you “driving”? On a road or highway “in this state” (the administrative territory) or on the “right of way” that remains within The State of the Union?

  12. Max

    July 21, 2013 at 5:41 PM

    What was the initial reason for the police contact?


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