Notice & Right of Inquiry in re: Income Tax and Traffic Tickets

07 Sep

Right of Inquiry [courtesy Google Images]

Right of Inquiry
[courtesy Google Images]

The Cornell University Law School defines “procedural due process” as follows:


“Principle required by the Constitution that when the state or federal government acts in such a way that denies a citizen of a life, liberty, or property interest, the person must first be given notice and the opportunity to be heard.”

Thus, procedural due process consists of two elements:

1) Notice; and

2) Opportunity to be heard.

The “opportunity to be heard” is typically a hearing where you will be found guilty about 98% of the time.  Therefore, most reasonable people don’t want the “opportunity to be heard” because it is typically an “opportunity to be sentenced”.

I believe that “opportunity” can be avoided by controlling the notice.  I.e., unless you consent to receive only an incomplete notice, the gov-co can’t take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]” until they’ve give you full and complete notice.

Strangely, my research implies that the notice recipient, rather than the notice sender, controls the express content of every notice.  Whenever you receive a notice, you control whether or not that notice is sufficient to allow the sender to take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]”.

As I’ve previously suggested on this blog (see my multitude of articles on “notice” listed at: ), the proper strategy for dealing with a notice from any government agency may be to ask questions.  If I’m right, you shouldn’t ever respond to notices with statements.  You shouldn’t respond with silence, either.  Instead, you should ask questions.

Because our modern gov-co is so far removed from constitutional government, it seems possible to ask questions whose answers would reveal the gov-co’s divergence from constitutionality.  If gov-co can be forced to admit that divergence on the record, gov-co would lose much or all of whatever remains of its appearance of legitimate, constitutional authority.  Insofar as even the appearance of authority is compromised, the gov-co is pretty much screwed.

Therefore, the ultimate object in my Notice and Right of Inquiry theory is to put gov-co in a position where they must answer my questions but if they do, they admit being a gang of treasonous whores rather than public servants.  My object is to pose questions that are: 1) relevant; 2) which could be easily answered by gov-co; but which 3) gov-co dare not answer in public or on the record for, if they do, they’ll expose their whole racket.

If my theory is valid and if my questions are sufficiently insightful, the gov-co may be unable or unwilling to answer them. If gov-co won’t answer my questions posed in response to one of their notices, I believe they thereby deprive me of my “right of inquiry” (created by their notice to me) and thereby deprive me of adequate notice.  I contend that without adequate notice, I’m denied the first element in procedural due process and my adversary (the gov-co) should thereby prevented from taking me to the “opportunity to be heard” where most people are found guilty about 98% of the time.

I.e., I strongly suspect that if I can create and introduce evidence into the record that the gov-co has refused to perform its duty to answer my questions, the gov-co will be thereby shown to have denied me sufficient notice.  Because sufficient notice is the first component of procedural due process, I believe that refusing to answer my questions constitutes a denial of procedural due process.

Once I’m denied procedural due process, the gov-co should be prevented from proceeding against me, and the court may even be stripped of jurisdiction to continue to hear the case.


• I suspect that most people would think that a government notice would not be subject to any significant questions.  When gov-co sends you a notice, you “salute and execute”—that’s all.

However, my research indicates that any notice is facially sufficient provided that it merely puts the recipient “on inquiry”.  In other words, by law, a notice can be technically incomplete in that it fails to provide a complete statement of all relevant facts and all relevant law.  However, that notice is still facially “sufficient” and legally acceptable if it merely causes a prudent recipient to ask questions about the relevant (but unstated) facts and law.

For example, suppose I loaned you $100 last month at the local saloon and you promised to repay me by the following Monday.  Suppose a month has passed and you haven’t repaid the loan.  Suppose I see you across the room in another saloon, I hold my hand up and rub my too fingers together the way some people gesture to a waiter to bring them their check.  My mere, wordless gesture is a notice that you owe me $100 and I’d like to receive it.

Suppose you see my gesture and realize I’m asking about the $100 I loaned you over a month ago.  You might walk over and say, “Gee, I’m sorry—I forgot all about that loan.  Here, lemme buy you a beer,” and hand me the $100.

Or, alternatively, you might see that I’m obviously trying to communicate something to you with my gesture (trying to give you a notice) but not understand what my notice means.  So, you walk over and say, “What’s up?  What’re you signaling about?”  If you did, you’d be exercising your “right of inquiry” that was created by my initial gesture/notice.

Your right of inquiry would create my correlative duty to answer your question.  So in response to your question “What’re you signaling about?,” I might answer “The money.”

Just two words.  In order to accommodate your right of inquiry, I’ve expanded my notice from one gesture to two words.  If the two words (“The money.”) are sufficient to trigger your recollection of the loan, you would have sufficient notice and need ask no more questions and you might say, “Gee, I’m sorry—I forgot all about that loan.  Here, lemme buy you a beer,” and hand me the $100.

On the other hand, you might still be mystified by my gesture and two word notice and ask “What money are you talkin’ about?”

In response to your question trigger by my previous notices, I would be compelled to answer:  “I’m talking about the $100 bill with serial number 123456789 that I loaned you on Friday, July 5th at the Million Dollar Saloon in front of the witnesses Bob and Ted and Carol and Alice and which you expressly promised to repay no later than Monday, July 8th, A.D. 2013.”

Now, I could reasonably expect you to stop asking questions and say, “Gee, I’m sorry—I forgot all about that loan.  Here, lemme buy you a beer,” and hand me the $100.

The points to my little story are:

1) My notice creates your right of inquiry.

2) Your right of inquiry creates my duty to answer your questions—if you ask any.  But if you don’t ask, I have no correlative duty to voluntarily provide any unsolicited “answers” or to volunteer any additional information to you.

3) My initial notice need be no more extensive than is sufficient to trigger your recollection and appropriate response.  If a mere gesture is sufficient to make you repay the $100, then a mere gesture is legally sufficient.  If the gesture fails, and if you ask more questions, then I am obligated to expand my notice to two words “The money.”  If those two words are sufficient to trigger your recollection of your debt, then the two words are sufficient notice.  But if those two words don’t provide sufficient notice, then you are entitled to ask more questions and cause me to provide a much longer and detailed notice about the night when you borrowed the $100.

4)  If the theory is true, then it follows that at every instance you (as notice recipient) control how extensive my notice(s) must be.  As long as you have legitimate, relevant questions about my previous notice(s), I must either: a) expand or clarify my notice(s) until you comprehend whatever it is I’m trying to communicate; or b) cease my “collection” activities.


•  I believe a very similar process takes place when we deal with the gov-co.

Gov-co sends me a notice that makes no express mention of the venue in which they presume I am acting.  They make no mention of whether the currency they’re requesting is constitutional money or some privatized legal tender.  They make no mention of the whether the basis for their authority is the Constitution or some private policy.  They don’t say if they presume me to be an animal or a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Gov-co might justify its laconic style of notice by saying that if they had to explain every relevant fact, law and authority that underlies their notice, the result might be document over one foot thick.  There’s no point in giving people notice of how to build a clock if all they need to know is the time.

There’s a justifiable economy in allowing notices to be sent that are the smallest possible and need only be sufficient to trigger the recipient’s “right of inquiry”.  The gov-co is no more interested in printing a phonebook-sized notice than I am in receiving and reading a document of that size.  Thus, if I can understand a brief notice, there’s no need send a phonebook-sized document.

But, if I can’t proceed until I fully understand the abbreviated notice and I’ve been advised of every relevant fact and law, then I have the right to ask questions that will expand and clarify my understanding—and the gov-co will seemingly have the obligation to ultimately produce a phonebook-sized notice if that’s what I need to fully “understand” their notice.


• My analysis doesn’t mean that those who receive Notices must ask questions.  It merely means that they have a right to ask questions which they would exercise if they had a lick of common sense.  However, if they prefer to make statements in response to a notice they’re free to do so.  Similarly, if they choose to remain silent in response to a notice, they’re free to do that, too.

My reading of relevant law suggests that if you make statements in response to a Notice, or go completely silent, in either case, you’ll have created the presumption that you’ve receive sufficient notice and you can now proceed to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]”.   Once you’ve received sufficient Notice, government can proceed to the “opportunity to be heard” where you’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time—which is exactly where government wants to take you.

But—if you ask questions, those questions become evidence that you do not agree that you have as yet received sufficient notice.  So long as you exercise your “right of inquiry” (created by the government’s notice), the government has to answer your questions before they can proceed to your “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]”.

If gov-co refuses to answer all of your relevant questions in response to one of their Notices, it’s my understanding that they will have thereby deprived you of “sufficient Notice” and thereby deprived you of the first element of “procedural due process” (which consists of 1) notice & 2) opportunity to be heard/sentenced).

More, if the government still tries to force you into the “opportunity to be heard (sentenced),” but you can prove you’ve been denied procedural due process (answers to all of your questions), then it’s my understanding that the court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.  I can’t say it’s God’s truth, but it appears that if government doesn’t answer all of your relevant questions in response to their notices, they can’t legally take you to court (the opportunity to be heard/sentenced).

If the previous chain of conjecture is correct, you can see that an understanding of how a notice from gov-co creates your “right of inquiry”; how your “right of inquiry” creates gov-co’s correlative duty to answer your questions; and knowing what questions to ask—just might save you a few trips to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]”.


•  A lady, Cecelia, has apparently read some of the articles I’d previous written on Notice and the Right of Inquiry.  She’s bumping heads with the IRS and decided to pose just four questions.  According to her emails (below), the IRS has so far failed or refused to answer her questions.  Her emails reveal what may be a fundamental ploy by government to avoid answering questions in response to governmental notices.

I received the following email (the first of three) from “Cecelia” on the subject of “IRS audit”:


“I followed your advise on asking the 4 questions about income tax liability and sent it certified to the Abilene Tx office and they sent me a large pamphlet on The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments. He [the IRS employee/agent] sent a letter that said we are returning your protest so you can complete it.  He checked a box that says Identify items you take exception to, the facts relating to them, and the law, regulations, or cases the protest is based on.  What will be a good comeback?  How do I get out of this?  I am a nurse.  I am not working at the present time. I live in Cross Plains, Tx.  They didn’t like my deductions-mileage etc.  Please help me!”

I replied:

“I don’t know anything about your deductions or which of the IRS’s ‘facts’ you might object to.

“But if they sent you a ‘frivolous argument’ form letter, my question to you is this:  Do you (and the IRS) understand the difference between an ‘argument’ and a ‘question’?

“If you only sent questions to the IRS, then you didn’t make any arguments (which are statements).  If you didn’t make any arguments, then the IRS’s “frivolous argument” letter would seem to be irrelevant and improper—and perhaps evidence of mail fraud.

“If I were in a position similar to yours, and if I were sure that I had only posed questions to the IRS, then if the IRS complained about my “frivolous arguments,” I might write back to the IRS to ask if they understood the difference between questions and arguments; I’d ask if they could identify the arguments that I’d made in my first letter; and I’d ask them if they understood that their first response based on my allegedly “frivolous arguments” was not only wrong, but possibly fraudulent and therefore evidence of mail fraud.”


Cecilia sent me a second email:


“I also said—I regognize the fact that I don’t know the law. The 1040 includes jurat whereby I am suppose to swear that everything I write is true. Well how can I take such an oath if I don’t understand all of the revelant law? And given that virtually no living man truly understands Title 26, I cannot be presumed to know the relevant law.  However I am getting old and easily confused, so I don’t like to answer questions over the phone. I like to pose my questions in writing so I won’t be misunderstood.  It says in your letter to ask the IRS if we have any questions. Is the IRS obligated to answer my questions? I’ve been reading your posts, I guess you can tell. I hope I haven’t been too much trouble.  Thank you again.”

I replied:


“If you’ve received any notice or document from the IRS, look at the bottom to see if it has a line that says something like ‘If you have any questions, please call 1-800-555-1212.’

“If a statement similar to that is present in any of your documents, the IRS has apparently agreed to answer any of your questions in relation to that document [notice].  The fact that they’ve offered to answer those questions by phone may be merely a matter of convenience.  It’s easier to call than to write.

“But the implication remains that if you have a right to ask questions, and you present your questions in writing and send them to the office from which the IRS notice/document originated, then they should have a correlative duty and obligation to answer your questions.  If you send your questions in writing, they have an obligation to answer in writing.  Writings (especially if sent by Registered Mail) can be introduced as evidence; phone calls generally cannot.”


Cecelia sent me a third email:


“I also told them that I was ignorant and confused. After I ask the 4 questions I went on to say that I didn’t understand Title 26. I also asked—How many taxpayers can afford to hire an attorney to answer questions before a 1040 is filed? Thank you I appreciate your help. He sent that letter saying—We are returning your protest.”


My third reply:


“You may be involved in a word game.  If you sent them ‘questions’ and they claimed to return your ‘protest,’ they may be taking advantage of you.  They may be falsely characterizing your questions as a ‘protest’ in order to avoid answering your questions.

“While the law might require them to answer your ‘questions,’ it appears that the law also allows them to return a ‘protest’ to the alleged ‘taxpayer’.

“I doubt that the law allows them to ignore your questions.  If it were true that they were using the pretext of a ‘protest’ to avoid answering your questions, it may be that they could be charged with mail fraud for sending a false or misleading document through the mail.

“However, this is complex stuff.  If part of your letter to the IRS could be fairly characterized as a protest and part was clearly questions, you might have to forget the ‘protest’ and send them another letter that included only questions.  No statements, no arguments, no ‘protests’.  Questions only.  That might be helpful.”


As you can tell from Cecelia’s emails, she is relatively new to “tax resistance” and not too sophisticated in the use of law or language.  But she has some common sense.  I’m sure that anyone at the IRS office who read any of Cecelia’s letters would reach a similar conclusion.

Nevertheless, instead of offering some sort of sage advice to someone of Cecelia’s level of understanding, or even simply answer Cecelia’s “4 questions,” the IRS chose to:

1) falsely describe her questions as “frivolous arguments” (which consist one or more statements); and,

2) falsely describe her questions (letter of inquiry) as a “protest” (one or more statements).

I don’t know which “4 questions” were asked by Cecelia, but how hard could they be to answer?  Why wouldn’t the IRS simply answer Cecelia’s questions—even if the IRS answered with lies or half-truths?  Why falsely describe her questions as “frivolous arguments” or “protests”?

Are the IRS descriptions merely innocent mistakes made by IRS employees who are only marginally more sophisticated than Cecelia?  Or, are those false descriptions made intentionally for the purposes of:

1) avoiding their duty to answer Cecelia’s questions; and/or

2), to create the false impression that Cecelia had made “statements” rather than questions in response to the IRS notice(s) so that Cecelia could therefore be presumed to have received sufficient notice and could therefore be taken to the “opportunity to be heard” where the odds were 49 to 1 that she’d be found guilty of something?


•  I read Cecelia’s emails as evidence (not proof) that:

1) The IRS does not want to answer questions in writing;

2) The IRS will intentionally mischaracterize your questions as “frivolous arguments” or “protests” to avoid answering them; and,

3)   The hypothesis I’ve advanced about Notice and Right of Inquiry may be largely correct.

All of which suggests that if you chose to implement a “Right of Inquiry” strategy in response to a Notice from the IRS or some other governmental agency, you shouldn’t be surprised if they respond by mischaracterizing your questions as “frivolous arguments,” “protests” and/or some other kind of text that we’ve yet to hear about.

If such mischaracterization takes place, after reading about Cecelia’s experiences, you might be better prepared to respond by writing yet another series of questions to the IRS (or whoever) asking if they know the difference between questions and arguments and/or protests. After all, a document from the IRS that mischaracterizes your first response as a “frivolous argument” and/or “protest” is just another notice.  In this case, it’s a notice that they deem your questions to be arguments and/or protests.  This second notice creates your second “right of inquiry”.  It would probably be unwise to respond to their second notice with your own statements or your own silence.  If they send one notice or twenty, I believe the proper response is to each and every time respond with questions sent by Registered Mail so as to be admissible if they try to drag you into court.

I suspect that if you can keep asking intelligent questions, in writing, sent to the IRS (or whoever) by Registered Mail (which creates admissible evidence) in response to every notice you receive, it’s possible that the IRS (etc.) will grow tired of sending notices and perhaps leave you alone.


•  Finally, don’t suppose that every governmental notice is delivered in writing.  Some Notices may be oral.

For example, what is a “Miranda Warning” if not a notice to the effect that “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law”?

Anything you say can and will be used against you”?  Anything

What if I make a statement like, “That’s sure a pretty moon out tonight”?  Will even that be used against me?  What if I say “Officer Johnson, you’re a moron!”  Will that be used against me?

It’s a stretch, but could it be that “anything you say” might be synonymous with “any statement you make” can and will be used against you?

I.e., if you respond to the Miranda Warning (notice?) by making any statement, will that statement be presumed to be evidence that you’ve received sufficient notice and can now be taken to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]” where you’ll be found guilty 98% of the time?

If so, what if, when an officer reads you a Miranda Warning, instead of invoking your right to remain silent (which, under my hypothesis, may also create the presumption that you’ve had sufficient Notice and can therefore be taken to the “opportunity to be heard/sentenced”)—you asked some questions?

No statements.  Just questions.

The “Miranda Warning” gives you notice that any statement you make may be dangerous and therefore you have the “right to remain silent”.  However, the Miranda Warning does not tell arrestees if they do or do not have the “right to ask questions”.

If my theory on Notice and Right of Inquiry is valid, and if the Miranda Warning is, in fact, a notice, then the Miranda Warning may be incomplete in that it fails to advise arrestees of their right to ask questions.  If so, the Miranda Warning might be challenged for being intentionally incomplete and designed to deceive and mislead rather than provide Notice and a correlative right of inquiry.

Creating a record of relevant questions that you asked at or before the moment of arrest that the officers were unable or unwilling to answer might go a long ways towards stopping any subsequent prosecution as evidence of a denial of procedural due process.


•  For example, what if—before you were ticketed or even arrested—you asked the arresting officer if he understood and agreed on the record that the arrest was taking place within the border of a State of the Union such as The State of Texas?

What if you asked if the officer presumed that this event was taking place in a “territory of the United States” such as TX or STATE OF TEXAS?

What if you asked the officer if he were de facto or de jure?  Paid in gold or silver as per Article 1.10.1 of the federal Constitution or paid with fiat currency under Article 4.3.2?

Is he really a peace officer of The State of Texas?

Is he merely an employee for a private corporation acting as if it were the constitutional government?

As an employee of a private corporation, does he have a fiduciary duty to serve and protect that corporation or is he obligated to serve and protect the People of The State of Texas?

Does he recognize you as a man made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28?

Does he understand that you are one of the “People” of The State of Texas as seen in the Preamble and Article 1 of The Constitution of The State of Texas?

Does he presume you to be a “citizen of the United States” as seen in the 14th Amendment?

Does he have any evidence to prove that you are a “resident” of “this state”?

If this arrest is taking place within the borders of a State of the Union, does he have any authority in that venue?

We can think of scores of questions that we might like to ask the traffic cop.  As a practical matter, you’ll only be able to ask one, maybe three, question(s) at most before the officer senses your strategy and stops answering your questions.   Therefore, you’d better be prepared to first ask whichever question seems most relevant to you, because that might be your only chance to ask questions on the record and from outside of a cell.

Don’t plan on asking Twenty Questions, because you can bet the officer won’t play that game.


•  It’s conceivable that, if my theory about Notice and Right of Inquiry is valid, the entire traffic ticket and most arrest scenarios may be a kind of “notice drama” wherein the officer gives you a notice and by means of your silence or statements, presumes that you’ve had enough notice to proceed to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]”. I’d bet that each  initial contact with the police is truly a “notice drama”.

For example, in the matter of a traffic ticket, the officer’s notice to you might begin when the officer flashes his “emergency lights” and thereby gives notice that he’s presuming a “state of emergency” to exist.  If that were true, then, when the officer approached your vehicle one of the most intelligent questions you could ask might be “What are the facts and cause of the emergency that you’re claiming to exist?”

What about the gold-fringed flag on the officer’s uniform?  Is that merely a decorative statement of national patriotism?  Or is it a notice that this officer is only authorized to enforce the law within a federal territory—but not within the borders of a State of the Union?

What about the rest of the paraphernalia that constitutes the officer’s uniform or the verbiage on the vehicle he drives?  Does any of that paraphernalia or verbiage constitute a notice?  If so, do we have a correlative right of inquiry to ask questions about the uniform, the vehicle, the venue the officer presumes to apply in this matter, and the authority under which the officer presumes to act?


•  Back in the 1990s, I saw a section of the California traffic code that expressly described  a traffic ticket as a “notice”.  If all traffic tickets are notices (and if my Notice/Right of Inquiry hypothesis is valid), then the traffic ticket opens the door to asking some interesting questions—certainly, before—and perhaps even after—you sign that Notice.

Maybe the emergency lights and the gold-fringed flags constitute a kind of notice that creates your right of inquiry.  Maybe not.

But if the traffic ticket is a notice, I’ll bet that your signature on that notice may be presumed to constitute a kind of “statement” that’s deemed to be evidence that all your questions have been answered, that you agree that you’ve received sufficient notice, and that you’ve consented to now pay the fine and/or go to the “opportunity to be heard” (municipal court) where (as I’ve said repeatedly) you’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time.

If this conjecture were true, what would happen if sometime before the officer hands you a ticket and asks for your signature (“statement”?), you managed to ask, say, three to five very pertinent questions about the venue, his authority, his presumptions, and your nature, etc.?

What if the officer couldn’t or wouldn’t answer all of your questions?  Would the officer’s apparent refusal to provide you with sufficient notice be enough to prove a denial of procedural due process?  Could that denial of procedural due process be sufficient to nullify the validity of your subsequent signature on the traffic ticket?

Inquiring minds wanna know.


•  I have no way of knowing what an officer’s reaction to a series of questions in the context of a traffic stop might be.  But, as seen in Cecelia’s story (above), the IRS is telling lies in order to avoid answering questions.  So it seems that the “right of inquiry” concept may have some teeth.

Therefore, if you were being recorded on video or audio when you were stopped by a traffic cop and you posed such questions, I suspect that your questions might later be introduced into the record as evidence that you were denied procedural due process and the court therefore had no jurisdiction.


•  I do not recommend that anyone automatically believe the conjecture I’ve presented in this article or apply this conjecture in your next traffic stop.  Still, you might want to consider this conjecture and roll it around in the back of your mind to see if it makes any sense to you.  Then—what th’ hey?—next time you have a traffic ticket, ask a few questions and see what happens.  Let us know if your questions seemed to have any effect or if they were ignored as meaningless.

The nice thing about questions is that they don’t create additional liability.  So far as I can see, no matter what kind of mess you’re in, you might make the mess worse by making statements or even going completely silent, but you can’t make things worse by asking questions—and you might make things a lot better.


•  Now, it’s your turn, reader (if you care to take a “turn”).

Now, you can post whatever relevant comments you like on this blog as to whether the Notice and Right of Inquiry theory is valid or flawed.

More, you can even share and speculate on some fundamental questions that you think that you should ask each time you’re faced with a traffic ticket/notice.  By working together in the “comments” section, we might find five fundamental questions.  We might find three.  We might find ten.  Your questions wouldn’t have to be identical to my own, but they might be similar.  I’m sure that if you saw my questions, and I saw yours, both of our question “arsenals” would be improved.

We might even refine our questions and print them on a pair note cards that we could keep in our automobile.  If you were stopped for a traffic ticket, you might hand one copy of the note-card questions to the officer and keep the other for yourself as a kind of script so you remembered and expressly asked (on the video record) whichever questions you thought might be most relevant and insightful.

So, if you have any thoughts or comments on this article, let’s hear ‘em; let’s share ‘em; let’s see if we can discover and refine a handful of questions that might be sufficient to nullify the force of a traffic-ticket/notice.


Posted by on September 7, 2013 in Income Tax, IRS, Notice, Questions, Signature, Traffic Law


Tags: , , ,

66 responses to “Notice & Right of Inquiry in re: Income Tax and Traffic Tickets

  1. Jack

    September 7, 2013 at 11:23 PM

    Can we apply this to income taxes?

    • Adask

      September 7, 2013 at 11:35 PM

      I think this strategy should work on the IRS. I’ve used it with seeming success (see, But I don’t know for an absolute fact that this strategy can be relied on to deal with the IRS. You’ll have to read the relevant articles and decide for yourself as to whether this strategy probably will or probably won’t work in your particular case.

      • JOE L'AMARCA

        September 8, 2013 at 1:20 AM


  2. Jack

    September 7, 2013 at 11:38 PM

    Saw this on Infowars back in April. Interesting strategy about dealing with traffic stops:

  3. Chris

    September 8, 2013 at 12:03 AM

    “Good afternoon, officer. What’s the emergency, and how can I help?” “Do you know that it is a crime to activate emergency beacons where no emergency exists?” “Did you activate those emergency lights?” “Are you in possession of a verified complaint against me?” “Did you observe me disturbing the peace, or causing injury, harm, or loss?” “Are you claiming I am engaged in commerce?”

    Just a few I plan on using if I have another

    • Adask

      September 8, 2013 at 5:27 AM

      Very nice. Thass whut ahm takin’ about!


    • Julie

      September 8, 2013 at 8:34 PM

      WTG, Chris. I have written these down. They are excellent. Palani: Applause! Applause!

      Adrian, I am certain that I am only PRESUMED to be under contract. Otherwise, why would the officer (or a court, or the IRS..) be impelled to coerce me into contract/commerce? Why is it imperative that he OBTAIN my consent if I have already consented? The officer is aware that the offered contract itself is a constructive fraud that requires my complicity to be pulled off.

      Peace, Julie

      • Julie

        September 8, 2013 at 8:39 PM

        I meant Jolly, above. Great questions. Thank you.

      • Adrian

        September 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM

        Jolly,as long as you use those ID’s and documents which you got from THEM, you have to comply with THEIR rules.That’s your contract,like it or not.Read the above post.
        I would like you to read an e-book,Vatican Assassins.Is on the net,PDF.(free)

      • Adrian

        September 9, 2013 at 3:19 PM

        Julie,you are not under contract,SHE is under contract.You are the liability for the contract,the agent,
        the fiduciary.You are responsible to perform. SHE is the dumb ass,THEIR property.
        Now you see the trap you got yourself in.
        SHE must comply with the “Law” thru you.THEY cannot do business with you,unless you assume
        the responsibility for HER.Thru all those ID’s you use,you have a compact with THEM and HER.
        A Cop is another dumb ass,he does not know the real truth.He reaccts to what he sees.He’s got his limited instructions.All Cops have low levels of IQ,that’s the norm.
        Read my last post.
        Also,I want you to read this e-book,Vatican Assassins,is on the net,PDF,is free.

      • Julie

        September 9, 2013 at 5:27 PM

        Adrian, thank you for your answer. However, rather than being the feduciary, I AM the Living BENEFICIARY to the Original Trust. The beneficiary isn’t the trustee/feduciary. The one bringing the charge is the trustee and the one bringing the charge also brings the remedy. Our roles are only reversed at the point that I consent to the inferior jurisdiction. When you go into a court, you are standing in the superior court of record–your own court. You have “appeared” to direct the trustee to “settle” the matter at hand. You do so from the gallery. D.A.s are trustees. The adminstrator is to address all inquiries to the trustee as you are not the proper party. The judge can’t “hear” or “see” you because you are a living being. However, the moment he tells you to stand and you do, the moment he demands your name and you give it, or the moment you board his “ship”–you enter his lower court. Your ass is grass. You’re as dead as him. “STATE YOUR NAME!” “er…You can call me Pete…” hehe.

        There are always just three parties present in every proceeding. The Administrator, the Trustee. and the Beneficiary. So. It seems that you, the beneficiary, stand in the gallery in your superior court of record and say: “For the record–(point to your own record keeper who has come with you–the one at the courthouse works for the inferior court…) I AM the Living Beneficiary. I am not the proper party.” as many times as you have to. If he comes close to stroking out, you might say “I don’t understand. There’s a mistake.” So he’s like “What don’t you understand?” “EVERYTHING. I have come in peace to settle this. Why do you wage war?” (It’s a potent fact in law that the judge wages war until you surrender, but by doing so he is, himself, in dishonor. He needs you to relieve his dishonor with your consent.) So: “For the record, who is the trustee? The court can’t move forward without the trustee.” If the prosecutor fails to identify himself as the trustee, appoint him. “YOU are the trustee.” So there. (The fact that he’s brought charges against your estate is the EVIDENCE that he’s the trustee and has the ability to administer your estate.) Then you direct the trustee to settle the account and bring it to parity.) At this point, the matter should be dismissed– naturally, the dishonor of the adminstrator is forgiven, you having come in peace and all. We’re forgiven as we forgive. All is well. I’m not saying it’s a walk in the park. Know Who you are and stick to your guns. They can trip you up at any point. If you get to the point that you have one hand on a Bible and one in the air, you’re dead in the water. You’ve lost control of your court and you’ll be convicted 98% of the time as stated above.

        The only contempt you can be charged with is a civil contempt. The remedy is a simple and immediate apology. For real. “I apologize. I didn’t mean to be contemptuous.” That’s the end of it. If he charges you 4000 times, apologize 4000 times. Remain in peace. Do not argue. Remember, as per the original discussion here, both silence and argument are acknowledged acts of war on your part. Being a smart aleck puts YOU in dishonor. Do you think that administrator is as likely to forgive you as you are to forgive him? (He isn’t.) So be kind. Maybe he really hates his shitty job.

        (Since a traffic stop involves only two parties, a pertinent question to be asking might be “Where is the trustee?”) Realize that the point of all her shenanigans is to get through to the estate that’s in the name of the person. Do you realize that the estate can’t be “tapped” for any reason except to lend aid and comfort in a time of war? So they wage a war on you and try to engage you in it. It’s a war game.

        OMG! You’ll kick me off of here for sure–too LONG! Hey. I don’t really know anything. Teach me, OK?

  4. Jolly

    September 8, 2013 at 7:37 AM

    An arresting officer cannot be charged with a false arrest UNLESS the arrest is protested at the time of the arrest. As well, a case of kidnapping must have FOUR essential items: the action must be 1) against my will 2) without my consent 3) over my objection and 4) being “transported” by the alleged officer. “Officer, do you understand (agree) that your placing me in handcuffs is against my will? …. without my consent?…. over my objections?…. You have removed one obstacle for a lawsuit and opened the door for a criminal charge of kidnapping. And in a deposition he will likely answer yes to all of the above since you REPEATEDLY asked him at the time.

  5. palani

    September 8, 2013 at 8:58 AM

    One notice deserves another. If stopped I am prepared to pull out a certified copy of a notice I put in the newspapers years ago (and recorded) asking for anyone who wanted to be part of my government to send me a verified copy of their oath and bond. That notice then begs the question “why didn’t you respond to my notice when given the opportunity?” and “If you aren’t a part of my government then whose government are you acting for?”

    • Adask

      September 8, 2013 at 3:26 PM

      I disagree. A notice = a statement. IF my theory concerning Notice & Right of Inquiry is correct, any statement you make may be construed as evidence that you’ve received sufficient Notice from the gov-co and are now eligible for the “opportunity to be heard/sentenced”. IF my theory is correct, the only proper response is to ask questions. You can’t go silent. You can’t make statements. You must ask questions. IF my theory is correct.

    • palani

      September 9, 2013 at 8:27 AM

      @ Adask ” the only proper response is to ask questions”
      I agree a question in response to a contract offer cancels that offer and puts a new one on the table. I doubt that many costumed enforcement officers actually understand this concept and when this class of officeholder is faced with something they don’t understand their first impulse is to contain the situation with a baton, a stun gun or violence in general. Discussions of any sort have a strong possibility of escalating to violence so in my opinion the street corner is not a good place in general to discuss anything more serious than the escalating cost of donuts. Even to discuss the concept of laches and estoppel when the demand is for license, registration and proof of insurance could be enough for him to lay buckwheats on you.

      In a situation where you just want to get home with no additional scars to heal agreement is the only option. Sign anything. Agree to anything. Get out of range and use your 72 hour window of opportunity to cancel any notice.

  6. BlueLotusTraveler

    September 8, 2013 at 10:42 AM

    SIMPLY CLAIM INSOLVENCY for there is nothing to pay with so debt resolution is impossible.

    DOLLAR. ( Defined Andersens Law DIctionary 1889: Page 384)
    The unit of our currency; —
    money, or its equivalent.^
    A silver coin weighing four hundred and
    twelve and one-half grains, or a gold coin
    weighing twenty-five and four-fifths grains,
    of nine-tenths pure to one-tenth alloy of
    each metal.’
    The coined dollar of the United States ; a
    certain quantity and fineness of gold or silver,
    authenticated as such by the stamp of
    the governments

  7. Joe R. B.

    September 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

    Just posting to receive notification of follow-up comments/new posts via email.

  8. Adrian

    September 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM

    A notice is an invitation for consent,or an offer.If you provide any answers,you have consented,even by silence.
    The best approach is: I demand to know. A demand is a counter offer.
    In commerce ,to buy or to accept the offer is volunteer.
    Also, demand to know means full disclosure.
    A notice can be viewed as an offer to contract.To enter into a contract is a volunteer action.

    • Jolly

      September 8, 2013 at 4:24 PM

      A Demand for Bill of Particulars (common law writ, NOT a statutory MOTION for Bill of Particulars) is precisely what has save me many $ over the years. As Al has noted, demand to know the nature and cause of the action, asking questions they do not want to answer on record.

      • Adrian

        September 8, 2013 at 4:40 PM

        If you reach that point in regard to a “Court”,THEY will take jurisdiction over YOU and you,and in our
        present situation you will be regarded as a paper terrorist.
        One good point is to get rid of any STATE issued ID’s,make your own ID and STOP answering questions.
        You are already under contract,be aware of that.

      • Jolly

        September 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM

        The tickets never make it to a court. The demand for BoP is mailed (registered) to the officer and the prosecutor. When they threaten to arrest if I don’t show up in court I NOTICE the judge of the ongoing pre-plea pleadings and how any arrest warrant or court action of any kind would cause a damage and then state my confidence that he/she does not wish to interfere with my right to due process. Once the judge is noticed he/she will likely enlist a court clerk (third party without knowledge of the pre-plea pleadings) to do the same threatening letter. Another NOTICE to the clerk of the ongoing pre-plea pleadings silenced them as well.

      • Adrian

        September 8, 2013 at 5:48 PM

        If you talk about tickets,not a bill of information,you can reject a ticket within 72 hrs. A ticket is an offer to contract.THEY can’t force you to contract. I did it in the past,it worked. Things have chenged.
        The BoP is a process you do before the entering of a plea,to know the cause and nature of the
        accusation.Under Martial Law you have no rights.America has been under Martial Law since
        the civil war. Martial Law has been imposed on America by a military private corporation aka US Inc.
        It is in effect by the ignorant consent of the American People.
        Do not confuse a ticket with a bill of information
        Before you get a ticket,the COP will ask you for an ID.If you show a STATE ID, YOU are in.
        Think about that.

      • Jolly

        September 8, 2013 at 7:02 PM

        Interesting theory regarding me being “in”. However, it has worked every time I have used it. It is a contract negotiation, yes. But they are constrained by the rules of court and the rules of evidence. As they are constrained to at least keep up the image of due process, the rules of procedure can be used to stop unlawful actions.

    • Big M

      December 20, 2013 at 1:02 PM

      I’m a bit late here, but in the case of a traffic ticket/notice/citation, or pretty much any such document used for any similar purpose, that asks for or requires your signature, it is ABSOLUTELY an offer of contract. People should ask themselves a simple question: if you could be LEGALLY OR LAWFULLY REQUIRED (a word/phrase that you’ll practically never see on any “government” document, by the way) to appear in court or to pay a fine, against your wishes, without your consent or signature, why would they go through the charade of having pre-printed language on the ticket stating that you agree to those conditions being enforced against you, and then asking you to sign it? Why wouldn’t they just hand you, or mail you, an order to appear or to pay?

      This is because all courts (and when you sign, you have entered into a contract with the court) are corporations, and thus operate under the rules/laws of COMMERCE (which they will never admit to). If you refuse to sign, which you are absolutely entitled to do, then lawfully speaking, none of those conditions can be enforced against you. The only lawful action that can be taken against you, subsequently, is for the court and/or “government” to dismiss the action for lack of agreement. They will probably not notify you of this, but if you check on the case’s disposition later on, it will probably state that it was dismissed by action/motion of the defendant or court.

  9. pop de adam

    September 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM

    A simple question to someone making any demand upon you might be: “Why would I wish to do that?” It is a question as per the article, It might also be considered a counter offer, the person making the original demand must formulate an answer to continue the interaction. The answer they give may show that the interaction has left civil discourse and is performed under duress(threat).

    We should remember the people who are agents of government really should never been allowed to exercise anymore “power” than anyone else, or all men are not created equal, in fact certain men will enjoy more power and privilege with the express authority of and by the government. Authority, I believe doesn’t come from itself, I can help someone with some issue, but the authority to do so comes from that someone and not from the fact I simply wish to do good for them, also in most interactions this authority can be rescinded or removed.

    “A right to petition for the redress of grievances” was among the reasons these colonies seceded from the king of england and proceeded to create a new nation out of those former colonies. The authors of this new nation, made sure compulsory takings would be compensated for. Even in a nation that has no king we see that in order to “petition for redress” we must overcome this doctrine known as “sovereign immunity”. In order to petition you need to recieve permission to do so, from the people you may have been wronged by. Let that sink in, doesn’t this seem lawless or a refutation of the principles that founded the authority vested with the government? It is as if the people acting for or as government have completely abandoned the authority with which they were intrusted.

  10. Chris

    September 9, 2013 at 1:32 AM

    “Is there a law that requires me, a living man, to obtain/maintain possession of a government-issued Identification card?” “If I were to possess such an item and present it to you, could it be used against me in a court of law?” (right against self-incrimination) “Am I being detained, or am I free to go?” “What is the nature/cause of you detaining me against my will?” “I don’t consent to any searches.” “I don’t answer questions. Any statements you may obtain from me are made under duress and threat of bodily harm.” “Is your supervisor aware that you are violating my unalienable rights?”

    Just a few more to jog your brains….

    • Adask

      September 9, 2013 at 1:42 AM

      I wouldn’t say “I don’t consent to any searches” since that’s a statement. I’d probably ASK “Do you understand that I don’t consent to any searches?” Similarly, I’d probably say something like “Do you understand that I’m not obligated to answer any questions?” “Do you understand that any statements you may obtain from me are made under duress and threat of bodily harm?”

      • Chris

        September 9, 2013 at 2:11 AM

        I understand your reasoning, but there are a couple reasons why I didn’t make all of them questions. Below are a couple explanations, first one from and the 2nd one is from itself on interpretation of the 5th Amendment. Basically, once you put the officer on notice that you are under duress and threat of harm, that is his official, lawful notification from you that he should realize that your entire interaction with him (commercial transaction) is now null and void in the eyes of a court, IF you stand on your claim. A contract cannot stand if it is not entered willfully and knowingly (as we all know), and once you state you are acting under duress/threat of force and arms, “vi et armis” I believe is the Latin term, if the officer tried to say you consented, well, that’s fraud, and we all know fraud makes contracts void, ab initio, nunc pro tunc (void from the beginning, like it never happened). While I don’t think, by the definitions below, that it would make any difference to make a statement as to your non-consent, it certainly can’t hurt to pose them as questions.

        Essentially, you are using tactical questions to make the officer aware that:
        1. You are not one of the sheeple.
        2. You will not take his abuses quietly, yet you are not going to be belligerent and give him cause to charge you with disturbing the peace.
        3. Your questions, when chosen carefully, should start to illustrate that you are painting him into a lawful and legal corner where you can seek damages for his transgressions, and that will have personal and professional repercussions for him.
        Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform.

        Duress also encompasses the same harm, threats, or restraint exercised upon the affected individual’s spouse, child, or parent.

        Duress is distinguishable from Undue Influence, a concept employed in the law of wills, in that the latter term involves a wrongdoer who is a fiduciary, one who occupies a position of trust and confidence in regard to the testator, the creator of the will.

        Duress also exists where a person is coerced by the wrongful conduct or threat of another to enter into a contract under circumstances that deprive the individual of his or her volition.

        As a defense to a civil action, the federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that duress be pleaded affirmatively.

        Except with respect to Homicide, a person who is compelled to commit a crime by an unlawful threat from another person to injure him, her, or a third person, will generally not be held responsible for its commission.
        A. Involuntary or Coerced Statements

        Miranda warnings are not controlling in removal proceedings because of the civil nature of the proceedings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038-39 (1984). In addition, the exclusionary rule is not per se applicable, but evidence is nevertheless inadmissible if it was obtained in violation of the alien’s privilege against self-incrimination, or if the statement was involuntary or coerced. See Matter of Sandoval, 17 I&N Dec. 70, 83 n.23 (BIA 1979); Garcia, 17 I&N Dec. at 321. A statement may also be excluded under the Fifth Amendment if the circumstances surrounding the interrogation were fundamentally unfair. See Toro, 17 I&N Dec. at 343.

        The Ninth Circuit has concluded that the analysis of whether a statement was made voluntarily is “markedly different” in civil proceedings as compared to criminal trials. See id. In Cuevas-Ortega, it elaborated:

        [S]ince it is the alien’s burden to show lawful entry, since he must answer non-incriminating questions, since his silence may be used against him, and since his statements are admissible despite lack of counsel, it is more likely than not that the alien will freely answer the government agent’s questions. Thus, where there is nothing in the record indicating that the alien’s statement was induced by coercion, duress or improper action on the part of the immigration officer, and where the petitioner introduces no such evidence, the bare assertion that a statement is involuntary is insufficient.

        588 F.2d at 1277-78 (internal citation omitted). Coercion and duress may be demonstrated by a showing that the statement was obtained through physical abuse, hours of interrogation, denial of food or drink, threats or promises, or interference with the respondent’s attempt to exercise his rights. See Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506.
        Sorry for the long post.

  11. Dude

    September 9, 2013 at 9:40 AM

    Cecilia made a lot of admissions. It is better to shut up/be silent than to make admissions. It is best to ask questions but not silly ones.

    You are on to something. The asking questions shifts the burden of proof to the opposition. But if you make admissions… for example: “I am not a citizen”, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that you are not what you admitted not being. Just like you noted in your article, a better way to make a statement is to reply with a question like “do you have sufficient evidence to prove that I am a citizen?”

    If a statement is to be made, it should be made without making an admission. For example, “I see no sufficient evidence to prove that I am a citizen.” That is totally different from saying, “I am not a citizen”. It is taking a negative affirmation and turning it into a positive one.

    The traffic ticket is your notice. It most commonly is used as the “complaint” or “commencing of an action”, though it technically really isn’t. It is enough to fool 99% of the people to come in and automatically give jurisdiction to the court.

    So pick that “citation”, “notice”, “complaint” apart. And by no means ever make a general appearance. I cannot say they will follow the law. At this point, they don’t care because who is going to police them? They place themselves above the law. This is reality.

    After a while of asking questions, the police most likely will ignore you at best or beat the snot out of you and haul you off. There are no “peace officers” left. That is why they call themselves law enFORCEment. It isn’t God’s law they enforce.

    I know this from personal experience. Even been called a “sovereign citizen”, which there is no evidence other than their opinion, which is hearsay, to show I am such a “person”.

  12. Adrian

    September 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM

    Guys,after 1871 Act,The Corporate UNITED STATES Constitution has a different meaning than
    the one of 1789.
    However a constitution is a constitution,it imposes an obligatin of debt.If you owe me “money”,
    you owe me your life.
    You have natural rights but ,the obligation of debt comes first.Is like the law of the contract,as long as you are undr the contract,your personal rights don’t matter.
    You have to pay off your debt first than you can claim your natural rights.
    This is just a practical theory,reality is that THESE PEOPLE have committed fraud in order to get us
    here.This fraud we have to challenge.
    We have to get educated in large masses,than we have to take a course of action in order to correct this problem.
    All this nonsense talk abot nothing,will get us nowhere.
    As long as you are glued into the system,is useless to talk about Constitution and your presumed rights.You are contradictig yourselves.
    Nothing is more dengerous than your false believes.
    Remember,you volunteered to be a slave.You can get out,the same way you got in.

  13. Julie

    September 9, 2013 at 5:50 PM

    Adrian, I’ve downloaded the book you recommended. Thanks.

    BTW: I don’t use state issued documentation. As far as it lies with me, I am out of commerce. (OK. I HAVE some of them at this time, but I never have occassion to use them. I’m letting them expire.) Mostly, I guess you could say I’m a goody two shoes. I’ve never had a ticket or been pulled over–and I’m 56 years old. So, obvioulsy, I don’t speak from experience, but from my reading of the law. x

  14. Yartap

    September 9, 2013 at 9:54 PM

    I guess I’m different. I make statements when dealing with a police officer.

    As a matter of fact, I write/make statements on the ticket, too. I sign my signature and write on the bottom, “He was pleasure riding.”

    I will produce an insurance card, but I always claim/state “I do not have a driver’s license ‘FOR’ travel(ing).”

    But, the ONE question that I ask the officer is this: “Don’t you want to know what I’m up to?” That question always gets their “compounding charges interest” up. But, if it doesn’t, I always tell them, “I’m not WORKING, so I’m just out JOY RIDING, today. And that’s ALL I talk about with him and nothing more.

    I never say the words like “drive(r),” “carrying,” “vehicle,” “motor vehicle,” “operator,” “operating,” “passenger(s)” nor “transport/transportation.”

    I use words like “car,” “riding,” “travel(ing),” “conveyance,” and boogy(ing).

    I’m friendly and pleasant with the officer like syrup. I do not complain about the violation and driving without a license charge. I take his ticket and he takes my ticket.

    NOW, I fight in court with a document which finally declaring that the court “Lacks Jurisdiction” and Venue under the Common Law, because I was not engaged in “Commerce” and the state is a Party to the complaint. The fighting power is all found in the definitions of the words in the traffic laws of your state. These definitions all lean and mean “commerce,” not private.

  15. Greg

    September 10, 2013 at 7:39 AM


  16. Jethro!

    September 10, 2013 at 10:30 AM

    Once upon a time something calling itself “IRS” sent a NAME similar to mine a “Final Notice of Intent to Levy”. I replied with nothing but questions (a couple hundred, if memory serves). After a bit of time passed, their first response was, “We got your questions. We need more time to respond. We’ll get back with you.” Many, many more months passed, after which they wrote, “We’re forwarding your questions to someone else who will answer your questions. We’re sorry to have bothered you.”

    My questions have yet to be answered, and there has yet to be an attempted levy.

    • Adask

      September 10, 2013 at 11:40 AM

      Thanks for your story. It’s evidence that the Notice and Right of Inquiry theory may be valid.

      A close friend of mine has been fencing with the IRS for about four years. They send him a notice from some office, he responds with just four questions. They send another notice from another office, he responds with the same four questions. They send another notice from yet another office, he responds with his questions by Registered Mail. They go through these little exchanges every 3 or 4 months. It’s kind of annoying, but on the other hand, the IRS hasn’t done anything to send new notices from other offices for four years. The four questions aren’t particularly profound. The point is that the IRS won’t answer the questions.

    • Julie

      September 10, 2013 at 2:54 PM

      There ya go, Jethro!

  17. palani

    September 10, 2013 at 12:47 PM

    IRS is an agency of Treasury. Why deal with an agent when you can bypass them in favor of the principal?

    I sent Treasury my notice years ago. Said notice included evidence of a twenty one silver dollar bond which included instructions on how to collect. Collection involved complying completely with the 1971 Truth in Lending Act. As with most of my notices this one had responses going to a notary assistant and there were no responses. The public was informed by a filing at the recorders office and the public were notified where the bond could be found by legal notice.

    Notice upon notice upon notice….. you never seem to have enough protection.

  18. Zeke

    September 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

    “Restraint of government is the true liberty and freedom of the people.”
    Mr. Adask,

    You have brought up a subject that I have been studying (living) since 1982 when I joined the Constitutional Patriots, a group out of Sacramento, California that was teaching the Constitution.

    I have prepared many “notices” and formulated many “questions” and I can tell you that any questions you have or present will be either not answered, half answered or answered with unsatisfactory answers. The notices and questions will simply show or evidence the fact that you are not getting nor will you get “Due Process” from the cop or the court, UNLESS you create your own remedy.

    The answer is that we are NOT getting due process. What are we going to due about it? Whether they answer our questions or not, it is clearly shown we are being denied due process. I know it’s hard to believe, and it seems like they should do something about it when we present to them the facts and situation, but the truth of the matter is, “there is no speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law”.

    Once you let that set in, you will find that “statement” is one of the necessary allegations in order to get our remedy, which must be made by a collateral attack in a separate civil action.

    So what I’m basically saying is that due process, both procedural and substantial, is a right, like traveling (not driving) and accepting sustenance (not income). These rights, like property rights, are protected in a judicial court and are not heard in the legislative courts that they bring us into. Thus we have to sue for our right by a separate civil action, where we set up the issues and move the court to address the protection of our rights and not their revenue actions.

    When we are denied rights, we can petition the civil court, ex parte, for an injunction, which requires a TRO, to restrain the officers or agents from violating our rights and have them “show cause” why they shouldn’t be permanently restrained (injunction) from doing so. If one still has a “last chance” mentality to remain in the court they are charged in, the best chance at a remedy would be the writ of mandamus, which can be title as a writ of prohibition to prohibit the court from proceeding against us without giving us the due process of law.

    “The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights.”


    • Julie

      September 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM

      Thank you, Zeke, I’ve added your page to my blog roll.

  19. Julie

    September 10, 2013 at 8:04 PM

    Adrian. I have taken to heart your words that SHE (The police officer) is under contract. Obviously. you are correct about that. So I was up most of the night pondering this stumper here: How does a Peacekeeper, who is a beneficiary of the Trust, keep from engaging in war and thereby becoming a feduciary? I got my answer from CHRIS who replied above. “Good afternoon, officer. What’s the emergency, and HOW CAN I HELP? Wow.

    The officer is busy “just doing her job”, which is, in a nutshell, going around like a roaring lion seeking whom she may devour by initiating acts of war and inducing the hapless traveler into engaing in war with her, thereby mitigating the dishonor she’s put herself into. The average traveler is willing to cancel her dishonor by dishonoring himself. BUT, there’s always that slim chance that she’s going to initiate her act of war upon a peaceful people who won’t return fire. Then what?

    Yes, indeed. She HAS gotten her butt into a sling. I kind of feel sorry for her. So, I can first be pleasant. “Good afternoon.” I can then inquire as to the nature her her “emergency”–kindly letting her know that I know she’s flubbed her dub. At last, I can offer her a remedy. “How can I help you?” There are TWO possible remedies for every dishonor. I can fire the second shot and cancel out her dishonor with my own, OR I can forgive her. Forgiveness is the second, little used, remedy. I am the one who can “back the truck up” and restore her to the state of honor she was in a minute ago. So I can suggest “Why don’t you show me your identification, Dear?” “Will you state your name?” You know, just any small concession from her…Or, if necessary, just come out and say “Look. I see that you’ve gotten yourself into a jam and I want to help you out of it. All you need to do is to state your name and you’ll be in the Original Jurisdiction–and I’ll FORGIVE your dishonor and you can be on your way.” The only way this can end is for one of us to step into the jurisdiction of the other. Will she do it? I dunno. Maybe my teeth will be half-way down my throat before I can say forgive. But, having been offered remedy, and refusing it, she’ll be in a compouded state of dishonor and breech of contract, and I’ll still be without her jurisdiction. She had her chance under the Law. Maybe she should reconsider. I would be amenable to that. Forgiveness of debt has always been a foremost principle of the Law from ancient times until now. You don’t reject peace when it’s offered. It isn’t done.

    Anyway, this is how I learned it at home from my folks: Never fire the first shot. Never fire the second shot either.

    • Adrian

      September 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM

      Julie,I understand your concern about the present situation,and your desire to learn.On my prvious post you did not understand the meaning of my words. SHE is your srawman,that artificial peson created by the STATE at the time of your birth.You is the living breathin man/woman.
      However about what you are talking there,I would no go that rout.When a COP stops you and asks you for your ID, show your personal Id(made by yourself).Make sure it has your name,Jane Doe,
      sui juris, your picture,your finger print,your signature,brief personal description,gegraphical territory,no street address,no ZIP CODE,no abreviation,no two letter State.
      A reservation of rights,like All rights reserved and on the back an affaidavit of yourself stating that everything on that Id is tru and correct to the best knollege and intent.Date and signature again with reservation of rights.
      You see,that is you,a natural person,a non-corporation.You are free of any obligations,sui juris,and you are the master of your own destiny.
      All that non sense talk with the COP will get you in trouble.
      Remember the COP is a public servant,it works for the MUNICIPALITY or STATE,it gets paid by
      you ,sales tax,wich is a contract.THEY have the obligation to provide a service to the comunity,corporate or not,to all the people thru out that comunity ,regardless the status,corporate member or free man/woman
      Always remind THEM of THEIR duty to you.THEY are members of private corporations ,providing
      a service to you,you are not a menber of any corporation.You don’t have to follow any corporate rul,only public laws and private contracts.
      One more thing,don’t you ever use words such as: Constitution,Government,GOD,Bible,Judge,
      representative,Congress,State,Country,Nation,United States Of America,Cityzen and any combination alike.
      Remember all man is born free ,he must struggle to be and live free. Natural rights came from Earth.
      The Law of the Land is: from dust to dust.

      • Julie

        September 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM

        Adrain: OOPS! I misinterpreted what you said. My apologies. I took SHE to mean the other human in the transaction–the cop, reasoning that she is a human even when whe is also acting as a person and doing her “job”. Actually, I don’t know how I got it into my head that she was a female anyway… Having acknowledged that, however, a great portion of my prior blithering still stands. I am not the one who presumes that I’m a statutory person. If she wishes to accuse me of such, it is for her to make the proof of it and convince me of it. There is nothing to be gained, in my opinion, by presuming myself be be already screwed. I know who I am even if the officer is not yet aware of it. If there is a mistake, I conclude that it’s an honest mistake on her part. She knows not what she does.

        NOTE: Zeke, who made comment up above, offers 2 ebooks that explain these matters in the way that I was taught by my family growing up. He presents them in easy to understand language as my parents did for me. People, each of us is the ONE SUPREME COURT of the 3rd ammendment for the constitution. That’s what a court of record is, folks and all other courts are inferior. You are always starting out in your own court and the judges and other officers make offer after offer and use threats and nonsense to get you to quit the superior court and succumb instead to their lower jurisdiction. In a court of record, YOU state the Law of the Court, and the judge functions as a magistrate. He receives the order of the court (your court) and executes it. Does he WANT to do so? Of course not. He isn’t going to release confetti and balloons from the rafters because you are the One Supreme Court, is he? You’ll have to INSIST, and insist that you are the court and that you are the Living Beneficiary. It will be hard and scary work.

        Adrian, you make an excellent admonition when you say: “One more thing,don’t you ever use words such as: Constitution,Government,GOD,Bible,Judge,
        representative,Congress,State,Country,Nation,United States Of America,Cityzen and any combination alike. I don’t use these words, and many others. As I said earlier, I’ve never had a traffic stop. I am here building myself up for another battle that’s coming. There is a requirement that’s being forced on the People that, not only WILL I not participate in it, actually, I can’t. And I have to remain in peace. As for what a police officer or a judge can do to me, I’ll remind you that I’m a female. For a female, the prospect of abuse is business as usual. We may be inherently the braver sex for that fact.

        Thank you again, Adrian and Zeke, Adask and all. Iron sharpens Iron, ’tis true.

  20. yugasage

    September 11, 2013 at 8:05 PM

    Mr. Adask, I love you, brother in GOD. Your posts are ALWAYS informative, especially this one. I’ve been following your blog site for a while now, since I first heard an interview of you with another well known radio personality. I see this post quickly becoming one of your most popular. Great info here.

    • Adask

      September 11, 2013 at 9:12 PM

      Thanks for the compliments. Thanks for reading my articles. God bless you and yours.

      • pop de adam

        September 13, 2013 at 1:24 AM

        Al, here is a curious piece from my home state, not exactly mine, but however:

        Reading as: The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the commonwealth shall extend to all places within its boundaries subject to the concurrent jurisdiction granted over places ceded to or acquired by the United States.

        Read it, and then read it again, it is odd, but not unusual.

      • Jolly

        September 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM

        It’s basically the “in this state” definition found in the Texas code. “They” have jurisdiction only “in this state”. In Texas “in this state” means within the boundaries of Texas AND in Federal areas… areas ceded to the Federal government. In other words, these are FEDERAL corporations limited by law to Federal properties. Isn’t it obvious that since the states of the union cannot lay a tax on Federal property that these definitions expose these entities to be Federal creations? Only the FEDS can tax Federal property. ALL offices in each state of the union are vacant, their duties being performed by Federal impostors.

  21. teo

    September 12, 2013 at 12:30 PM
    This is a great foundational script to print and memorize – as referenced by the Eddie Craig Infowars video above. Not sure if it is the latest version – but one I found and intend to use for a “trial” tomorrow. I will report results – I especially like the part where we entrap the officer into perjury and call for his arrest. I cant wait to utter these words…

    • Julie

      September 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM

      Thanks, Teo!

    • Vincent

      September 16, 2013 at 10:27 AM


      any update on the results of using the script from Eddie Craig in a “trial”?

  22. trafficticket2026

    September 13, 2013 at 5:52 AM

    I actually enjoyed reading through this posting.Many thanks.please visit Traffic Ticket

    • Chris

      September 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM

      So maybe after you begin with “Good afternoon, officer. What’s the emergency, and how can I help?” Use, “What probable cause are you using to detain me?” “Are you aware that violation of a statute is not probable cause to detain me?” “Are you acting in the capacity of peace officer or policy enforcer?” “If not, what official capacity are you acting in?” “Are you aware that operating outside of your official capacity exposes you to private liability?” “Could you please recite the oath you took when you became a public officer?”

      I know some of these might not get answered, but if you look up “admission” in Black’s law, it clearly states that acknowledgement by silence is the same as an admission. So, if he doesn’t answer your requests, he is admitting he is violating your rights because he will not provide an official response, thereby making his violation personal in nature, by operating outside of his official capacity, opening him up to a private lawsuit. Remember, always remain calm and smiling!

      • Adask

        September 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM

        I like the series of questions you’ve suggested.

        However, I don’t know what edition of Black’s Law Dictionary you’re referring to. My 9th edition’s definition of “Admission by silence” reads, “The failure of a party to speak after another party’s assertion of fact that, if untrue, would naturally compel a person to deny the statement.” An “assertion of fact” would appear to be a “statement” rather than a question. Thus, Black’s 9th’s definition does not “clearly state” that acknowledgement by silence is the same as an admission.

        Can you tell us whatever edition of Black’s you’re referring to?

      • Chris

        September 16, 2013 at 9:34 PM

        ADMISSION. In evidence. A voluntary acknowledgment. confession. or concession of the existence of a fact or the truth of an allegation made by a party to the suit. In pleading. The concession or acknowl­edgement by one party of the truth of some matter alleged by the opposite party, made in a pleading. the effect of which is to narrow the area of facts or allegations requiring to be proved by evidence. In practice. The formal act of 8 court, by which attorneys or counselors are recognized as officers of the court and are licensed to practice before it. In corporations. The act of a corpora­tion or company by which an individual ac­quires the rights of a member of such corporation or company. In English ecclesiastical law. The act of the bishop, who. on approval of the clerk presented by the patron, after examination, declares him fit to serve the cure of the church to which he is presented. by the words “admitto te Jrtfrilem; ” 1 admit thee able. Co. Litt. 344a; � Coke. 79; 1 Crabb. Real P,’op. p. 138. § 123.

        Black’s 1st.

      • Adask

        September 17, 2013 at 12:57 AM

        Knowing how Blacks 1st edition defined “Admission” back when it was first published in A.D. 1891, can be interesting and educational. But there’ve been 8 more editions of Black’s published since then. During the past 122 years, the recognized meaning of “admission” has changed. It’s not likely that a 122 year old definition of “admission” would carry much authority today. Do you know of a more recent definition of “admission” (or any other word) that declares that a failure to answer a question can be construed as an “admission”?

  23. palani

    September 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM

    Here is one to inquire upon if ever you find yourself in an Iowa court.

    602.6104 Judicial officers.
    1. The jurisdiction of the Iowa district court shall be exercised by district judges, district associate judges, associate juvenile judges, associate probate judges, and magistrates .
    2. Judicial officers of the district court shall not sit together in the trial of causes nor upon the hearings of motions for new trials. They may hold court in the same county at the same time.

    Let’s dissect this code section. Paragraph 1 … Jurisdiction must be exercised by JUDGES and MAGISTRATES. Plural. More than one. Paragraph 2 … These same JUDGES and MAGISTRATES may not sit together in the same court. How’s that for NOTICE? Wouldn’t this seem to indicate that there is no way for district court jurisdiction to be exercised? There is a requirement for multiple judges/magistrates to be seated in a court for there to be jurisdiction. This coincides with an old English magistrates manual Eirenarcha which states that a single judge only has the authority to set bail or release on recognizance.

  24. Adrian

    September 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM

    Again.alot af talk about nothing.A COP is a corporate officer.If you travel on the roads on an
    automobile that is registered under any corporate STATE,you are using THEIR property,vehicle,on the top of that,if you carry on your possession a DL,you are under THEIR authority.Anything you may say can be used against you.If you open your mouth,you are disobedient.
    The same about the “court”.
    Q:Why do you go to “court”?Do you have any business there? Did any one invited you there?
    If you are personally invited there,take the invitation,you private id with you,go to “court” and ask
    to know if THEY have any business matter with you.
    You need to know who you are and let THEM know who you are.
    In most of the cases,people appear in “court”,tel the “court” who they are, the “court” believes
    that they appear to assume the liability for the corporation( strawman) and then there is a compact
    between the “court”,people and the strawman(corporation).There is a commercial contract.

    STOP wasting time with those dictionaries,THEY make them.Those secrete codes are made by THEM too,THEY belong to THEM,not you.

  25. EarlatOregon

    May 14, 2014 at 1:02 PM


    Sovereignty’s Promise:
    The State as Fiduciary
    (Oxford Constitutional Theory)

    Book Description
    Publised: Dec 8, 2011

    Political theory is traditionally concerned with
    the Justification and Limits
    of State power.

    It asks:
    Can states legitimately direct and Coerce Non-consenting subjects?

    If they can, what Limits, if any,
    Constrain sovereign power?

    Public law is concerned with the Justification and Limits of Judicial power.

    It asks:

    On what grounds
    can judges ‘read down’ or ‘read in’
    statutory language against the apparent intention of the legislature?

    What limits, if any,
    are appropriate to these exercises of judicial power?

    This book develops an original constitutional Theory of political authority
    that yields novel answers to both sets of questions.

    Fox-Decent argues that
    the state is a Fiduciary of its people,
    and that this fiduciary relationship
    grounds the state’s authority to announce and enforce law.

    The fiduciary state is conceived of
    as a public agent
    of necessity
    charged with guaranteeing a regime of secure and equal freedom.

    Whereas the social contract tradition
    struggles to ground authority on Consent,
    the fiduciary Theory
    explains authority with reference to
    the state’s
    fiduciary obligation
    to respect legal principles constitutive of the rule of law.

    This obligation arises from the state’s possession of
    irresistible public powers.

    The author begins with a discussion of Hobbes’s conception of legality
    and the problem of Discretionary power in Administrative law.

    Drawing on Kant,
    he sketches a theory of fiduciary relations,
    and develops the argument through three parts.

    Part I shows that it is possible
    for the state to stand in a public fiduciary relationship to its people
    through a discussion of Crown-Native fiduciary relations
    recognized by Canadian courts.

    Part II sets out the Theoretical underpinnings
    of the fiduciary theory of the state.

    Part III explores the implications of the fiduciary theory
    for Administrative law and Common law Constitutionalism.

    The final chapter situates the theory
    within a broader philosophical discussion
    of the rule of law.



    …it provides a clear discussion of the idea
    of fiduciary relationships and duties
    that is useful for, and should be largely accessible to,

    Matthew Lister, Ethics

    About the Author

    Evan Fox-Decent is Assistant Professor of the Faculty of Law,
    McGill University.

    He teaches and publishes in
    legal theory, administrative law,
    First Nations and the law,
    immigration law,
    the law of fiduciaries,
    and human rights.

    He has worked on human rights and democratic governance reform in Latin America since 1987.
    He has served with the UN Verification Mission in Guatemala (1996-99),
    and has consulted on behalf of numerous development and research agencies,
    as well as on behalf of legal institutions in Latin America,
    including the Supreme Court of Venezuela, the European Union,
    the World Bank, the International Development Bank, USAID,
    and Canada’s International Development Research Centre.



  26. Adrian

    May 15, 2014 at 12:56 PM

    Do you think that you are entitle to due process of the law?
    Think again.
    Law=contract.If you are a party to a contract you must perform in accord with it.
    There is a saying: in the military orders are to be executed and not disputed.
    When you appear in court you are under admiralty law.
    You can see the flag as proof.
    Thru conquest and lack of action from our part we have consented to this slave like condition.
    If you want to change your condition you have to adopt a different status.

    • EarlatOregon

      May 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM

      Which status do you suggest?

      Status = ?

      That thing that is between the State and Us.?

      I think that Christian Man is the best Status.

      Man may not be as helpful of a Status,
      due to God’s Law may not be avail to a Non Christian.

      What do you think?

    • Zeke Layman

      May 15, 2014 at 1:45 PM

      Taken from Choung v. People of the state of California 320 F. Supp. 625 (1971)

      Like many states, California allows its accusatory pleadings to be worded in the language of the statute. California Penal Code § 952. 629*629 Such a pleading withstands a due process attack, however, only if the language of the statute from which it is taken sets forth fully, directly, and expressly all essential elements of the crime. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); Babb v. United States, 218 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1955); Van Liew v. United States, 321 F.2d 664 (5th Cir. 1963); United States v. Donovan, 339 F.2d 404 (7th Cir. 1965); Lott v. United States, 309 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1962) (“It is true that offenses must be accurately described in an indictment; and if necessary to do so, the allegations must be expanded beyond the words of the statute in order to embrace all the ingredients necessary to the offense.”)

      Evidently, a pleading can withstand a due process attack ONLY if it can set forth fully, directly, and expressly all essential elements of the CRIME. If there is no pleading that fully, directly and expressly states a crime, it is the responsibility of the defendant to bring forward, by demurrer, to show that due process has been denied.

      • Adrian

        May 15, 2014 at 2:11 PM

        When you accept the law,there is no due process.
        A way out is to challenge the law in the first place.
        Acceptance of law= consent.When you consent you surrendered your rights.
        Some can tell you that due process of the law is a nonsense.
        Is always good to reserve your rights prior to consent.
        “I do accept this contract with full reservation of rights.”

        A better status would be that of a fighter than a believer.
        If it was to be a GOD,HE would help those who help themselves.

  27. Adask

    May 15, 2014 at 3:11 PM

    As I understand it, when you accept ADMINISTRATIVE process and ADMINISTRATIVE law, you are only entitled to “procedural due process”. I believe that if you 1) identify yourself as one of the “People” of your State of the Union; and 2) insist on your right to separation of powers; you are then entitled to JUDICIAL process complete with “substantive due process”.

    • Zeke Layman

      May 16, 2014 at 11:42 AM

      The ticket is an administrative process that is automatically subject to judicial review (judicial power) upon service. We know from the Bond case that an individual (Accused) can challenge the law (statute) on their own Constitutional rights and need not depend on those of a State.

      The separation of powers is already in affect, however the Accused will choose the legislative jurisdiction by making a plea to the initial pleading (ticket or complaint) and this will put the case into the administrative process and the presumption is that the prosecution has done everything properly.

      The Response of the Accused by demurrer, which is a challenge to both the administrative and judicial jurisdictions, is generally made before a plea is entered and puts the case under judicial power. If the complaint is shown to be “insufficient” in process, and/or fails to meet the criteria set forth in the statute, the demurrer should be upheld and the complaint set aside until it is made sufficient (if it can be) by the prosecution. (There are many cases that a demurrer was denied, and then after more than one or two appeals, and /or mandamus i.e, judicial review, the demurrer was upheld and the Accused was discharged or dismissed. This shows that me that the lower courts are generally a filter and if you stay in the game long enough, on the correct issue, you will eventually prevail.)

      When a complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a public offense, it fails to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation(s), and thereby denies him/her of their right of proper notice which is a necessary element of due process.

  28. Adrian

    May 15, 2014 at 4:32 PM

    The UNION it is a myth.
    Any one who acts under a fictitious name it is under ADMINISTRATIVE process.
    By general consensus America is a country,corporations are not.
    The expression “Corporate Nation” it is a fake.
    ADMINISTRATIVE process benefits the creditors ,not the debtors.
    Substantive due process is based on common law.
    Under admiralty law you even pay up or shut up.
    UN is a corporation,it has corporate members only.
    Try to find due process of law in dictionaries.


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