Notice, Right of Inquiry & Traffic Tickets

20 Jan

Traffic Ticket = Notice [courtesy Google Images]

Traffic Ticket = Notice
[courtesy Google Images]

Last Thanksgiving Day, a friend of mine was issued a traffic ticket for disregarding an “official traffic control device” on the access road alongside of a highway that was being repaired.  The venue of the offense was Hill County, Texas—about 70 miles south of my friend’s home at Dallas.  He was assessed $150 for the offense.

The fine wasn’t large, but he nevertheless wanted to fight the ticket asked if I could help.

I told him to send me a photo copy of the ticket he received and I’d see if I could devise some questions to pose to the person or entity that issued the ticket.  It was my hope that the “ticket” (being a Notice) would create the recipient’s “right of inquiry” (right to ask questions about the Notice) and the sender’s correlative duty to answer his questions.   It was my hope that if such questions were sufficiently insightful, they might slow or stop prosecution.  (For more insight into the strategy of posing questions, see the articles posted under the category “Notice” on this blog.)

I told my friend that I believed it was important that such questions be drafted and mailed to the gov-co as soon as possible.

However, he didn’t send a copy of the ticket/notice to me until the Saturday morning before his scheduled Tuesday court appearance.  That’s too late to draft questions and submit them to the person who issued the ticket in time for the questions to easily play a part in the court hearing.

More, I didn’t begin to draft questions until Sunday night before his Tuesday court appearance.  I completed the questions on about 1:30 AM Monday morning.   We met Monday evening to go over the questions.

In the end, my friend opted to simply pay the fine rather than pose the questions.  That was probably his best choice.  If he hadn’t appeared at court on Tuesday, the gov-co might issue a warrant for his arrest and he might one day be stopped for a rolling stop at a stop sign, ticketed, and the traffic cop would discover that there’s a warrant for his arrest and put in him slammer for a couple nights.  Then he’d be shipped from Dallas County (where he lives) to Hill County (70 miles away) where he could spend a couple more days or nights in the slammer.  Then, he could fight the case in court or confess his guilt, pay a bond or fine, and be released to make his way back to Dallas County as best he could.

And then, he could drum up enough currency to pay the cost of storing his car at the Dallas County tow-truck operator’s auto-pound for most of a week.

His ultimate fine would be increased for not appearing.  He might miss a week of work.  The cost of towing and storing his car might exceed the cost of the fine for the offense.  He might eventually lose over $2,000 in fines, lost work and vehicle storage fees if he didn’t cough up $150 for the Tuesday morning hearing.  So, he chose to cough up the $150 fine.

As much as I think these traffic tickets should be “resisted,” I don’t blame him one bit.  You can’t easily fight every battle that comes your way.   I hate to see anyone surrender to a traffic ticket charge, but I can’t expect anyone to try to resist such charges with just a few dozen questions.

In the end, I don’t know for a fact that exercising your “right of inquiry” in response to governmental notices is a reliable strategy.  I believe the strategy is reliable.  I’ve seen it work several times in my own confrontations with the gov-co.  I have a friend who’s used the strategy with apparent success against the IRS.  On the one hand, I have some evidence to support the validity of this theory.  On the other hand, that evidence is anecdotal and too flimsy (so far) to be easily relied on.

The following questions were drafted and offered for my friend’s consideration, but not used.  So, I have no evidence to show whether the following questions are useful or laughable.   Nevertheless, I also offer them for your consideration.

Here’s a copy of the ticket I was working from. Like Jack Webb in the old “Dragnet” TV series, I’ve removed my friend’s name and address and changed the ticket number “to protect the innocent”.   (Dum-dee-dum-dum)

In retrospect, I can see grounds for a couple more questions that I might’ve asked.   But I can also see how the 48 questions I’d suggested might be reduced to just a handful.

Note that the text below was not intended to be sent in its entirety to the traffic officer and/or municipality that issued the ticket.  Why?  Because it includes some of my personal comments and explanations that were inserted to help my friend better understand the underlying theory.  I.e., it wouldn’t be enough for him to simply copy my suggested questions—especially just a few days before he might be going to court.  He had to understand the rationale behind whichever questions he chose to use.  Thus, my “explanations” and “instructions”.

Similarly, if anyone reads this article and chooses to try some or all of the suggested strategy, it’s not enough to simply copy some/all of the questions.  You’ve got to understand the fundamental rationale behind each question because, if you have to go to court, you may be called upon to explain which questions you’ve presented.  If you can’t explain the rationale for the questions you’ve presented, there’s a good chance that your questions will be ignored.

Of course, the fundamental objective behind these kind of questions is to present some questions very soon after the traffic ticket is issued (ideally, within the first days or week).  Send the questions by registered mail to whomever you believe should have to answer your questions (the officer and/or the municipality)—and then wait for their response.

If the “right of inquiry” theory is correct, whenever government sends you a notice, it creates your right of inquiry (your right to ask questions about the notice).  If you choose to ask such questions, the government has a correlative duty to answer those questions.

Procedural due process” consists of 1) notice; and 2) “opportunity to heard” (actually, opportunity to be found guilty about 98% of the time in an administrative hearing).  I believe that if the gov-co doesn’t give you sufficient notice (item #1), they can’t lawfully take you to the “opportunity to be heard”/sentenced without denying your right to procedural due process.  If they deny you procedural due process, the gov-co may lose standing to prosecute based on the ticket/notice, and the court may lose jurisdiction over the matter.

If my theory is correct, the traffic-ticket/“notice” is not complete or sufficient until the gov-co has answered all of your relevant questions.  If you don’t ask any questions (and almost no one does), the original traffic-ticket is presumed to have supplied you with sufficient notice and the process can proceed to the “opportunity to be heard”—where you’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time.  But if you dare to ask relevant questions in response to the traffic-ticket, that notice will not be complete or sufficient until all of your questions are answered.

If you are astute and knowledgeable you may be able to ask questions that are so insightful or even embarrassing for the gov-co that they can’t or won’t answer them.  It’s my contention that if they won’t answer all of your questions, they are depriving you of sufficient notice and thereby depriving you of procedural due process.

If you can create and introduce evidence (registered mail) that you posed your questions and they were not answered in full, then I believe you may be able to get your traffic ticket dismissed for a denial of procedural due process.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that the municipality will still find you guilty at the trial court level and you may be forced to appeal to a higher court before they recognize your procedural due process argument.  You have to be prepared for that possibility.

There’s never a guarantee that a theory of the sort I’m proposing will work ever or even mostly.  Nevertheless, I’m about 90% confident that the “right of inquiry” theory is fundamentally valid.

Note also that virtually all of my questions are designed to elicit a Yes or No answer.  I try to avoid multiple-guess or essay-type answers.  By keeping the answers as simple as possible, I try to eliminate any opportunity for the government to claim they don’t understand my questions.

However, I suspect that it might not be a bad idea to add a third “Don’t Understand” option to my Yes or No answers.  If they claim to “not understand” my questions, that’s fine with me.  They still haven’t answered my questions, and so long as that’s true, I have not yet received procedural due process and the court should not be able to proceed against me.

Here’s a copy of the first part of the Traffic Ticket/notice issued to my friend.  It’s followed by the text of my suggested questions (and explanations).  Further on in my text I’m also supplying a copy of the second part of the Traffic Ticket/notice.

If you doubt that this traffic ticket is a “notice,” read the entire ticket closely and you’ll see several instances where the ticket refers to itself as a “notice”.


Traffic Ticket/Notice  section 1

Traffic Ticket/Notice
section 1



Dear sirs,

I received your Notice number TX3X3C0PMB56 (hereafter, “Notice”) dated November 27, 2013.

I have several questions based on your Notice:



1.  Do you understand that procedural due process includes 1) notice and 2) opportunity to be heard?  Yes ___  No ___

2.  Do you understand that if you deprive me of sufficient notice, you will have deprived me of procedural due process in this matter?  Yes ___  No ___

3.  Do you understand that if you deprive me of procedural due process, you will have lost your right to take me to the opportunity to be heard?  Yes ___  No ___

4.  Do you understand that if you deprive me of procedural due process, the court will have lost jurisdiction in this matter?  Yes ___  No ___

5.  Do you understand that your Notice creates my right of inquiry?  Yes ___  No ___

6.  Do you understand that my right of inquiry creates your duty to answer my questions?  Yes ___  No ___


Explanation:  Questions 1 through 6 are based on my understanding that procedural due process consists of 1) notice; and 2) the “opportunity to be heard”.

It’s my belief that the “opportunity to be heard” is actually an “opportunity to be sentenced”.  That “opportunity” may be an administrative hearing but it’s not a judicial trial.  At such hearings, defendants (especially those who appear without an attorney) have about a 98% probability of being found guilty.

Such “opportunities” are somewhat like playing Russian Roulette with a gun that has five bullets in the six chambers. Therefore, I don’t want the “opportunity to be heard” because the odds lopsidedly favor my adversary and disfavor me.

I believe that the “opportunity to be heard” can be avoided by controlling the notice.  I.e., they can’t take you to the “opportunity” until after they’ve first given you sufficient notice.  It’s not enough that they send “a” notice; they must send enough notice(s) to be sufficient in the recipient’s opinion.

For some people, a very brief notice is all it takes to communicate sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts and law.  Once the recipient has, or is presumed to have, sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts and law, he can be taken to the “opportunity” to be heard/sentenced.

But for other recipients, the original notice may be somewhat incomprehensible.  Therefore, such recipients will need a more in-depth explanation if the relevant facts and law before they can decide how to properly respond to the notice.

Thus, the original notice creates a “right of inquiry” for the notice recipient.  I.e., if someone receives a notice, he is thereby entitled to pose questions about that notice to the person who sent the notice.  Further, the recipient’s “right of inquiry” (right to ask questions) creates the notice-sender’s correlative duty to answer those questions.

Under this hypothesis, if a notice-recipient can pose questions which are sufficiently insightful or illuminating, the notice-sender may be unable or even unwilling to answer on a public record.  If they don’t, can’t or won’t answer, I believe the notice recipient has been denied procedural due process and the case against the recipient is at least impaired and possibly terminated.

If my theory is correct, the “right of inquiry” created by a notice is a powerful right.  Nevertheless, that “right” is virtually unknown to most people and largely ignored.

In fact, the gov-co and associated fascists normally get around the “right of inquiry” with a pair of presumptions:

1) If the recipient receives a notice and responds with statements to the notice sender, it’s presumed that he’s received sufficient notice.  I.e., only an imprudent man would make statements without sufficient knowledge of the issue at hand.

2)  If the recipient receives a notice and does not respond (goes silent), it’s presumed that he’s received sufficient notice.  I.e., only a man with sufficient knowledge of the issue at hand would fail to expressly respond to a notice.  The recipient’s silence creates the presumption that the recipient has essentially “confessed” to the validity of whatever facts, law and claims were asserted or implied in the original notice.

Therefore, if the gov-co sends you a notice and you reply that, “You’re all a bunch of communist-Satanists destined to burn in HELL!!!!!,” the gov-co will thank you very much for having made a statement in response to their notice and merrily schedule you for your “opportunity to be heard” where you will found guilty 98% of the time.

Likewise, if you receive a notice (traffic ticket) and ignore it and therefore respond with silence, the gov-co will thank you very much, presume from your silence that you’ve had sufficient notice, and take to the “opportunity to be heard” where you’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time.

So far as I can tell, the proper and most effective way to respond to any notice is by asking questions (exercising your “right of inquiry”).  Most notices I’ve seen include a statement at the bottom of the form telling you that “If you have any questions, please call 1-800-555-1111”.  The notice sender thereby admits your right of inquiry, but encourages you to pose your questions over the phone.

Why over the phone?

First, because they have professional con-artists on their end of the phone who can probably deceive you into accepting the notice as “sufficient”.  Once you concede that you’ve had “enough” notice, they can take you to the “opportunity to be heard/sentenced”.

Second, because the telephone call will not generate any evidence that’s admissible in court.  If there is admissible evidence, it will probably be the notes (if any) kept by the gov-co employee who answered your phone call.

That’s why I prefer to avoid the convenience of telephone inquiries and pose my questions in writing by means of Registered Mail.  When such questions are sent as Registered Mail, they constitute admissible evidence.

We’ve heard reports that the gov-co is no longer accepting Registered or even Certified Mail.  If you send a package by Registered or Certified mail, the government will refuse to accept it and send it back to you.

Good.  Great.  Suits me fine.

My understanding of Certified and Registered mail is that it’s presumed to be received by the gov-co at the moment it’s deposited into the mail.  That understanding may or may not be correct.

However, if I deposit an item of Registered Mail into the Post Office, and get a receipt and a tracking number, I’ll be able to follow that package over the internet all the way to its intended recipient.  If the intended recipient rejects my Registered Mail (and the questions within), I will have admissible evidence that the recipient of my questions (the original notice sender) has refused to answer my questions, denied me my right of inquiry, and thereby deprived me of procedural due process.  If I’m sufficiently adept at arguing that violation of procedural due process at court, the case against me may be dismissed.

Given the recent reports of government refusing to accept Certified and Registered mail, it occurs to me that I might be wise to include a statement on the exterior of the envelope that says something like, “CONTENTS AND RELEVANT RIGHTS:  This Registered Mail item # ___________ includes questions posed as an exercise of my right of inquiry created by the Department of Public Safety’s original Notice # _______ dated ________ and sent to me.  A denial of my right of inquiry may constitute a deprivation of my right to procedural due process and thereby cause the underlying case to be dismissed and/or cause the court to lose jurisdiction over the relevant matter.”

I’m just spit-ballin’ there.  You might dream up a better description of your Registered Mail’s contents to include on the face of your envelope.

The object of providing a brief description of the “Contents” on the face of the Registered Mail envelope containing my questions is to make it abundantly clear to whoever receives and then rejects my Registered Mail, that doing so may constitute a deprivation of my right to procedural due process.

So, if I drafted such envelope and scanned an image of that envelope into my computer before I deposited the envelope into the mail, then I’d have more graphic evidence to prove that the gov-co had deprived me of procedural due process and (perhaps) forfeited their right to continue to prosecute the case.

(I’m all about creating admissible evidence.)

Note that all six of my first questions begin with “Do you understand . . . .”  I try not to ask questions like “Is the earth round?” or “What is the square root of -1?” which implicate knowledge that the person answering my questions may or may not have.  I try to ask “do you understand” because everyone knows (or at least believes) that they do or do not understand any particular subject.

Note that I also provide for Yes ___ or No ___ replies.

Thus, I can ask a 5-year old child, “Do you understand calculus?  Yes ___ No ___” and even the child should be able to answer.  I.e., even a child knows whether he does or does not understand calculus.

Similarly, even a gov-co clerk should know whether he does or does not understand questions about “procedural due process”.  Yes or No?  It’s easy.  One or the other.  I do understand; I do not understand.

I don’t offer questions that require a long, written response.  I wouldn’t refuse a long written response, but I try to make my questions as simple as possible for the person who reads them.

More, I don’t care how the recipient answers most of my questions.  Say, Yes.  Say, No.  It’s pretty much the same to me because I am using these questions to fill gaps in my own knowledge.  I’m using these questions discover information that may be useful in my defense.

For example, if I ask:

“5.  Do you understand that your Notice creates my right of inquiry?  Yes ___  No ___”

If the clerk answers Yes, he’s just validated my right of inquiry.  If the clerk answers No (and if I can prove that I, in fact, have a right of inquiry), the clerk will have just proved that he is incompetent to answer my questions.  If he’s incompetent to answer my questions, then some, many, most or even all of other questions are arguably answered by an incompetent and I should not be bound by the answers of someone who is incompetent to answer my questions.

I cannot be expected to have received “sufficient notice” from a clerk that doesn’t understand the subject matter.   If he admits his ignorance, I will argue my right to have my questions considered by one of his superiors or an attorney in order to assure that the answers I receive are true.  If the clerk admits that he doesn’t understand the subject matter, he’s created evidence that I have not received sufficient notice and have therefore been deprived of procedural due process.

In other words, I’m probably fairly capable of receiving lemons (notices) and then using them to make lemonade.



My next string of questions deal with “plane” and “venue”.  I know that the proper name for the State of the Union where I’m domiciled is “The State of Texas”.  I subscribe to the hypothesis that, in law, the words “Texas,” STATE OF TEXAS, and “TX” are not synonymous with “The State of Texas” and therefore signify some sort of “administrative state” and/or territory which is not the State of the Union whose proper name is “The State of Texas”.

Within these alternative states/territories, administrative process appears to be the rule.  Within the States of the Union, judicial process is the rule.  Determining whichever venue controls the case at hand will determine who (if anyone) has authority to prosecute the case, and whether the defendant has a multitude or rights or can be treated as an abject subject with almost no rights.

So, I’m essentially asking where did all of the events alleged in the traffic ticket/notice take place—in a territory or within a State of the Union?

If the hypothesis that “STATE OF TEXAS” is not “The State of Texas” is true, then the gov-co can’t make that admission without destroying their system.  Why?  Because their apparent system is based on a series of unstated presumptions (i.e., if you make statements, you’re presumed to have received sufficient notice).   If those presumptions can be identified and refuted, the gov-co’s system may collapse.

One of the biggest and most mistaken presumptions (among the people) is that “STATE OF TEXAS” and “The State of Texas” both signify the State of the Union.  Therefore, the people walk into a court of “STATE OF TEXAS” expecting to enjoy the same rights that would be available in a court of “The State of Texas”.  I believe that expectation is a false and dangerous presumption.  I believe that “STATE OF TEXAS” is not required to recognize the rights you would enjoy within “The State of Texas”.  In “STATE OF TEXAS” your chances of being convicted for an offense may be 98% while your chances of being convicted within a court of “The State of Texas” on the same evidence might be less than 10%.

Whether you will be found guilty or not guilty in a particular proceeding will depend in large measure on the venue in which the case is presumed to have occurred.  Insofar as you can control the venue, you may be able to dramatically reduce the probability of being convicted of an offense.

Therefore, if I can hone my questions so as to eliminate all ambiguity about the venue, I believe I can put the gov-co in a position where they can’t truthfully answer my questions.  If I’m denied truthful answers, I’m denied sufficient notice and am thus deprived of procedural due process—and the case should be dismissed.

But, if the hypothesis concerning “STATE OF TEXAS” vs “The State of Texas” is valid, I don’t care if they gov-co tells me the truth (the venue is territorial) or lies (the venue is within “The State of Texas”).  If they tell me the truth (the STATE OF TEXAS venue is territorial), I can argue that I’m one of the people of The State of Texas and not subject to the jurisdiction of “STATE OF TEXAS”.  If they lie and declare that the events all transpired within the State of the Union whose proper name is “The State of Texas,” that’s great for me because it absolutely opens the door to making a defense based on the rights found the The Constitution of The State of Texas.

I don’t care what their answer is. I only care that the ambiguity between the territory and the State of the Union be openly faced and, ideally, eliminated.  Why?  Because it’s the ambiguity that gives rise to the false presumptions and it’s the false presumptions that give rise to most convictions.

In other words, maybe you’re within the borders of “The State of Texas” or maybe you’re in the territory called “STATE OF TEXAS”.  These two possibilities create an ambiguity.  You may silently presume that you’re acting within “The State of Texas” but if you don’t expressly introduce evidence to establish that fact on the record, the judge can silently presume that you’re actually acting in “STATE OF TEXAS”.  The judge’s silent presumption will overrule your silent presumption and you may be much amazed to find yourself without any of the rights you assumed you’d have within “The State of Texas”.

My objective in many of my questions is to confront (and perhaps eliminate) the ambiguities that give rise to gov-co’s silent presumptions that are “hazardous to your health”.

Here’s some of my questions relating to what I believe are ambiguities about venue:


7.  Do you understand that under the Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870, at Session II of the Forty-First Congress of The United States of America at Ch. XXXIX, “The State of Texas” was readmitted to representation in Congress as one of the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  Yes ___  No ___

8.  Do you understand that under the Act of March 30th, A.D. 1870, at Session II of the Forty-First Congress of The United States of America at Ch. XXXIX, the proper name for the member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” that is sometimes referred to as “Texas” is “The State of Texas”?  Yes ___  No ___

9.  Do you understand that as per the Acts of A.D. 1965, 59th Legislature of The State of Texas, vol. 2, ch. 722, amended by Acts of A.D. 1981, 67th Legislature of The State of Texas, ch. 291, Sect. 97, the style of all writs and criminal  process shall be “The State of Texas” and all prosecutions shall be carried on “in the name and by authority of ‘The State of Texas’ and conclude ‘against the peace and dignity of the State.’”?  Yes ___  No ___

10.  Do you understand that as per Article 1.23 of the current Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Rule 15 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Article IV, Sect. XV of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1869, and Article V Section 12 of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1876, the style of all writs and criminal process shall be “The State of Texas”.  Yes ___  No ___

11.  Do you understand that as per Article 1.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Rule 15 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Article IV, Sect. XV of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1869, and Article V Section 12 of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1876, all prosecutions shall be carried on “in the name and by authority of ‘The State of Texas’ and conclude ‘against the peace and dignity of the State.’”?  Yes ___  No ___

12. Is your Notice in this matter a writ or criminal process of “The State of Texas”?  Yes ___  No ___

13.  Is your Notice in this matter a civil process of “The State of Texas”?   Yes ___  No ___

14.  Does your Notice reference “The State of Texas”?  Yes ___  No ___



Here, you’ll begin to see questions that involve “territory of the United States,” “states of the United States” on the one hand, and States of the Union and/or “State of The United States of America”.

The confederation and perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” was created or constituted by Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781. The “United States” was created or constituted by The Constitution of the United States first ratified by the People in A.D. 1788.

“The United States of America” is not the “United States”.  If you read and compare the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, you’ll see that the Articles of Confederation makes is no proviso for any federal districts (like Washington DC) or territories.  “The United States of America” consists only of the States of the Union.

The territories (like Guam, US Virgin Islands, TX, OK any NY) and the District of Columbia are only provided for under the Constitution of the United States.  I can’t yet prove it, but I believe that the territories and Washington DC are all in the “United States” but can’t be within “The United States of America”.

The following questions begin to explore that belief.

My questions will frequently seem repetitious and overly “legalistic”.  But they’re intended to nail down some fundamental possibilities about venue as precisely as possible and thereby establish, exactly, whichever venue is controlling in this matter.  I have every right to know the exact venue of every aspect of this case.  I don’t believe that any court will expressly deny my right to know the venue and risk having me make an appeal to a higher court based on that denial.  If I were to take the issue of my right to know the precise venue of my alleged offense, cop, court and judge to an appellate court and that court agreed with my right, the whole system might have to always clearly specify the venue.  If that requirement were imposed, the whole system might lose one of its basic silent presumptions and thereby collapse.  Rather than risk collapsing the system by answering my questions about venue, I suspect that the system would prefer to dismiss or otherwise make its case against me disappear.

My questions are repetitious in that they ask about the venue of the place where the offense occurred, about the district where the officer is empowered to act, about the venue of the court and even of the judge.   They are repetitious because the answers had better all be consistent.  If the offense is alleged to have taken place in a territory like “TX,” but the court is located within a State of the Union, that contradiction will create a serious issue to be argued at court.

And what if the venue in which the judge acts is actually in the territory of “STATE OF TEXAS” but the judge or an agent for the judge lies and claims the court and/or the judge are acting within “The State of Texas”?  Does a judge acting within “The State of Texas” enjoy the same immunities and powers as a judge acting in “STATE OF TEXAS”?

If not, will a judge or court expose himself/itself to greater liability if it claims to be acting within “The State of Texas”?  If, to protect itself and maintain its territorial immunities, a court admitted to acting in “STATE OF TEXAS,” would the court thereby lose authority over a defendant who effectively argued that he and all of his acts took place within “The State of Texas”?

I understand that these questions can seem confusing and even tiresome.  But I believe that if you can master and become comfortable with the tactic of using questions to eliminate ambiguities (and therefore eliminate silent presumptions) that it may be possible to defeat a lot of the prosecutions waged by the current “state” and “local” gov-co’s.

More, I believe that by making the effort to pose a series of tiresome but very precise questions, you can educate yourself to the intricacies of your own argument.  In other words, by studying each proposed question and learning to recognize the subtle distinctions between one question and another seemingly similar question, you will educate yourself in a way that may make you a more formidable litigant if you’re forced to go to court.

More venue questions follow:


15.  Is the “Location” for the alleged offense (“IH-0035 MP-358 in HILL Co. (31.8852060, -97.0845400)”) specified on your Notice located on the soil within the borders of “The State of Texas”—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  Yes ___  No ___

16.  Is the “Location” for the alleged offense (“IH-0035 MP-358 in HILL Co. (31.8852060, -97.0845400)”) specified on your Notice located on the soil within the borders of a territory of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___

17.  Is the “Location” for the alleged offense (“IH-0035 MP-358 in HILL Co. (31.8852060, -97.0845400)”) specified on your Notice located on the soil within the borders of a state of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___

18.  Do you understand that your Notice was issued by “12815 – OWENS, C. Region 6 District A  Area:02”?  Yes ___  No ___

20.  Is said “OWENS, C.”—the issuer of your Notice—a peace officer of “The State of Texas”—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  Yes ___  No ___

21.  Is the “Region 6 District A  Area:02” associated with “OWENS, C.” located within the borders of “The State of Texas”—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  Yes ___  No ___

22.  Is the “Region 6 District A Area:02” associated with “OWENS, C.” located within the borders of a territory of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___

23.  Is the “Region 6 District A Area:02” associated with “OWENS, C.” located within the borders of a state of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___

24.  Is the “HON. JOHN MILBURN” (the judge scheduled to hear this matter) a peace officer of “The State of Texas”—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  Yes ___  No ___

25.  Is the “Court: JP  Pct & Place 21 Phone (254-582-4025) P.O. Box 316, HILLSBORO 76645” scheduled to hear this matter located within the borders of “The State of Texas”—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  Yes ___  No ___

26.  Is the “Court: JP  Pct & Place 21 Phone (254-582-4025) P.O. Box 316, HILLSBORO 76645” scheduled to hear this matter located within the borders of a territory of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___

27.  Is the “Court: JP  Pct & Place 21 Phone (254-582-4025) P.O. Box 316, HILLSBORO 76645” scheduled to hear this matter located within the borders of a state of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___



One of the most important objects of the Notice and Right of Inquiry process is to properly identify the source of whatever notice you’ve received.  The reason is that only the person or entity that issued the notice you received is liable to answer your questions.   Their notice created your right of inquiry and their correlative duty to answer your questions.  Your notice from one entity does not create your right of inquiry in relation to some other entity.

In the matter of the traffic ticket that laid the foundation for this series of questions, that ticket/notice was issued by “Texas Department of Public Safety” and/or its officer/agent “OWENS, C”.

But who actually issued the notice and who is responsible to answer my questions?  The “Department” itself, or its agent “OWENS, C.”?

I don’t know.  Therefore, I’d be inclined to send my list of questions to both “Texas Department of Public Safety” and also to “OWENS, C.”.  I might address my questions to “OWENS, C.” c/o the “Texas Department of Public Safety”.

I doubt that I can legally send my questions to the judge, but I might be able to send a copy of my questions to the court clerk—but probably not.

I’d be inclined to send as many copies of my questions to as many persons/entities who might be responsible for answering my questions as I can reasonably suppose.  Even if some of my sets of questions were addressed to persons who were not responsible to answer, a multitude of my sets of questions would be evidence in itself of my attempt to exercise my “right of inquiry”.

I might address each set of questions to a particular person or entity and add “or to whomever this concerns” or some such.  I might include a standard cover letter with each set of questions that asks whoever receives my packet of question to forward them to the proper person responsible for answering my questions in relation to the Notice # ______ that I’d received.

In any case, it’s important to figure out who to address your questions to.  That addressee must be the person reasonably required to answer your questions.


28.  Is the Texas Department of Public Safety the authority that issued the Notice?  Yes ___ No ___

29.  Is the Texas Department of Public Safety an agency of “The State of Texas”—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  Yes ___  No ___



30.  Do you understand that your Notice included a paragraph under the heading “IMPORTANT MESSAGE”?  Yes ___  No ___

31. Do you understand that the paragraph under the heading “IMPORTANT MESSAGE” includes the word “Texas” on two occasions?   Yes ___ No ___

32.  Do both of the two uses of the word “Texas” used in the paragraph under the heading “IMPORTANT MESSAGE” signify “The State of Texas”—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  Yes ___  No ___

33.  Do both of the two uses of the word “Texas” used in the paragraph under the heading “IMPORTANT MESSAGE” signify a territory of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___

34.  Do both of the two uses of the word “Texas” used in the paragraph under the heading “IMPORTANT MESSAGE” signify a state of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___


The traffic ticket/notice included a section entitle ‘POTENTIAL SURCHARGE NOTICE”. Here’s a copy of that section.

Traffic Ticket/Notice section 2

Traffic Ticket/Notice
section 2


35.  Do you understand that your Notice uses the term “this state” twice in the paragraph under the heading “POTENTIAL SURCHARGE NOTICE:”?  Yes ___ No ___

36. In the two instances where the term “this state” is used in your Notice under the heading of “POTENTIAL SURCHARGE NOTICE:” does the term “this state” signify “The State of Texas”—a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”?  Yes ___  No ___

37.  In the two instances where the term “this state” is used in your Notice under the heading of “POTENTIAL SURCHARGE NOTICE:” does the term “this state” signify a territory of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___

38.  In the two instances where the term “this state” is used in your Notice under the heading of “POTENTIAL SURCHARGE NOTICE:” does the term “this state” signify a state of the United States?  Yes ___  No ___



These next questions are intended to discover how the author of the original ticket/notice views the purported defendant (notice recipient).  My object, here, is to create a “box” that compels the gov-co to expressly admit or deny that the defendant is a man or woman made in God’s image (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the “Declaration of Independence”).

If the gov-co is willing to admit that I’m a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights, I’m good to go.  Being recognized in that status may not guarantee that I’ll win in court, but in that capacity I’ll give ‘em a real run for their money.

On the other hand, if gov-co denies that I’m a man made in God’s image (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the “Declaration of Independence”), the gov-co will have to do some very fancy steppin’ in front of a jury who will ultimately be every bit as curious about the gov-co’s need to degrade my status (and that of the jury) as I am.

I.e., why won’t gov-co recognize me as a man made in God’s image?  Don’t we still have freedom of religion?  Why won’t gov-co recognize the unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence”?

And, on the third hand, if gov-co simply doesn’t answer my questions about the status in which they presume me to act, they will have thereby denied my right to procedural process.  Again, that denial may be enough to cause the case to be dismissed.


39.  Do you understand that, as per Genesis 1:26-28, I am a man made in God’s image?  Yes ___  No ___

40.  Do you understand that, as per The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4th, A.D. 1776 (also known as the “Declaration of Independence”), I am endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights?  Yes ___  No ___

41.  Do you understand that the name “DOE, JOHN DAVID” is merely an alias for my proper name “John Doe”?  Yes ___  No ___

42.  Do you understand that I am one of people of “The State of Texas”?  Yes ___  No ___

43.  Do you understand that I am a beneficiary of the express charitable trust entitled “The Constitution of The State of Texas” established in A.D. 1876?  Yes ___  No ___




44.  Do you understand that as a beneficiary of the express charitable trust entitled “The Constitution of The State of Texas” established in A.D. 1876, I have the right to the division of powers as found in Article II of said Constitution?  Yes ___  No ___

45. Do you understand that under administrative law, the three fundamental powers of government (legislative, executive and judicial) are combined under a single authority and without “division of powers” as mandated in Article II of The Constitution of The State of Texas established in A.D. 1876?  Yes ___  No ___

46. Do you understand that I have the right to refuse to consent to being subject to administrative process?  Yes ___  No ___

47.  Do you understand that I have the right to demand process for this matter take place in a judicial court established under Article V of The Constitution of The State of Texas established in A.D. 1876?  Yes ___  No ___

48.  Do you understand that I do not consent to being subject to administrative process?  Yes ___ No ___


Thanks for your consideration and answers.


John Doe

Address, etc.


Posted by on January 20, 2014 in Notice, Traffic Law


Tags: , , , ,

167 responses to “Notice, Right of Inquiry & Traffic Tickets

  1. thomas russo

    January 20, 2014 at 10:56 AM

    Cute but this does not work. The alleged court is not and Article III court, there are no Article III courts, even though set up there is NO Judiciary, no matter what one might think. These so called courts are ALL administrative courts set up by congress and they are nothing but delegates. To get a better picture of this read Volume 1 of the United States Code which is inclusive of Titles 1-4 and Title 5 sections 101-5949, paying close attention to Titles 1-4 to dates of entry as well as language this is the Law known as the Organic Laws while Title 5 is for employees. The whole of the assumption is that one is an employee/subject to the Revised Codes, when in fact only the cop is and the lawyers (attorneys) which are all foreign agents and agencies of the United States that is the Constitution “of the United States” not the Constitution “for the United States”, there are two Unions the first is in the Articles of Confederation in Title 2 of Titles 1-4 the second is in Title 4 of Titles 1-4. The drivers license has two so called persons on it one is the fiction the other is the real man and they are addressing the fiction while the real man is speaking for the fiction which only and attorney can re-present a fiction of law a real man can not. What should have been done gets some what complex and one should become familure with ones states Original Constitution, while Texas is both a Republic and a Corporate structure known as a STATE one must not be a United States citizen or Citizen of the United States but a free inhabitant under Article IV of the Articles of Confederation at Title 2 in Titles 1-4, there is much to understand all of this so read, when one walks into their courts you wave your rights, pay attention to the flags and more.

    • J.M.

      January 20, 2014 at 10:25 PM

      thomas russo,
      Re: the Constitution “of the United States” not the Constitution “for the United States”

      In the earliest cases I have been able to find, when the “Final Court” writes about the “1789 Constitution,” it is written in their own words,The Constitution of the United States, this is to say WHEN it is ever brought up,talked about,written about,etc. I do know that the word for, IS in the Preamble so if the word for v. of means two entirely different things, the earliest Supreme Court, the “final Court” uses the term, of the United States. Seems to me, that final court did not see any difference in, of v. for. What is it I’m not grasping since that top court was an article 3 court?

      Hey everyone, tomorrow is another day for mountain man Ernie to show his stuff. Don’t misunderstand. I like him.Yes indeed. I have concluded it could go either way. Maybe too much publicity will persuade the tyrants to just dismiss it. On the other hand, they might use the publicity to show what is in store for anyone else who rocks the boat. He spent some time in jail from what I understand & at this point I kinda feel they will give him time served with a stern warning they want the rest of their Subjects to understand,i.e. what We the Subjects have awaiting if We the Subjects “rock the boat.” Also, maybe something has already happened, a night court secret hearing,etc.

    • Joe L'Amarca

      January 21, 2014 at 12:39 AM

      Mr. Russo !
      Compare the eleventh amendment with article 3 section 2 .of the articles of confedaration , from the 11th to the 27 th amendment istead of congress drafting a legitimat document they screwed up there is a big conflict there and by the way it was rejected the first time in 1789 because of the conflict and it is still in conflict today .
      I cant find someone whom will expose the fraud in all the amendmet propcess .
      That day is near when the global population will go hungry they will awaken then .

    • Robert Clay; Snnyder

      January 21, 2014 at 12:42 AM

      Mr. Russo, I have a close friend that addressed the flags in the courtroom in Ellensburg, Washington. The judge immediately ordered him jailed for 48 hours.

      • J.M.

        January 21, 2014 at 12:58 PM

        @ > The judge immediately ordered him jailed for 48 hours.
        Hello Robert Clay; Snyder,
        These things DO happen. If some of us could only see it as being in “their home,” we could possibly understand why this happens. For example if I should be “invited” to visit someone in their home & I saw something “in their home” that was repulsive, I could always make an excuse to leave & just leave.without being insulting to the home owner as to the real reason why I wanted to leave BUT, when we enter “gov-co homes” & start insulting their “decorations” it should not be any surprise at all what happens next for doing that. If I was in your home & did not like something you had in there, & let you know I didn’t like it, which if I did such a thing it would be rude, crude inconsiderate etc, you could very well throw me out & rightly so. When we are in “gov-co homes,” and do the same thing, well, they don’t throw us out, they throw us IN…………..Jail. For all who are going to appear in their homes, you better respect their decorations by, if nothing else, not commenting about them. You are in THEIR HOME.

  2. Frank Moorman

    January 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM

    Why don’t you address Surcharges? I owe over 10 grand in Surcharges assessed against “code enforcement violations”

    Frank Moorman

    • Adask

      January 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM

      My friend wasn’t facing any “surcharge” issues. He was only facing a $150 fine. Time was short and the “surcharge” issue was not relevant to my friend’s problem.

  3. Frank Moorman

    January 20, 2014 at 11:20 AM

    I am now awaiting to victimized by the scoffing laws” They will get you for these too-called revenue. They build new and bigger jails with DHS grant money. DHS trains your local cops every Thursday. DHS also controls their radios . If you go to FCC website, you will see that it is no DHS FCC.

    No, we don’t live in a poe leece state.

    • J.M.

      January 22, 2014 at 11:38 AM

      Hi Frank Moorman,
      What is the last word in, police?
      @ No, we don’t live in a poe leece state.
      YEAH RIGHT !!

  4. Applessence

    January 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM

    Alfred, (NOT ALFRED… ; ) ), My experience in sending inquiries like this is, that while it seems satisfying enough for me, it is tantamount to trying to get the cop to realize that his jurisdiction does not include me, as ‘codes’ only apply to ‘individuals, partnerships…..or other corporate entities”, and according to the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ for statutory construction, everything within a line or paragraph MUST be the same kind of thing; can’t mix apples and oranges.

    I have sent a dozen or so such letters of inquiry, always return-receipt, and the traffic Commissioner has never responded to a single one. Ever. I have had 3 “Notices to Appear”, and have never shown up, but just send a letter denying jurisdiction, based on whom the codes apply to. I returned the license and registrations 2 years ago. When they give me a ticket, it is signed “at arm’s length: NO CONTRACT”. Cops go ballistic, but it is pretty easy: I ask the cop “Have you ever seen my signature?” Of course, they haven’t, so then I ask “How the hell do know that’s NOT my signature?” Usually ends there. I then write “returned for discharge” in red ink, and send it with a letter of inquiry directly to the traffic commissioner.

    So, if at the end ( as in ALL of STSTE OF CALIFORNIA codes definitions of “person”, the one to whom the code applies) it states in the definition “…or other corporate entities”, that clearly defines who the “person” is that code applies to. If I am NOT a corporate entity (and I am not) their codes do not apply to me, they apply elsewhere.

    V C Section 12500 Unlawful to Drive Unless Licensed
    Unlawful to Drive Unless Licensed
    12500. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver’s license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code…
    Amended Sec. 3, Ch. 755, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.
    Amended Sec. 3, Ch. 630, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 2008.


    SECTION 630-637.9
    632(b). The term “person” includes an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity,…

    11405.70. “Person” includes an individual, partnership, corporation, governmental subdivision or unit of a governmental subdivision, or public or private organization or entity of any character.

    SECTION 3479-3484
    3482.1. (a) As used in this section:
    (1) “Person” means an individual, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, club, or other legal entity.

    SECTION 1235.110-1235.210
    1235.160. “Person” includes any public entity, individual, association, organization, partnership, trust, limited liability company, or corporation.


    175. “Person” includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or public entity.

    470. “Person” includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.
    305. A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
    56. “Person” means an individual, corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity.
    (30) “Person” includes an individual or an organization. (See Section 1102.)
    Section K:
    TITLE 26 U.S.C., SECTION 7343
    IN PART:
    Part O: Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7343.
    Part P: United States Code Congressional and Administrative News
    Part Q: Sections derived from other sections.
    Part Q(17): Section 7343 is derived from:
    Part O:
    Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7343.
    TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 75, Subchapter D, Sec. 7343:
    Sec. 7343. Definition of term “person”
    The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a
    member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty
    to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

    • Adask

      January 20, 2014 at 11:36 AM

      You seem to have found another strategy that works well for you. Congrats. There’s more than one way to skin these cats, but whatever strategy you use, you’ve got to understand it. You can’t just copy it.

      • J.M.

        January 20, 2014 at 11:54 PM

        @ “You seem to have found another strategy that works……”
        I have seen things posted before like Applessence has posted and when asked if he/she will be so kind & generous to cut & paste the ticket/citation,e.g like you, Alfred, did & as showing in the top section of your message (Texas Department of Public Safety) & cut & paste the “end result” document, e.g., Dismissed,etc., there is no response whatsoever. It’s as though the request was never received. Is it improper to ask those who post messages such as Applessence did to post the beginning with document & ending with, winning, etc. document ? If in your opinion it is not improper,why do you think this kind of request is completely ignored? If there are numerous documents, one beginning & one ending documents only make two documents. Is my request unreasonable? I have asked this question also, & got no response to that either.

  5. Mike

    January 20, 2014 at 11:42 AM

    Great read Mr. Adask,
    I like the way your mind works.

    Its fun to play in the legal system but we all know it is just a fiction created by man right? There is no reality to it other than what we consent to give it. It is a challenge to survive with in the fiction but one day, if we can ever come together and really support one another, maybe we can rise above the fiction and really live under Natural law/God’s law.
    How can an entity created by man be superior to man? Nothing created by man can control man unless man allows for the control. I think claiming our power back as the living man created by God en mass in the only way out.

    • J.M.

      January 21, 2014 at 8:48 PM

      @ >Its fun to play in the legal system

      It’s Tragic comedy if you are serious & if you are, the legal system has been playing hardball with your mind. I know the legal system has played hardball with mine. It once was fun to play ring around the rose Z 2.

      @ I think claiming our power back as the living man created by God en mass in the only way out.

      LIVING MAN > Earnest Wayne Tertelgte thought so too. But, I guess he didn’t think his belief had to be en mass. What do you really think the chances of being en mass are? Really, there is only one chance, & that’s no chance, not the way things are.

    • J.M.

      January 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM

      @ How can an entity created by man be superior to man?
      Easy. But hard to figure out. If we could have a life span of 200 years instead of 70 we would know the who,what,when,why,where of it. Give me a job, I hire two more, there’s 3 of us v. 1 You are really at our mercy if we 3 “handle” it right,e.g. how to make the river rise above its source like in an illusion.

  6. Jethro!

    January 20, 2014 at 12:38 PM


    Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971) supports your contention that traffic tickets, or more specifically the consequences of ignoring or “failing to satisfy” them (“suspension” of license), is subject to procedural due process. From the case:

    “…licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

  7. J.M.

    January 20, 2014 at 3:23 PM answer your questions (the officer and/or the municipality)—and then wait for their response.

    There is a case where the court said, “tyranny in the American system of government very largely is within the acts & actions of the municipal powers.” 1.This tells me that there is tyranny in the American system of Government. 2. The municipal powers ARE the tyrants we have to reason with.
    I PERSONally can’t seem to get to the level of knowing how to reason with tyrants. In addition to the Yes____ No___ there should be added,> Don’t know____ I believe all the don’t know’s will be checked & concluded with the message of, See ya in court one way or the other,have a nice day.

    • J.M.

      January 22, 2014 at 1:31 AM

      Please do not think I am belittling Alfred’s wonderful work. I knew a man who ONCE was a lawyer. He was honest,etc. He quit that profession I ask him why. He said, there is not any integrity in the judicial system anymore. One big difference in him & me is, I concluded the same thing after 5 years of torture. It took him 10 years to arrive at the same conclusion. My ex lawyer friend got a job as a taxi driver & a few years later,owned the company. Lawyers say “good luck” quite frequently. Since I still believe there ARE a few good Judges left, there is no doubt in my mind that if anyone uses Alfred’s example, & you are lucky enough to get a judge with integrity, or even the citation/ticket presenter if he/she has ANY integrity, you win. Good luck.

  8. dejure

    January 20, 2014 at 5:54 PM

    We started having success when we abandoned the “patriot” arguments and started using their own laws against them. Few agencies can comply with their own laws. That includes exhausting administrative remedies before moving on to a limited jurisdiction court, for example. Supreme Court rulings state due process begins at the administrative level.

    A local kid (he’s about sixty) points out to the court it has no jurisdiction, until the administrative remedies are exhausted, and that there were yet administrative issued to address. The court cannot properly make any decision, until proof of the fact, if only by [challengeable] statement from the agency, is received.

    Were I doing it his way, I would form a document similar in appearance to what I would file in a court of record. It would be a motion on whatever issue I though needed addressing. For example, I might ask for an administrative hearing on the authority of the agency involved to assign me or to alter (e.g., truncate, transpose, capitalize or abbreviate) my Christian and/or family name. I might seek a decision on implied consent (the presumption you waived an otherwise protected right as a condition of exercising another right or privilege and so forth).

    He didn’t fully understand the fact, but he was challenging jurisdiction, which must clearly appear. If there are administrative issues to be resolved, the inferior court cannot take jurisdiction. In WA (yep, the one with a federal tax ID number), that could include responses to requests for records made under the Public Disclosure Act (laws referenced in chapter 42.56 RCW).

    We took this approach in a battle with Labor and Industries nearly a decade back. They failed to follow their own procedures, set out in the Washington Administrative Code, killing their claim they could move ahead. It took a year, but they lost their claim the individual owed over thirty thousand.

    Another time, DOL informed me they were suspending my license. I sought records that allowed them to waive fees and other statutory requirements associated with acquiring a license, since I didn’t have one. Of course, no documents existed. They sent a communication with the A.G., for help dealing with me. I still have the “you’re on your own” letter he sent back to the agency. Of course, that matter died on their vine.

    The simple of it is, keep it at the administrative level for as long as possible and “resolve” issues there.

    • Joe L'Amarca

      January 21, 2014 at 1:25 AM

      Administrative proceedings are found under three judicial proceedings words and phrases negative titles and amended proceedings but Common Law is found only in the U S Constitution .
      Not in amendment process or case law thats why a lot of donkey’s dont understand the U S CONSTITUTION .
      When you claim fifth amendment there is no such a thing so what the criminals in the black robe did , incootporated 4th and fifth article of the Bill Of Rights and then incorporated it into the fourteenth amendment .
      Now this is me ! I get pulled over and a public official would make certain unlawfull demand upon me .
      I paid for my registration license and insurance that is my property and they cant take that from me with a forth article probable cause , probable cause is for you to make the claim under the fifth article because a castodial stop means you are under arrest , and the State cant make any unlawfull demands on me . I pay for it all now read the fourth Article Probable Cause Don’t squander on any RIGHTS . after read the Fifth Article and Sixth and Seventh Article Of The Bill Of Rights ????
      Now remember the pubic servants are located under the amendment code-fied amendment titles statued and all the other bullshit .
      All I am going to say learn the United States Constitution as good as I and united together we will Save our LAND AND OUR PEOPLE .
      Jesus only had a christian name but it got to hard for the Roman Empire had to many people to controll so they gave him a second name from nazereth !!! then a second name midle name an adress s s # cell phone with a chip a micro chip they are going to do the same thing with the terrorist otherwise they will forget wich branch of the agency pulled the false flag .

      • J.M.

        January 24, 2014 at 4:21 AM

        @ > All I am going to say learn the United States Constitution as good as I
        Thanks for the advice.

      • dejure

        January 24, 2014 at 3:02 PM

        In and out today (I make sawdust – Sometimes something, other than firewood comes of it – do a search for “Imagination Unincorporated.”)

        Years ago, before the Internet was flying bit, I was a member of a site for attorneys and judges. There was one judge and an attorney who were always seemed to be taking pot shots at me because I promoted going after clients/litigants “constitutional rights.”

        One day, I got fed up with their crap, so started egging them on more than usual about a family law issue. The attorney made himself the easiest target when he stated he didn’t his clients didn’t need him wasting time on that crap.

        What the attorney didn’t know was, a Supreme Court decision had just come down in which the justices, plainly, stated attorneys had an obligation to pursue their clients’ constitutional rights [when dealing with family matters].

        Interestingly, after I posted the case in response to his stated foolishness, he became one of my strongest supporters. Oh, and, eventually, everyone pressured the jerk judge of the group off the site.

  9. troublemkr

    January 20, 2014 at 9:03 PM

    1. who is the injured party?

    2. who is the man/woman making a claim against i; a man?

    if there is no injured party, then there is no case

    there must be a man/woman present to take the stand and point at you and make a claim that their property was harmed in some way, or any judgement made is void

    • dejure

      January 21, 2014 at 3:58 AM

      This fits the administrative approach. Someone must be willing to put their neck on the chopping block for their claim. For example, RCW 9A.72.080 states: “Any claim not known to be true is false.” There has to be first hand knowledge and that isn’t the prosecutor.

      As I said before, put DOL no notice you do not waive your rights and wish to have this fact known on the record available to officer.

      As to a license, use your states disclosure act to determine the laws that prohibit you from taking a driving test, obtaining a copy of all results and not accepting a license. After all, the process is for the public safety and you’ve proven your competence, so………

      Trust me, this and what I talked of elsewhere will cause a storm

      • Bill

        January 23, 2014 at 8:17 PM

        To Dejure, Wa. DOL cancelled my Drivers License nearly 1 year ago without my knowledge until
        A police license scanner picked me out at an intersection. DOL claims I need to sumit a residential address which I don’t have. Yet I own and operate 2 business’ in Washington, pay taxes, vote
        etc., using a pony express mail box. I travel the west coast extensively and don,t have a fixed residence to sleep other than friends, family and hotels and a estranged wife. DOL supervisor
        Insisted they need to know where I sleep, I’am a vagabond.
        Want to shut them down and get my license back so I can earn a living, pay taxes to the same creeps who are without souls. Bill

    • J.M.

      January 21, 2014 at 1:23 PM

      @ >or any judgement made is void

      How do we make void the “time” we have been in jail? Do you mean that after the jail time is completed, the judgment is then void because the judgment has been fulfilled? Also, can you tell me why people make a lot of comments but do not respond to any questions regarding their comments? Thanks.

      • Dejure

        January 21, 2014 at 1:35 PM

        First, any time you are under threat of incarceration and cannot afford [incompetent] representation, you have the right to be appointed counsel. However, you have to make the demand.

        Many say they wouldn’t want a public defender. I think they’re great. Their incompetence makes it easy to stir the pot. For example, a quick search usually shows: 1) The won the bid to represent all indigents and have a duty to defend them [however]: they have too many clients and cannot EFFECTIVELY (it’s that “effective assistance of counsel thing); the public record shows they fail to perform on their contract, instead, pleaing out their clients; they usually meet their clients after arraignment (at which the attorney is appointed), though the arraignment is considered a critical stage of the proceedings and at which representation should have been had; reviewing the case file usually shows they filed no motions (again, did nothing to earn their contact fees – qui tam (taking money for work not performed)); they can be put on notice to build a record for appeal (e.g., entering objections, introducing and moving into evidence documents and things, and taking testimony), making discovery (other than the usual crap the prostitutor just hands out), producing their errors and omissions insurance and so forth.

        I witnessed one attorney refund an entire retainer, “after twelve hours work,” but during which no motions, affidavits or discovery (i.e., Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Requests for Documents) and things were filed, after receiving such a notice and request for his insurance.

      • J.M.

        January 24, 2014 at 3:27 PM

        P.S. I have spent over 500 days in jail & ALL this jail time was due to what you call any void judgment. I have many void judgments that contributed to my jail time. None of this jail time was a pretty picture or pictures, all due to void judgments.

      • dejure

        January 24, 2014 at 4:50 PM

        There is a saying in law: “Just because something can be undone does not mean it should be done.”

        Of course, then there are those things that cannot be undone. As such, they should never be done. That is why local and state agencies and the state or subdivision itself have insurance, including risk pools and bonds. It is to compensate people when they cannot, otherwise, be made whole again.

        So it is with time lost. It cannot be given back. At best, the individual can be compensated for it.

        Part of the problem getting to the compensation is, dealing with the rules and laws. For example (again, in WA), to sue a county, you must file a complaint with Risk Management, then wait sixty days. After that time, you can file the complaint with the court.

        An exception to foregoing rule is, the Public Disclosure Act, for violations of the [records] disclosure laws. An action only requires the usual five business days and is TREATED LIKE summary judgment action, but is a show cause action. All administrative remedies are presumed exhausted after five business days.

        To be successful claiming the injury out of the court system – there would have to be a record you were injured. This would include challenges to the jurisdiction, objections, indicators you did not waive a right (which requires overcoming a lot of presumptions, some times) for example. They should plainly appear on the record.

        If one is “pro se” or “pro per,” one cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel. The action would be against the one who injured you and all else against him would be disciplinary (e.g., the Bar’s work).

        This is another good reason for using a Public Pretender. You may have someone to hold accountable, since he/she held himself out as knowledgeable in law.

        All that said, if a judgement can be shown to be void, and not merely voidable, that would be all you need to initiate a suit, just like a criminal conviction is enough to initiate a civil action.

        If a person wanted to go down that road, it might be worth while to start pulling records that would prove a pattern of corruption. The Cook District Court was found to be a RICO enterprise, so, city hall can be fought. It may take some publicity too, though.
        Troublemaker, @ >or any judgement made is void How do we make void the “time” we have been in jail? Do you mean that after the jail time is completed, the judgment is then void because the judgment has been fulfilled? Also, can you tell me why people make a lot of comments but do […]

        P.S. I have spent over 500 days in jail & ALL this jail time was due to what you call any void judgment. I have many void judgments that contributed to my jail time. None of this jail time was a pretty picture or pictures, all due to void judgments.

    • J.M.

      January 22, 2014 at 9:56 PM

      @ 1. who is the injured party?
      You are, I am.

      @ 2. who is the man/woman making a claim against i; a man?
      He/she is called the complaining witness.

      @ if there is no injured party, then there is no case
      There is an injured party, see above who.

      @ there must be a man/woman present to take the stand and point at you and make a claim that their property was harmed in some way,…..

      We are accused of injuring the peace & dignity of the people of the state of (whatever state you are in)
      Great news if we get a jury trial right? Don’t tell me the difference in jury trial & trial by jury. Either way, they have all been injured by you, or me, according to the complaining witness. God’s law requires 2 or 3 witnesses. But that would be no problem for them either. The word, straw man once upon a time, & this is true would be in the courthouses with a stick of straw protruding from one of his shoes,just enough 2 B noticed by the “right ones” & this was the sign that his witness services were available for cash. I kiddeth thou not.

      • dejure

        January 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM

        Regarding injured parties, we are back to affidavits and declarations. One has to have first hand knowledge of the thing complained of, or it is no complaint at all.

        A prosecutor cannot make a complaint or indictment and can only prosecute one handed him. Again, he lacks first hand knowledge, so cannot testify to the facts of the complaint.

        Just some food for thought. In the sixties, the public was duped into allowing most criminal traffic issues to be converted to infractions.

        Before traffic was decriminalize, traveling my means of a moped at a speed in excess of the posted speed was a crime. Because it was a crime, we had the benefit of a presumption of innocence and to have the matter heard by a jury of our peers. However, people focused on the stigma of having a criminal record. The public didn’t distinguish much between misdemeanors and felonies, let alone the degrees tied to each.

        After, all presumptions did a one eighty and are now in favor of “representative” government. This means, anything an agent said is presumed true, so you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Of course, since it is no longer criminal, there were no juries anymore and you don’t get your matter heard in an open court of record.

        That, if you can afford an attorney you don’t need to go down that road aside, attorneys won’t do it, but you have the right to a real trial and representation anytime one of our rights is going to disappear. In this instance, it would be your license, when you can’t pay (back to that contempt thing I talked of).

        Anytime there is a potential threat of jail, you have the right to be appointed counsel. If you really want to drive the justice facility business nuts, file a few things. For example:

        1) A Motion for Hearing on the Right to Truncate, Transpose, Abbreviate or Convert to all Capitals My Family and Christian Names;

        2) Notice to your appointed attorney informing him/her it is your case, and you expect discovery, motions, a record on which an appeal could be had (objections, testimony, documents like affidavits introduced and MOVED into evidence and so forth)

        Inform all you expect your attorney to call the prosecution to the stand to testify any time he signs an affidavit.

        When the judge violates law, such as acts in excess of jurisdiction, you demand he file an appropriate complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission. This includes times you inform the judge his court denied you your common law right of access to case files, which includes a one day turn around, but which attorneys do not have to suffer (timely denial of access to case files is equated to a violation of due process, so a constitutional level violation).

        Another example would be when the Yakima, Washington, Municipal-District Court let the jail facility access bail money before a conviction. This violates law and constitution and required a conspiracy between the court and the jail enterprise. Of course, this is all public record and the courts must take judicial notice of government records, when certified, and all government records can be certified.

        3) You demand his insurance information if his incompetence, negligence or representation otherwise injures you.

        4) Noticing him. For example, you do not waive even one right, so, though he thinks himself only there to address the issues before the court, if the matter before the court is about you building a fence from cow pies and the other side introduces an issue claiming you improperly painted your house blue with pink pokadots, his failure to address them, when you are not allowed to talk because of his presence, will be construed to be a damage for which you will seek relief.

        Noticing him, if you find he pleas out most of his clients, you will act to determine if he may be made the subject of a qui tam for taking money on a contract without performing.

        Just filing a well written notice similar to this makes the conspiracy gang squirmingly uncomfortable. It’s also a good way to get almost every attorney to, on his own volition, ask to be allowed to withdraw (usually, they dig deep and find a conflict of interest, so the judge will have to allow them to withdraw).

        An attorney will not do this because he has to go in front of the judge again, and again. It would destroy his business.

  10. Gary

    January 21, 2014 at 12:42 AM

    Hi Al: this was likely destined for JP court, which consists of a JP judge who gets his law education from reading inscriptions on the bathroom wall. In Texas statute, this is a stop under Section 543 of the Texas Transportation Code. The officer, if he does not arrest and confine, may decide to release the arrested person ( yes, your friend was arrested ) to appear on his own volition before a MAGISTRATE, not a Judge. The citation says appear before a Judge, Different functions, different offices. The DPS dude is guilty of forcing your friend to enter into a deceptive contract while displaying a deadly weapon. File criminal charges against the DPS dude.

    Also, your friend had the option to present himself ( not appear…he cannot “appear” anymore than he can “disappear” ) before the designated court on or before the appointed day and time, and demand to see the MAGISTRATE. The MAGISTRATE hearing is required under Section 543 Texas Transportation Code, and Texas Code of Criminal Procedures 14.06 and 15.01 to conduct an Examination Hearing in order to determine Probable Cause. Your friend should demand that hearing and refuse to “plea” to the charge as there had been no examination hearing by a MAGISTRATE of competent jurisdiction. See Rothgery v Gillespe County, Supreme Court of the United States, I think it was June 2008 so its relevant. This is only the beginning………….

    They would have to throw the alleged Citation out for so many reasons. I would guess there is no Criminal Complaint in his file either.

  11. Judson

    January 21, 2014 at 2:06 AM

    One of my classes long ago, the teacher rased the issue of getting a copy of the addmenistrations rules, or going to them when your dealing with seach.
    Case in point, OSAHA, this agency was reaking a open sand pit opperation and it owner over the coles. Attorneys from another state who spechialized in OSAHA law were brought in and being paied. The owner got a copy of the OASHA manual and reading it found the agency had no jurisdiction over open pit sand operation. the owner his self then sued both his attorneys and OASHA in Federal Court.

  12. dejure

    January 21, 2014 at 4:07 AM

    Remember, you can accept a public prostitutor and have fun, First, look into how many clients she/he has. Too many, I bet, so cannot EFFECTIVELY represent you. That same attorney was appointed at arraignment, so didn’t show until the next hearing. However, arraignment is a critical stage of the proceedings. In short, this guy or gal took public money and didn’t perform on the contract. Sounds like a key tom action, to me.

    The there is the fact you serve your attorney with directives, and notice you want his omissions ans errors insurance, in case he screws up. Your notice directs him to build a record on which an appeal can be had, to include making objections, introducing then entering evidence, giving testical-mony and performing actual discovery, Of course, there is the matter of motions regarding things like the courts failure to appoint the attorney before a critical hearing, and so forth.

    This may get you up to seven or more attorneys before they start finding excuses to cut you loose.

    You can file notice on the court that you have no money, so cannot pay, thus killing any contempt (they can;t through you in jail for owing money).

    Said another way, have some fun

    • Yartap

      January 21, 2014 at 4:51 PM

      Greetings, dejure,

      I LIKE your method. That’s right – it’s all about the money. If you cost them, then they will cut you loose and move on to easier victims.


      • J.M.

        January 21, 2014 at 7:25 PM

        @ If you cost them, then they will cut you loose
        Or, is it every which way but loose. Cut you? Oh yes, & cut you deep too. Cuts that leave both mental & physical scars. I can tell by both comments you both have a lot of front line experience.

    • J.M.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:42 AM

      @ Remember, you can accept a public prostitutor and have fun,……”

      If We the Subjects out here understood what you do, I can imagine what you say is true. Let me say the same thing a different way. I believe your statement is true BECAUSE I can see you are well versed in that “legal field.” If I was not aware of this. I would think Yeah Right. Fun Hell. I don’t believe that ANY of We the Subjects are going to have ANY FUN if we do not understand that which you do understand. No response from you is expected. I am still trying to get in touch but it’d to taxing to try & explain the stonewall.

  13. Adrian

    January 21, 2014 at 2:22 PM

    If you identify yourself thru a STATE ID you are a person in general and in particular one who is
    dba an artificial person or corporation.
    You are who you say that you are.
    All the Courts in America are contractual corporate Courts.
    When that COP hands you a notice,that is an invitation to contract.
    You can accept it or reject it within 72 hours.

    • Adask

      January 21, 2014 at 2:58 PM

      I doubt that all or even most of the courts are “contractual” in nature. A contract requires full disclosure, consideration, meeting of the mindS, and TWO signatures. Virtually none of the requirements seen in classical “contracts” are found in most of the documents that get us into trouble with the gov-co. Most of the current documents carry a SINGLE signature–YOURS. That single signature does not create a “contract”–it creates a PLEDGE. That pledge probably exists in EQUITY as a fiduciary obligation rather than at law as a contract.

      It’s been a long time since I had a drivers license, but my recollection of the drivers license process is that it included a statement that “I promise to be bound by the traffic laws of this state.” I signed it. No one else signed it. With only one signature, there can’t be a “meeting of the mindS” since only one person is signatory. So, what is a single signature document? I believe it’s a PLEDGE.

      Bank signature cards another example of single-signature documents that can’t be contracts, but are probably PLEDGES. What do they say? “I promise [or agree or some such] to be bound by the laws the United States.” There’s no contract there. Just one signature. I believe that makes the bank signature card a pledge.

      We are ensnared in courts by virtue of our pledges rather than our contracts.

      I’m not be true, but it strikes me as possible that the danger of the “Pledge of Allegiance” is that while I may pledge my allegiance to the government, there is no counter-pledge, promise or contract from the government to protect me or my rights. It may be that I am thereby bound to obey the government, but the government has no correlative obligation to serve or protect me. If that were so, the pledge would reduce me to the status of a right-less subject.

      • Adrian

        January 21, 2014 at 3:32 PM

        You are right,in a true sense they are agreements.However,since there are no Law Courts in America anymore,where do you go to contest such a fraudulent agreement?
        Remember,those agreements are enforced by abuse of power.
        THEY never offer you a true contract.
        The/a Constitution is a contract but you are no part of it.
        Your rights are no contract,they are natural impulses for action.
        What we have is a natural instinct for survival.
        Survival of the fittest.

      • Yartap

        January 21, 2014 at 4:56 PM

        Greetings Al,

        Here in Georgia, the driver’s license is signed by driver and the Governor. Yartap.

    • J.M.

      January 22, 2014 at 10:07 PM

      @ When that COP hands you a notice,that is an invitation to contract.You can accept it or reject it within 72 hours.

      • Adrian

        January 23, 2014 at 4:44 PM

        Write on it rejected,date and take it to the City Hall within 72 hours.They may send it back to you.
        Repet the same.They can only make that offer twice.

      • J.M.

        January 24, 2014 at 1:29 AM

        dejure, Shalom,
        I really wanted to start this message out by saying, I love you, but I thought, no, I am in enough trouble. It’s the kind of love like I have for my parents. I try to love My friend Jesus too, but I guess it’s more like lip service than the walking kind.I am trying to let my talk walk. I truly am

        @ This was about being prepared.
        Yes.I understand. Apparently I am still weak in this area even after years of study. I am a “fan” of people like Justice James Wilson,(Chisholm v. Georgia) Justice Joseph Story etc. (Story’s commentaries) & now I am a fan of yours,dejure.

        @ I had reviewed the rules. In no instance did the prosecutor give a cite supporting his claims, but the judge presumed in his favor.

        WHAT !!! NO WAY !!!THE JUDGE PRESUMED IN HIS FAVOR??!! OH NO !! Now you have gone to far, dejure. The Judge presumed in his favor? That’s unrealistic. Please tell me you are just joking. Oh that’s ok, I know you were just kidding.

        dejure,I sent you a message earlier about a physical address. PLEASE respond to that message in some manner. I don’t really like to send messages like that over the internet, but I don’t know how to do otherwise.under these conditions.

      • J.M.

        January 24, 2014 at 1:43 AM

        @ Write on it rejected,date and take it to the City Hall within 72 hours.They may send it back to you.Repet the same.They can only make that offer twice.

        Didn’t work for me & I never received a 2nd offer. But, I did receive a knock on the door & I was arrested for failure to appear. This was on a Friday afternoon. Stayed in jail until Monday afternoon. I did “appear” in torn jail cloths. I was advised I signed the the citation promising to appear and rejecting was not an alternative, excepting that I could give all the reasons for rejection at my appearance It’s senseless to say anymore about what happened next.

    • J.M.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:47 AM

      “If you identify yourself thru a STATE ID you are a person in general….”
      AND if you cannot identify yourself in this required way that only they recognize, then they KNOW something is wrong & you are hiding something & you are arrested for concealing identity. TELL ME ABOUT IT.

  14. Adask

    January 21, 2014 at 3:47 PM

    The Constitution is not a contract. It’s a trust.

  15. J.M.

    January 21, 2014 at 3:53 PM

    @ >Survival of the fittest
    like in dog eat dog,right? Another way of saying genocide. You sure have a lot to look forward to, because we both know you are going to be top dog in the end. And all by yourself until you die & then there is nothing. The world will be empty. Aw shucks, I forgot. We still have those aliens from out there, the greys,reptilians etc.They’re just looking for more space anyway, & they will have plenty of space on this earth after you,top dog, are gone.

  16. Adrian

    January 21, 2014 at 4:16 PM

    The Constitution was intended to be a trust but ended up as a contract.
    The original colonists,of the 13th,won the battle on the ground but lost it on paper.
    We the today Americans have nothing to do with that and this Constitution.
    Our rights come from within and we have to fight for that.
    If you are not fit to survive you end up your journey.
    We did not inherited a thing,we go day by day.

    • J.M.

      January 21, 2014 at 4:50 PM

      …@…..,we go day by day.
      You have finally come up with something that makes sense. Yesterday is gone & tomorrow may never come, at least for some of us..
      @ The original colonists,of the 13th,won the battle on the ground but lost it on paper.
      13th what? What are colonists of the 13th?

    • Adask

      January 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM

      The Constitution can’t be a contract because it wasn’t signed by the vast majority of Americans living back around A.D. 1788. It couldn’t possibly be a contract today because there are no living signatories to that instrument. It’s a trust. That’s all is could be.

      • Adrian

        January 23, 2014 at 2:08 PM

        First I was talking about the 13 colonies.The constitution of 1789 was signed only by a hand full
        of men.IT was a contract only for them.It died out with them.
        Today we have only some form of fraudulent agreements that can be inforced only by usage.
        They are commercial in nature.
        You are taxed,fined only for what you use or do.
        We already pay for the use with the sale tax.Fines are volunteer pay outs.
        Incom tax is a corporate tax.The real man is not required to pay such a tax.
        Stay away from the strawman.
        Another thing,a citty-zen is also a freeman.
        I for one prefer the status of freeman.
        All “corporate cityzens” are tax payers.
        The trust constitution never was.There is a contract=constitution of US Inc.
        We the American people are not part of it.

    • J.M.

      January 23, 2014 at 4:33 PM

      @ IT was a contract only for them.It died out with them.
      unt uhh. It was a proposal & plan for ALL the christian people & the “posterity” of same in the U.S.,i.e the several states. More than enough people in essence said yes, let’s give it a shot, Let’s try it this way. The fruits of this plan were working out wonderfully. But something else was going on to change this. Something in the air.

  17. Adask

    January 21, 2014 at 6:17 PM

    Yartrap. It’s interesting that the Georgia DL carries the governor’s signature, but that’s only a copy of his signature–not a true, intentional signature for each DL. I don’t know what the legal effect of a copy of a signature may be, but I doubt that there’s any true “meeting of the minds” since the Governor never actually saw or personally signed any DL other than his own. Which brings up an interesting question, if the governor’s signature appears twice on the governor’s DL, is the document a contract, a pledge, or some sort of legal nullity?

    • Yartap

      January 22, 2014 at 12:29 AM


      Great points! Of course, no one sits down with the Governor and signs a driving contract. But, the driver’s signature is also a copy on the license. But, there are auto-signing and e-signing which have been recognized by the courts. Example: an insurance policy has auto-signs placed upon them. As far as the Governor signing for himself and the state, a trustee can be a representative of more than one trust (fictional person and the corporate state). I think a driver’s license is more like a one signature/one sided bank adhesion contract as you say.

      A license and a contract are two different birds, by definition. A license is a granted permission, by a competent authority, to do something which is illegal. Whereas, a contract is a voluntary agreement between different parties upon equal grounds of terms. An adhesion contract is inalterable contract; where the offering party has more superior powers over the voluntary/agreeable customer party, and the terms and conditions must be equal for all customers for legality.

      We should know that: “NO ‘bilateral (two party) contract’ requires any signatures.” But, for those that do need/require signatures (the contract fits within statutes of fraud), it needs to be signed by the parties to be charged. But these question arise…….

      1. Does a checking account or driver’s license (if a contract) fit within the statutes of fraud?
      The answer is NO they do not fit within the statutes of fraud, only such things as mortgages, loans, insurance agreements and sale of property over a set statute amount.

      2. If a contract is NOT within the statutes of fraud and is biding without signatures; can a contract be biding with just one signature, along with the meeting of the minds? I believe so.

      A “unilateral contract” is a contract that can only be accepted by performance. One could consider it as a one signature contract. But, it becomes bilateral once another fulfills the offered terms by the performance of the contract. This is not like a driver’s license.

      Tho, I think a driver’s license is more like a one signature/one sided bank adhesion contract as you say. WHY?……..

      1. Because, you have the God-given un-infrangible, unalienable RIGHT to travel by any means.

      2. The mere act of driving is not immoral, is not harmful to anyone, is not unjust to anyone, and is not a tort; therefore nor is it UNLAWFUL! as the state says it is.

      3. The simple original traffic laws for Georgia, enacted in 1933’s Depression, came under the Georgia Department of Revenue and was meant to raise/generate revenue for a struggling state. Here are ALL of the Georgia traffic laws of that time. A. Every motor auto shall have a yearly state issued license at fee (as we know it as a tag; basically an annual set tax). B. No one will drive intoxicated (no punishment was stated). C. Those who transport (commercial term) other people and goods for fee shall have a yearly Chaffer’s License at fee. D. Those who fail to license shall pay double fee. E. The Department of Revenue shall establish and set all fees. And that was it!

      4. You can waive your rights at any time, contractually, or merely by not demanding them.

      5. To prove it is a contract, in order for your driver’s license to be enforced in ANOTHER state; there must be a “reciprocating agreement” between states that allows/requires other states’ traffic laws to be enforceable upon foreign or out of state drivers.

      If one obtains a Driver’s license (contract with the state), you are voluntarily replacing/rescinding your RIGHT to Travel for the state’s PRIVILEGE to Drive/Transport (commercial terms) by contract.


      • Adask

        January 22, 2014 at 1:00 AM

        I suspect that a “unilateral contract” is no more a “contract” than the Federal Reserve is an element of the “Federal” government. I suspect that the term “unilateral contract” is intended to deceive us into thinking that the document in question is a “contract” when it may, in fact, be a “pledge”. If my suspicions are roughly correct, then trying to attack a “unilateral contract” under the presumption that it is a true “contract” will fail, while trying to attack a “unilateral contract” under the presumption that it’s actually a “pledge” may succeed.

        I suspect that you may be free to drive and travel within a State of the Union (“The State of Texas”), but you may not be free to drive/travel within a territory like “Texas,” “TX,” or “STATE OF TEXAS”. Conduct that may be free and unregulated within the borders of a State of the Union may require a license within a territory.

        the mos significant document associated with a “drivers license” may be the application rather than the “license” that’s issued by this state.

        When the cop asks for “identification,” I’m not convinced that he’s asking for evidence of who YOU are as an individual man or woman. I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that he’s actually asking Which plane or venue to you “IDENTIFY” with: That of The State of the Union or that of “this state” (a territory and/or administrative district “of the United States”.) If you produce a Drivers License issued by “this state” he knows you’re a subject and he can do just about anything he has a mind to do to you. If you produce some other document that offers evidence that you “identify with” a State of the Union, he may not have any legal authority over you. He may still split your head open, but within The State, that violence may be illegal while “in this state,” that same violence may be acceptable. . . . This is an easy theory to advance, and a very difficult strategy to implement in fact.

      • J.M.

        January 22, 2014 at 1:48 AM

        @ A license is a granted permission, by a competent authority, to do something which is illegal.
        Wow !! I hate to know what incompetent authorities grant. If we accept the granted permission by a so called competent authority to do something which is illegal, shame on us. What is the new definition of “ill?” Once upon a time ill meant sick.

      • dejure

        January 22, 2014 at 3:08 AM


        Re “A license is a granted permission, by a competent authority, to do something which is illegal.” The way I’ve always stated it is, a license is a permission to do what is otherwise illegal.

        Consider marriage licenses. When you look it up in a Black’s Law Dictionary, you are directed to miscegenation (Blacks Fourth). I was not familiar with the term when I read it, but it pertained to marrying between races. The original marriage license allowed an otherwise illegal act – a white guy marrying a black woman.

        In contract law, printed matter is superseded by typed matter and that is superseded by hand written matter. Writing on a license can alter the agreement. If someone tries to stop you, use your state public disclosure laws to request the law which prohibits that (none exists, so it would be an agent abusing authority by usurping legislative powers.)

        Based on the foregoing you can note you do not waive a right conditional of accepting a license. An attorney tried to argue the mere fact I took a license subjected me, but I pointed out to him I altered the agreement, then handed it back to DOL and they ratified the agreement by laminating it. He admitted he had never thought of that and actually became helpful after the fact.

        Delving into all this can be interesting and even useful. Many like to pretend certain levels and locals of government recognize only marriages licensed by the state. If so, the aofrementioned definition can be brought into play, along with that the federal government recognizes common law marriages. If it does, the local government may find itself behind the rock, next to that hard spot, trying to deny other than a state sanctioned marriage.

        The Constitution is a protection of the liberty right to establish and exercise religion. For many, God ordained marriage. As such, government cannot make it illegal, even if it can regulate it (e.g., make marrying mom illegal)).

        Jump then to the drivers license. As I’ve harped on, over and again, we cannot be compelled to waive a single right as a condition of exercising another. Lots of case law on that. However, most licenses have [vague] implied consent attached. From that, it is presumed you waive your right to be compelled to given evidence against yourself. Accordingly, it is up to us to notice the DOL we do not waive a right.

        I even went so far as to demand: 1) the documents that would prohibit the following (again, it’s often what they cannot give that is critical, and may be certified, as a government record, for use in court (if they don’t have the prohibition, the request for records is a public record and certifiable for evidentuary purposes too); 2) to take the tests, so I could determine my competency to “drive”; and, 3) a copy of the results, since I could not accept a license because they could not guarantee their agents in the field would not presume I had waived my rights having it. They tried to bring in the AG, but he declined DOL’s request.

        Remember, it may all be summed up this way: We The People may do any act not proscribed, in clear contrast with our representative government, which may only do those things prescribed.

        Too tired, probably am rambling

      • dejure

        January 25, 2014 at 1:45 PM

        On contracts –

        In contracts, printed matter is superseded by typed and typed is superseded by hand written. Next, consider the fact insurance companies will send a letter stating they think your car was only worth half what it was insured for and accompany the letter with a check. If you cash the check, you’ve acted on the offer and agreed to the terms.

        Whether or not the license is a contract aside, using these concepts can change how you are treated traveling with state ID.

        Washington laws make clear having ID can keep you out of an arrest, when stopped driving without a license, except when suspended (which is only good for a year, regardless what is said).

        You can send DOL records requests to determine why they print your name in all caps (if nothing else, you get comical answers). You can also seek public records they believe allows them, the programers who set the program for their printers up, the program licensing company or others have authority to alter your names (truncation, abbreviation, capitalization….)

        You can send DOL notice they spelled your name wrong, that you do not live in a federal region, that you do not waive a protected right and so forth (back to the insurance company method). If they write back and say they cannot “accommodate” you or notice those relying on their information you have not waived your right, you have the proof you can use in court you could not exercise a right without waiving another, but which the law says you cannot be compelled to do.

        One of the best places I think those starting out in law can begin is, pick up a Basic Business Law book at a Goodwill, yard sale or other source where you can get it for fifty cents to a couple bucks.

        If one obtains a Driver’s license (contract with the state), you are voluntarily replacing/rescinding your RIGHT to Travel for the state’s PRIVILEGE to Drive/Transport (commercial terms) by contract.

  18. citizenquasar

    January 21, 2014 at 9:17 PM

    This one beckons for me to comment.

    A couple of years ago, I was kicked out of a local university. This was because, after over a month of hassle trying to get an online class to work and going through every avenue available including going up to one department head, two vice presidents, and the president of said university, I finally “fell off the wagon,” got drunk and called them up and cussed them out.

    I was sent a Notice of Hearing which included lies about me going all over campus and making threats in my physical person as well as making threats on the phone, none of which i did. Granted, I did use some profanity on the telephone but none of this involved any threats of any kind.

    I responded in writing via certified mail, three separately addressed envelopes to the appropriate college personnel, in which I questioned the allegations of me making threats and I requested clarification of these and other false charges against me. As the college did NOT respond to any of these, I did NOT attend my hearing.

    To make a long story short, I later obtained an audio recording of my hearing. When it came time for them to read my letter responding to my Notification of Hearing, there was four minutes and fifty-seven seconds of silence (presumably five minutes) as they “read” my written response to themselves.

    For various reasons, I chose NOT to pursue this in court, one of these reasons being that the president of that university took that position directly from working in the governor’s office and by his recommendation.

    As I see it, since this is all still on my record, I can act against them at any time.

    • dejure

      January 22, 2014 at 1:16 AM

      Rule number one, in my experience, is paper response. However, mere letters mean nothing. An affidavit or declaration can often turn a case around. The reason is simple, it puts your head on a chopping block, so to speak. For example, all criminal complaints MUST be accompanied by a declaration or affidavit so the person making the complaint can be held to task for false complaints. Take the laws referenced in RCW 9A.72.080 (for WA), which usually is usually mentioned in criminal complaints. It says: “Any statement not known to be true is false.”

      I have seen more than one contempt case die based on nothing more than an affidavit. In The State of Washington, the constitution prohibits debtor’s prison, except in the case of absconding debtors. Courts get around this by finding individuals in contempt for not complying with a court order [to pay money]. However, such contempt actions must be purgable. As such, an individual can file a declaration stating their inability to pay the money demanded, which the prosecution must over come, and, unless rebutted, the contempt dies. You have the right to stand on the affidavit/declaration, and your right to not incriminate yourself, and the contempt cannot be had.

      Keep in mind, while judges claim to have judicial immunity, that does not apply where they lack jurisidiciton.

      • J.M.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:54 AM

        @ >Keep in mind, while judges claim to have judicial immunity, that does not apply where they lack jurisidiciton.
        Once again,what you say sounds good IF we were communicating “overall” with powers that had integrity. I force myself to think a few individually do. Every time I lost, I blamed myself by thinking I am still missing, not understanding something. So back to the drawing board I go over & over & over. & with the belief that if I can just get it right I’ll be successful & I thought of how much I could be of help to others so they will not be literally beaten to a pulp. But, then when I discovered these people are agents of Satan. How can Satan cast out Satan? Please post a beginning document, e.g a complaint, & the ending document,dismissed,etc.Other than failure to appear on the part of the “complaining witness” as he/she is called. OR tell me of a website you know of that I can dig deeper in to your statement >”trust me” this and what I talked of elsewhere will cause a storm. Thank you very much.

      • dejure

        January 22, 2014 at 3:28 AM

        After twenty years in law, I was tired of the corruption of which you speak. I was tired of carrying client files and one day burned several boxes of them. I watched my own stress go away in their smoke. As such, the best I could do is dig around and give you some names and courts, where you could pull records.

        Government hates loosing face. So when it does lose, it likes it to be due to a procedural error, usually blamed on some clerical mistake. There are other times, though, that are fun. Look up Scott Wood vs Thurston County, Washington. The county played every dirty game in the book to obstruct his land development. In then end, they kept breaking the rules, they just started breaking them in his favor. They gave him permits for his five seven acre lots, but only charged him for one. They gave him two automatic 180 day extensions and allowed him to alter his site plans, “if it was enough to get us off their backs (the hunter became the hunted via the Public Disclosure Act.

        A painter I helped was evicted from his property based on his illegal septic. When we were done, they sent him a letter telling him to move back on his property and leave them alone (Lewis County, Wash).

        In Thurston County, they targeted me, so I targeted them. For example, I found none of the GAL’s being paid by the court had licenses. A public defender was using court letterheads and mailing services for her contract work. CASA was violation disclosure laws and on and on. Attorneys started running out and getting licenses, defenders quit stealing from the people………

        You can fight city hall. For me, that meant being a good BS’r, on paper. Said another way, when you write a motion or pleading, make it look like an attorney did it. Proof read it. Cite law, etc.

      • dejure

        January 22, 2014 at 1:02 PM

        You are right. We don’t always win when we should, because of corruption, smoke and mirrors. However, we win a lot too.

        Whenever possible, keep it in the administrative realm. Man’s law states due process begins at the administrative level.

        Looking back at my own losses and later wins, I note a huge difference. Initially, you could pull an agency file on me and would find the agency’s side laden with documents. Law presumes agents saints, so everything in the file, on the agency’s side, had to be rebutted. When I started loading my side with public records requests, their responses (especially those where they could not provide documents supporting their actions), declarations that cited to their own procedures and failure to apply them, or lack of responsive public records and so forth, things started changing.

        My last go around was some years back. I had custody of my daughter, up until just before she turned eighteen, when she and her mother wanted her to live with her mother (where she was free to stay out, smoke, have her boyfriend over, etc). While she played the runaway game, they tried for support, even going so far as to disclose all my personal information to businesses “they thought I was contracting with” (I worked for myself).

        Support Enforcement put their most veteran attorney on the case and it became a back and forth poking match. Finally, I demanded an administrative hearing. That became another banter fest too, until I stood and informed him I was terminating the hearing and got up to leave. He stopped me at the door, pulled open a drawer and withdrew an order in my favor. He just had to play it to the end, but didn’t want to take it the court level.

        Remember, forcing you into a court for resolution can be a frivolous action (CR 11 of the Court Rules). Not on your part for bringing it, but for the agency’s part for bad faith.

      • Adask

        January 22, 2014 at 3:42 AM

        I’m inclined to view most trials as administrative procedures rather than true judicial processes. Can a judge who sits in an administrative capacity still claim judicial immunity?

      • dejure

        January 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM

        [As usual, I use laws and things from WA]

        You are right that most supposed trials are shams. For example, from reading our constitution, we have the right to have are matters decided in open court. Only a judge can convene court.

        Step over to so called family law court and you find court commissioners handling much of the business of the facilities. Clearly, these are not court matters, since commissioners cannot convene court. At best, theirs are the works of judges at chambers.

        If we don’t like the warped works of the comm, they give you a chance though. If you act within ten days of the “order by the commissioner” (the time does not start running until the order is filed). Then a judge hears it, a a Motion for Review (RCW 2.24.050).

        I don’t always know what I’m doing, or how I won, even now, thirty years later. But I believe much of the information given here was instrumental.

        I had been dealing with the most prejudiced court comm, Peter Young, I ever met (may he rest fitfully). You can’t prejudice a comm, since they aren’t judges. Instead, you have to seek a Writ of Prohibition.

        I didn’t seek a writ, but the comm went away anyway. I formed a document (this was yet in the day of the Brother type writer, so I don’t have it on my drive) and filed it. Afterward, they started moving me in front of a judge. That would work for a while, until he got fed up with my patriot crap and put me back in front of the comm, again. However, when I would show in front of him, they’d stop everything and move me back over to the judge.

        All the document did was cite the constitutional protection of the right to have our matters heard in open court, inform them every order given would be submitted for review (a “review of a court commissioner’s decision,” as set out in RCW 2.24.050, is “an appeal to the Superior Court”), and a few other things.

        I also sought the appointment of the comm:

        “RCW 2.24.010 Appointment of court commissioners—Qualifications—Term of office.
        There may be appointed in each county or judicial district, by the judges of the superior court having jurisdiction therein, one or more court commissioners for said county or judicial district. Each such commissioner shall be a citizen of the United States and an elector of the county or judicial district in which he may be appointed, and shall hold his office during the pleasure of the judges appointing him. [1979 ex.s. c 54 § 1; 1967 ex.s. c 87 § 1; 1961 c 42 § 1; 1909 c 124 § 1; RRS § 83. Prior: 1895 c 83 § 1.]”

        Of course, the comm had not be reappointed with the election and re-election of each judge, so all related decisions were in question.

        Since every public official must take an oath (actually, two, one for state and one for federal), I sought that. Those, of course, were, for the most part, missing too.

        On court commissioner powers: “EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS.” This is a well established rule of constitutional construction, which is, the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other. State ex rel. Banker v. Clausen, 142 Wash. 450, 253 Pac. 805 (1927). YELLE v. BISHOP, 55 Wn. (2d) 286, 295, 306 (Dec. 17, 1959).

      • Yartap

        January 22, 2014 at 11:39 AM


        That’s a great question. Why is it that many judges are required to have bonds? I have experienced that just the mere mention that you know they have a bond makes them sure straighten up.


      • dejure

        January 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM

        And regarding judges bonds, you can “sue the bond” up to seven years after the act in question.

        The WA Bar Association will insure attorneys acts, and sometimes pays out on claims, but will go after the attorney to recoup the loss, just as the bond companies go after the bonded county, city or other deep pockets.

        In WA, Inc. we have the Public Disclosure Commission. They actually try hard at being helpful and provide many insightful public records, such as records on elected officials campaign finances, or judges’ [and immediate family’s] business dealings, after they are elected.

      • J.M.

        January 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM

        Did you see what Alfred Adask said about you? If not, > “dejure makes almost astonishing contributions. I’m hoping to talk to him one of these days.”

        I tried to send you an E-mail, using the link you provided and something came up for me to fill in information,etc., that I did not understand. Never had anything like that to take place. I’ll try again a different way. Do not respond to this message. You have a full plate +++.

    • J.M.

      January 22, 2014 at 9:21 PM

      I wish I could be of help but I cannot. Hopefully someone on this blog can. But this is to let you know I care.

  19. J.M.

    January 22, 2014 at 5:07 AM

    @ Can a judge who sits in an administrative capacity still claim judicial immunity?

    Immunity fosters neglect & breeds irresponsibility while liability promotes caution and care. This caution and care is owed to the people. < words I memorized from another case. There are so many immunities now, IT'S INSANE !!! even quasi judicial immunity. BUT ANY kind of immunity is answered by the words I memorized. The Clinton Administration, Bush Administration Obama Administration, Everything is administrative. I believe the "Good Lord" was present in your MOOA case, through one angel of his many legions of angels.

    What do i need to have to be able to listen to your new radio program? I don't know anything about computers. I know how to turn it on & off & that's about the extent of it.

    • dejure

      January 22, 2014 at 12:16 PM

      Actually, the administrative realm is the most legally dangerous to a judge. Acts in that capacity are, of course, administrative and not judicial. When a judge files his ruling, he steps out of his judicial capacity.

      Everything a judge does outside of a convened court is “in chambers,” even at the downtown bar. But, again, if he lacks jurisdiction, he cannot claim immunity.

      • J.M.

        January 22, 2014 at 4:19 PM


        Thank you for your information. If I am not asking too much, Please define for me, Judge, Magistrate, Court & Tribunal. I have been in Magistrate Courts, & a sign says, “Judge” Blackheart, in front of where he/she is sitting. I have been in Municipal Courts, & the sign in front of where he/she is sitting says, “Judge” Hardheart. I have never been in any court where the sign in front of him/her says, Magistrate, ALL say, Judge so & so. It’s Judge, Magistrate, Court & Tribunal.I want to know more about & why Municipal & Magistrate courts have nameplates, etc., that say JUDGE. Thank you thank you thank you.

      • J.M.

        January 22, 2014 at 8:55 PM

        Maybe you are the one I owe an apology too. For some unknown reason I cannot find the man who said: Playing in the legal system is fun. My experience(s) have been MAYHEM. Small town justice. It was better in larger towns. But the jails are all the same. After reading more of your messages,dejure, it seems that you are or have been a lawyer. I don’t mean to nitpick but I believe there is a difference in a lawyer & an attorney. Some of the best lawyers our Country ever had NEVER went to law School. I KNOW THIS. So, if you are the one I sent my message to saying in essence you ain’t gonna B.S. me, I am sorry I said this. I know of J.P’s working in co-hoots with State police that split the fines between themselves. They hold court in their own homes out on the back porch. Troublefield Texas for 1 example of 4 other places, in other States. I do know this. Once upon a time there used to be 3 elements that comprised jurisdiction. Today there are only 2. & brother the things they can get away with by eliminating that 3rd element. Anyway, if you are not the one I owe an apology to, just keep this one for the future, when I will. I have believed apparently that everyone that makes a stand, fights back, etc., gets slaughtered & if someone says he is having fun playing in the legal system I conclude 1 of 2 things, He a B.S. er OR a corrupt agent of gov-co. We are the sum total of our experiences. You strike me as being honest. & I can sure learn a lot from you.

      • Dejure

        January 22, 2014 at 9:34 PM

        You owe me no apology J.M. , but, Ha! I’ll save that apology for when I have to give it back.

        I’ll try to get back to you with something solid on your question, but I may be slow. I’m a little more than a bit over the hill and today was a busy and tiring day.

        Yes, I was a lawyer. I started into law a few decades ago, when I figured out justice was purchased thing, and I could not afford to purchase it. My first case was my attorney, who charged me 25k for his “expertise.” When we were done with each other, he dropped the bill and I never heard from him again. I’d feel guilty, but, like most attorneys, he was a learned idiot. My ramblings on the matter of purging contempts would make my case. I’d challenge anybody to find a single attorney who ever used it. Instead, they resorted to smoke and mirrors, such as motions to reduce payments and such.

        Hmm. As I typed, I remembered an individual I helped several times. I sent him to court with a Notice of Appeal. I told him they’d walk all over him, but that should monkey wrench their game that day (there is so much more to this comedy, but my fingers tire after a while). Of course, they found against him, ordered him to pay a gazillion dollars a month in support, then sent him to the jury box to await the baliff, who would, kindly, cart him off to jail.

        His new attorney (my papers got the other egomaniac to ask to be allowed to withdraw) asked what he was doing. He told him he was signing the Notice of Appeal. Needless to say, jail time cannot be given back. Other means has to be found to compensate someone tossed in jail and later found to not have deserved it.

        His new attorney (as of minutes earlier) volunteered to take the notice back to the judge, where he and his ex parte partner, the prosecutor, were visiting. When the attorney came back, support had been dropped to fifty and he was told to go home. Of course, he signed papers without noting the threat and duress……but those were other, later battles.

      • J.M.

        January 23, 2014 at 1:33 PM

        DEAR dejure,
        Freely I have received from you and I want to freely give too. Will you provide a physical address so I may do this. It’s the only way I am aware of I can do this. Hopefully, you have access to a P.O. Box address. Please do not respond by saying it’s not necessary. I believe in the ol time meaning of the golden rule. I also believe that what is good for the goose is good for the goose-E. One thing I become exasperated with is, the messages get out of chronological order because some comments have a “Reply” button (<?) & some don't. I wish every comment had this reply button. It would make it so much easier to understand what comment is applicable to another comment. Otherwise, it gets & is confusing. I went to another message from you that has a reply button to send you this comment from me.

  20. Adask

    January 22, 2014 at 5:35 AM

    First, there is not the least bit of doubt in my mind that the Good LORD’s hand was in that case. That’s not a conclusion I came to after the fact. I knew it when the Good LORD let me see and understand the meaning of the “man or other animals” language in the relevant laws. My co-defendant brought a small bottle of virgin olive oil that had been prayed over by the people in his Bible study class; he used that oil to anoint all four corners of the court house every time we came for a hearing. On one occasion he was able to secretly anoint the judge’s chair. The Assistant Attorney General handling the case at one point complained that he’d been there for 22 years and he had never before had one of his motion hearings denied or stopped. In our case, he’d had eight such hearings that were “somehow” stopped and thereby prevented him from proceeding. We just laughed. We knew it was NOT us. We weren’t smart enough to stop those hearings. But “something” always happened. One day when we were scheduled to have a hearing three different judges had emergency medial or dental procedures and they had to send us home. The Assistant Attorney General couldn’t understand it. But we did. We knew that the Good LORD was buying us time; giving us enough time to educate ourselves and slowly get up to speed where we could give the Asst AG and the Judges a real run for their money. If they could’ve proceeded against us quickly at the beginning, they would’ve crushed us like a tin can. But, because our Father YHWH ha Elohiym bought us enough time to learn, we were able to stop the Attorney General.

    Plus, the “man or other animals” laws went on the books with the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. I read those laws in A.D. 2006 and realized what they meant. So far as I know, I am the first layman to read those laws and understand their spiritual implications in 100 years. One century. Lawyers didn’t even understand that law. Other than the “elite,” I may have been the first man in one century to understand the meaning of those laws. That’s not me. That’s the Good LORD letting me “see”.

    So, you are right. The hand of the Good LORD was in that case all along.

    As for hearing the radio program live, you must simply go to at the proper time and you can hear the program from that website.

    Barring the unforseen, I’ll do another program next Tuesday.

    I’ll post a copy of last night’s program on my blog in the next day or so.

  21. J.M.

    January 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM

    I honestly believe I laughed after reading every sentence in the first paragraph. What away to wake up !!! It was/is a praise you heavenly Father laugh. He does love his children. I wish Pastor Eric would consider giving a sermon sometime in the future on the scripture, > Beloved, I wish above all things that you prosper and be healthy. There are other sermons within that sentence too. Beloved, is another. Who comprises the Beloved. Who are considered the ones who are beloved? But you know what? If I said, I wish Pastor Eric would give a sermon on the words of Jesus saying, If you love me keep my commandments, that would not have set to well with some people. On the other hand, they might say, yeah, I wish he would too & show how Jesus meant by that statement it was only necessary to keep his commandments until he was nailed to the cross. & then make sure it’s understood that keeping his commandments became abolished & nailed to the cross. It’s really this simple, If “God” says something is important, & remember this, & do this etc.You better believe Satan is going to influence people to believe it is no longer important, it no longer needs to be remembered, & you don’t have to do that anymore. There is only one thing I am aware of that has been fulfilled & is no longer required & that is, the animal sacrifices. In fact, if that was still done it would be another slap in the face of the Messiah, because he WAS the Supreme sacrifice. So, the animal sacrifices are no longer required. Anyway, I better stop preaching but if I’m not being out of line, could you tell Pastor Eric, that one of your readers suggested the sermon as I mentioned, above?

    Oh, I did click on the links you provided on that New Radio thread, I forget now what happened, what came up, but It did not take me to the program. By the way, Your radio program is not a show, it’s an educational program. We have enough shows. Now I will attempt to post this & if it goes through then I will see all my errors.

    • Yartap

      January 22, 2014 at 11:59 AM

      Greetings, Jim,

      And Amen! to your words.

      Jim, I had trouble in figuring out how to get Al’s “educational program” to run. Once you go to the site, you will see all these radio looking things. Each one has different internet speeds assigned to each. The trick is to find the internet speed that fits your computer. You may have to click on many. Every time I clicked on the wrong speed for my computer, some kind of DVD thing came up and I had to re-start my computer and go back to the site and click on another radio speed. Once you click on the right speed for your computer, your Media Player will come on (if you have a Media Player on your computer), then the program will come on the air. I hope this has helped. It was confusing to me too.

      Blessings, Yartap.

      • J.M.

        January 22, 2014 at 2:57 PM

        @January 22, 2014 at 11:59 AM
        Thank you,dear Yartap, thank you. Maybe all of this message will post. There have been times I have posted messages to you & some others or thought the message was being posted because i SAW the words > posting comment. AND something DOES go through, but only part of the message. Part1 goes through, partially, with part 2 not going through whatsoever, so part part 1 partially shows up with part 3 next & part of part 4. That is the only way I know how to explain it. In addition part of the message is slanted e.g.>/< or something like that. So I try again & it's about the same thing in reverse, so part of that post is different than the first incomplete message.
        I don't know how to explain confusion. I only know it makes it confusing for whoever may read the partially posted out of order,incomplete message. Anyway, what can we do. Sometimes I thought Satan is on the Job. Then I thought, no, the "Good Lord" & when I say "Good Lord" I mean the Creator & Sustainer of the UNIVERSE doesn't want this to be known at this time. I don't know. It's bad enough when I make a superduper error & forget to put a 3 letter word where it should be,e.g. "not" for it is a BIG difference in saying NOT abolished V. abolished. My comment showed up as saying everything good, holy, & right has been abolished. I KNOW when I read it back before I posted it I SAW the word NOT. But it didn't post with the "not" in the message. KNOTTY ain't it?
        Then again, I probably THOUGHT I saw something that was not really there. Anyway, WHEN The Messiah returns in POWER & GLORY & his "spiritual feet" touch that Mountain of Olives it's going to split apart wide open like all hell has broke loose. Where is that GREAT VALLEY existing today from the split? Being that some say, oh that must have already happened. They have no choice but to say that because they know IF it has not "already happened" their whole entire "theory" falls flat on its face.How can anyone go up to WORSHIP the KING whose feet has split the mountain apart IF he is not HERE? What is he coming back that close for if he's just coming back to take some more people back to where he just came from? He doesn't have to come here to do that. Well I see I'm getting upset but I am weary of all these brilliant minds & calloused hearted people trying to B.S. me. I will NEVER be so stiffnecked to refuse to admit I am wrong. I do it everyday. By the way, Yartap, remember now, if you decide to fry a rat for supper, do it,& do not let anyone judge you for doing so. See, Jesus died on the cross for you to be able to do that AND if anyone wants to drink their own urine, DO SO so you now can do that too and don't let anyone judge you for doing so. My neighbor next door has a good looking wife mmmmm Yes it's true Now we can do as we damn well please. Colossians, 2 I believe it is, plainly says this, RIGHT? I believe you will say I'm wrong & you know what? YOU ARE RIGHT AGAIN. The best to you & yours.

      • J.M.

        January 22, 2014 at 10:15 PM

        Yartap, my friend,
        Has your sharing with the scholar(s) stopped? Now don’t forget to go to, I think it’s the Phil Robertson thread (< is that the right word to use, thread ?) anyway, it's the last message from me to you & let's share. There is something else I want to share with you too. Will get into that later.

      • J.M.

        January 22, 2014 at 11:36 PM

        It’s my last message to you on the WJJD thread & it is the last message on that thread. Just scroll all the way down.

      • dejure

        January 23, 2014 at 11:11 AM

        Here is a method I used for a friend’s ticket. The judge and prosecutor went in the back room and, when they came out, dismissed her case. As I pointed out to her, it would be a simple task to make like difficult for the prosecutor and judge for their pattern of ex parte decisions, but why mess with a win.






        WA123456J (MUN)

        Ref.: 02312 [citation #];


        I. MOTION

        COMES NOW the defendant, appearing specially and not generally, and moves this Court for an Order dismissing the Town of Rainier’s Complaint.

        This motion is based on the files and records of this case and upon the Respondent’s subjoined declaration below.

        Respectfully submitted this _______ day of July, 2001.

        XXXXX XXXXXX, defendant
        [12345 123 Ave SE]
        Post Office Box _____
        _______________, Washington
        (360) ____-_________

        I, XXXXX XXXXXX, declare:

        2.0 I am XXXXX XXXXXX, the Defendant in the above styled cause.

        2.1 I am over the age of eighteen years and I am otherwise competent to testify as to matters set out herein.

        2.2 The information and statements provided herein are based on my own knowledge and experience.

        3.0 For purposes relative hereto I am appearing specially (RCW 4.28.210), and not generally, to challenge jurisdiction of this Court based on the facts set out herein:

        A justice court does not acquire jurisdiction of a case by defendants appearing specially and objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, which objection was overruled.
        A mere corporal presence of the defendant or his agent at the place of trial is no appearance. Some act must be performed, such as answer, demur, or give plaintiff written notice.
        Mid-City Materials Inc. v. Heater Beaters Custom Fireplaces, 36 Wash. App. 480, 674 P.2d 1271 (Wa.App. 01/16/1984) citing McCoy v. Bell, 1 Wash. 504; 20 Pac. 595 (1889):

        3.1 Any information or statement given herein that might or would be construed as granting or stipulating to jurisdiction should be disregarded by this Court, as mistake.

        3.2 This special appearance is made without representation, of any kind whatsoever, and I request this Court take notice of the following laws and afford me, at minimum, the level of rights determined appropriate for pro se’s, to wit:

        Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings that are drafted by lawyers. Evans v. City of Atlanta, 189 Ga. App. 566, 567 (377 S.E.2d 31) (1988); see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652) (1972), Dillingham v. Doctors Clinic, 236 Ga. 302 (223 S.E.2d 625) (1976);

        Moreover, pro se pleadings are not held to the same standard as those of legal counsel, but are sufficient if they give at least fair notice of the claim for relief. Beecham v. Commonwealth, Ky., 657 S.W.2d 234, 236 (1983);

        Moreover, “liberal construction should be given to pro se pleadings. “Tillman v. State, 287 So. 2d 693, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Thomas v. State, 164 So. 2d 857, 857 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964);

        Pro se pleadings should be liberally construed. White v. Cole, 880 S.W.2d 292, 294; and,

        Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings that are drafted by lawyers. Thompson v. Long, 201 Ga. App. 480, 481 (1) (411 S.E.2d 322).

        4.0 On June 17, A.D. 2001, at approximately 1:00 P.M. and while attending private matters, I was stopped/arrested by a female who, to the best of my knowledge, was a Town of Rainier police officer. Inasmuch as she otherwise failed to identify herself, I will, for purposes herein, refer to her as “7P2.”

        4.1 In the course of her stop/arrest, 7P2 demanded information from me, but did so without informing me the information could be used against me in a civil or criminal proceeding.

        4.2 As a condition of my release, 7P2 presented to me and demanded my signature on a form, the face of which indicated it to be a UNIFORM COURT DOCKET [UCD].

        4.4 Whereas 7P2 obtained my signature on the UCD through threat of incarceration, I, therefore, offer the following objections:

        (1) I object to any presumption or conclusion that my signature was voluntarily placed on the UCD;

        (2) I object to any presumption or conclusion I voluntarily waived any right out of my having been compelled to sign the UCD;

        (3) I object to any presumption I, in any way, ratified the use of the UCD, or any term thereof;

        (4) I object to the substance of the UCD and to the form of the UCD, for purposes of compliance with the requirements established by the Administrator of the Courts [AOC] for traffic infractions; and,

        (5) I object to this Court acquiring jurisdiction out of my having been compelled to sign the UCD.

        4.5 The section of the UCD whereat 7P2 indicated I was required to sign contained the language, I PROMISE TO RESPOND AS DIRECTED ON THIS NOTICE, beneath which was the following wording, or information:


        ÿ ________________ MUNICIPAL COURT
        (360) 446-2744
        P.O. BOX 123
        1234 Somewhere ________________, WA

        (360) 786-5450

        4.6 Except as noted in paragraph “4.5,” above and paragraph “4.7,” below, no other directions for response were provided me.

        4.7 P72 failed to mark either of the boxes shown in the excerpt of UCD in paragraph “4.5,” above. As such, 7P2 failed to make clear where I was to send my response, if any; therefore, I object to any expectation that I file a response and do so based on 7P2’s failure to complete the form and her failure to reasonably inform me of the venue wherein this matter was to be adjudicated.

        5.0 The back side of the UCD offered only three choices for responding. Inasmuch as I have not and do not intend to stipulate to the officer’s claims, the first two check-off box sections are, clearly, inapplicable. The third choice contains the following language:

        Here are the three ways you can respond.
        Pick only one by putting an “X” in the box.
        Sign your name at the bottom.

        ÿI want to contest (challenge) this infraction. I did not commit the infraction. Please send me a court date, and I promise to appear on that date. The state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that I committed the infraction. I know I can require (subpoena) witnesses, including the officer who wrote the ticket, to attend the hearing. The court will tell me how to request a witness appearance. I understand this will go on my driving record if I lose and “traffic” is checked on the front.

        5.1 The back side of the UCD gave me no option other than those indicated above, and the language in the last option required me to appear. Inasmuch as a general appearance waives jurisdictional challenges and I have determined to not volunteer to waive my right to appear specially and challenge jurisdiction, I object to limited options offered in the UCD.

        6.0 As indicated in paragraph “5.0,” above, the UCD states I may subpoena witnesses. However, whereas 7P2 did not reasonably identify herself, did not provide a physical location whereat she could be found for personal service, and did not provide a mailing address or phone number, I object to the sufficiency of 7P2’s.

        7.0 The UCD, except for reference to a right to subpoena witnesses, does not otherwise inform of any right to initiate discovery; therefore, I object to the adequacy of this form by its apparent limitation of discovery right.

        7.1 The appellate courts have determined an unrepresented litigant should be advised of his right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive material and alerted to the fact that his failure to so respond might result in the entry of summary judgment against him. The appropriate rule was set forth in Hudson v. Hardy, 134 U.S. App. D.C. 44, 412 F.2d 1091, 1094 (1968).

        8.0 In the UCD, 7P2 alleged as follows: VEHICLE SPEED IN A 50 MPH 30 MPH ZONE, but also indicated she changed speed 57 MPH.

        8.1 I submit 7P2, by admitting she changed the allegation, may have invalidated the veracity of her complaint and may have violated the laws set out in RCW 9.72.080, the perjury clause.

        9.0 Except for the UCD, I have not been served any other documents and I object to sufficiency of P72’s UCD for purposes filling the requirement a case be started with a summons and complaint or a “Notice of Infraction.”

        10.0 CR 10(a) requires that “[e]very pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, the file number if known to the person signing it, and an identification as to the nature of the pleading or other paper.” (emphasis added).

        10.1 The UCD does not clearly show a title of the action. Nor does the nature of the action clearly appear on its face. In Valley View Industrial Park v. City of Redmond, No. 50990-5, 1987.WA.41940, *64, 65 (Wash. Feb. 12, 1987) (VersusLaw), in which a state agency argued that certain letters denying benefits were final orders in a workers’ compensation dispute, the court stated:


        As such, I object to the UCD’s sufficiency, as a pleading for purposes of establishing jurisdiction with this Court.

        10.2 I am uncertain of the nature and cause of this action: The infraction makes reference to a Plaintiff and to a Defendant, thereby indicating this matter to be criminal in nature. As such, I object to the sufficiency of 7p2’s UCD, as a pleading for purposes of establishing jurisdiction with this Court.

        10.3 In her UDC, 7P2 cited a violation of “RCW 46.61.400.16U”; however, no such code appears to exist; therefore, I object to the UCD’s sufficiency, for purposes of establishing jurisdiction with this Court.

        11.0 In her UCD, 7P2 set the penalty at $138.00; however, IRLJ 6.2(d)(1) sets the monetary damages for the alleged violation, if speed limit is 40 m.p.h. or less, and the speed over the limit is determined to have been 16-20 m.p.h. over limit, at $70. If 7P2 intended to indicate the speed she alleged I was actually moving at was 57 MPH, the established penalty would have been no more than $120.

        11.1 Though it is widely known both inferior and superior courts may establish local rules, it is fact that a local rule which conflicts with a state rule must be amended or removed, or the court having adopted the offending rule is in contempt of the Supreme Court. [Reference, for example, ARLJ 7 (1998)].

        11.2 The following show in the public record:

        (1) Town of Rainier has a custom and policy of attempting to collect “traffic” penalties under the circumstances set out herein;

        (2) Penalties Town of Rainier attempts to collect often exceed the amounts allowed by the Supreme Court;

        (3) Town of Rainier, in attempt to collect excessive penalties, often uses threats of force and imprisonment;

        (4) Town of Rainier regularly uses the U.S. Mails and phone wires to make and enforce its demands for excessive penalties;

        (5) Town of Rainier has made demands for money not owed hundreds of times in a ten year period.

        11.3 Based on the foregoing, Town of Rainier, and its agents, may have violated both state and federal racketeering laws (Ref. chapter 9A.82 RCW and 18 USC sec 1961 through 1963 [RICO Act]).

        11.4 By using its authority to demand money not owed and using the U.S. Mails to do so, Town of Rainier, and its agents, may have violated state and federal extortion laws. (Ref. 18 USC § 876).

        11.5 From the foregoing, it would appear either Town of Rainier’s Municipal Court is in contempt of the Supreme Court, for failing to remove or amend conflicting local court rules regarding penalty amounts (ref. IRLJ 6.2), or 7P2 was acting well beyond her scope of authority and in an arbitrary and capricious manner, when she made her money demands.

        11.6 Based on the foregoing facts, this Court should dismiss Town of Rainier’s claim.

        12.0 Pursuant to IRLJ 2.1, complaints of traffic infractions must be filed on a form entitled Notice of Traffic Infraction, as prescribed by the Administrator for the Courts. 7P2’s UCD does not reflect compliance with this rule.

        12.1 If 7P2’s UCD was purposed to be treated as a Notice of Infraction, I would be unreasonably forced to guess at whether it is or is not the same as the mandatory Notice of Infraction referenced in IRLJ 2.1.

        12.2 Based on these facts, I object to the UCD’s sufficiency, for purposes of establishing jurisdiction with this Court.

        13.0 CR 10 (a)(1) requires that, “[i]n the complaint the title of the action shall include the names of all parties. . . .” The UCD does not clearly show the names of all the parties. For this reason I also I object to its sufficiency, as a pleading, for purposes of establishing jurisdiction with this Court.

        13.1 For purposes of identifying herself, 7P2’s provided only her initials, which are illegible, and what appears to be an alpha-numeric identifier on the UCD. As such, I object to the sufficiency of 7P2’s UCD, as a pleading for purposes of establishing jurisdiction with this Court.

        14.0 CR 11 requires “that each pleading, motion and legal memorandum set for the name of the attorney of record signing the document as well as the attorney’s address and Washington State Bar Association membership number. . . . A document submitted by a party appearing pro se must be signed and dated by the party and state the party’s address.”

        14.1 The person known as 7P2 failed to show an address whereat she or her principal could be served. As such, I object to the sufficiency of 7P2’s UCD, as a pleading for purposes of establishing jurisdiction with this Court.

        15.1 7P2’s, in her UCD, does not give indication she is competent to testify as to matters related therein, nor does she anywhere indicate the information it contained was based on her own knowledge and experience. As such, I reserve, for appeal, my objection to the sufficiency of 7P2’s UCD, as it may, otherwise, be used for purposes of establishing jurisdiction with this Court.

        16.0 Even if 7P2’s UCD were, somehow, construed to be Notice of Infraction, she failed to comply with the mandatory terms of IRLJ 2.2 (d), which requires such notices to be filed within forty eight (48) hours. [See, also, CRLJ 2, CrRLJ 2.1 (d)(2), CrRLJ 4.1 (a)(1), CrRLJ 3.3(a)(c)(1)(4)(I) and case law rulings in Seattle v. Bonifacio, 127 Wn.2d 482, 900 P.2d 1105 (1995); Orting v. Ruschner, 66 Wn.(2d) 732-737 (1965); State v. Doolittle, 69 Wn.2d 744-751 (1966); and, State v. Dolman, 22 Wn. App. 917, 594 P.2d 450 (1979)), the specific context of which would demand a dismissal with prejudice (CrRLJ 1.1)]

        16.1 On July 2, A.D. 2001, I arranged for disinterested individual to go to Town of Rainier’s city hall to review the file on this matter, and to purchase certified copies its contents, along with a certified copy of the case docket, or file index. Upon making his request, he was told no documents had been filed.

        16.2 Upon discovering the absence of any filings in the matter, the individual I sent to review the file noted, in writing, the fact that no documents had been filed, then filed it with the Clerk under that case/UCD number. A copy of that item is marked “Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1,” is attached hereto and is incorporated in full herein by reference.

        16.3 In addition to the foregoing, the individual I sent to the Clerk’s Office obtained a certified copy of the docket for that case file, showing no items had been filed as of that date. A copy of the Docket is marked “Defendant’s Exhibit No. 2,” is attached hereto and is incorporated in full herein by reference.

        16.4 Whereas the date of issue of UCD was 06 17 01, and no documents had been filed, as of July 2, A.D. 2001, 7P2 and Town of Rainier had clearly failed to comply with the Forty-eight Rule (IRLJ 2.2 (d)).

        16.5 For the foregoing reasons, I object to the sufficiency of 7P2’s UCD, as a pleading or for otherwise establishing jurisdiction with this Court.

        17.0 If 7P2’s UCD could, somehow, be construed to be Notice of Infraction, to the extent that it could be considered in the realm of a criminal matter, 7P2 failed to comply with the mandatory terms of CrRLJ 2, which required the complaint to be signed by the prosecuting authority.

        17.1 State of Washington, its subdivisions and municipal corporations regularly argue that corporations must be represented by an attorney. If this matter is being pursued on the behalf of a municipal corporation (e.g., Rainier). Accordingly, 7P2 cannot prosecute this matter, unless she is admitted to practice law.

        17.2 7P2 appears to claim to be part of the executive, a Rainier police officer. If 7P2 is admitted to practice law, such that she can prosecute this case, she also then claims to be an officer of the court and part of the judiciary and has, single handedly, combined two branches of government.

        18.0 In the case of City of Seattle v. Bonifacio 127 Wn 2d 482, 902 P2d 1236 (1995), the court well established the principals for treatment of infractions and such:

        The issuance and receipt of a citation is not an insignificant intrusion on one’s liberty. It is, therefore, important that the rule requiring the filing of citations, CrRLJ 2.1(d), be observed. If consequences do not flow from an officer’s failure to file a citation within the time allotted, many persons who have been issued citations will be left in legal limbo, not knowing whether or not the citation they have received will lead to proceedings in court. Under the trial court’s decision, greater fairness and efficiency is assured because persons who have been issued citations will generally know within forty-eight hours of the issuance of a citation whether it will lead to court proceedings. We do not mean to suggest that a prosecuting attorney or city attorney cannot, by filing a complaint, amend a charge that was initially commenced by issuance of a citation. Neither are we suggesting that a citation may not be filed more than forty-eight hours after it is issued. The significant aspect of our holding is that the time for trial computation relates to the date the citation is filed or forty-eight hours after its issuance, if it is not filed.

        18.1 Also, State v Dolma (cite omitted) states, in part: “JcrR 2.01(d) provides that the “original” of a citation shall be filed with the clerk of the court. JcrR 2.01 (b)(4) provides in part that: Such citation and notice when signed by the citing officer and filed with a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed a lawful complaint for the purpose of initiating prosecuting of the offense charged therein.”

        18.2 And Orting v. Rucshner (cites omitted) states, in part: These rules clearly require that the ticket be filed as a complaint. In the absence of such a ticket or other appropriate complaint, a court has no jurisdiction to proceed, and no authority is needed to pinpoint, demonstrate or support such a basic requirement of due process. The fact that the traffic ticket was belatedly admitted as an exhibit in the case certainly did not confer jurisdiction on the court. Furthermore, jurisdiction over the subject matter was not waived by entering a plea, assuming that a plea was entered in this case. The conclusion is inescapable that without a complaint on file there was no jurisdiction for either the municipal court or the superior court to proceed in this matter. The conviction is therefore void.”

        18.3 A speedy trial in criminal cases is not only a personal right protected by the federal and state constitutions (Const, art., 1, Section 22), it is also an objective in which the public has an important interest, The United States Supreme Court has said that the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, which was made applicable to the states in Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 18 L.Ed.2d 1, 87 S.Ct. 988 (1967), attaches when an indictment or information is filed or when the defendant is arrested and held to answer, whichever occurs earlier. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 30 L.Ed. 2d 468, 92 S.Ct. 455 (1971). This concept has been embodied in the ABA Standards Relating to Speedy Trial 2.2. State v. Striker, 87 Wn.2d 870, 557 P.2d. 847 (Dec. 1976).

        19.0 7P2, at the place for her signature on the UCD, referenced a REPORT WRITTEN ON THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT and indicated it to be TRUE AND CORRECT; however, if the referenced report does exist, 7P2 failed to provide it to me or file it with this Court, as of July 2, 2001.

        19.1 Inasmuch as the report referred to on the back of the UCD contains no entries, I stipulate to the contents thereof, or more accurately, the lack of contents thereof, as accurate, therefore justifying dismissal of this matter.

        19.2 Whereas no report appears to exist and it was not incorporated into 7P2’s complaint, I object to the fact that her UCD was not supported by either an affidavit or a valid declaration.

        20.0 This honorable Court shall also take mandatory judicial notice [ER201 (d),(e) and (f) and RCW 5.24.010], of RCW 46.64.010, which states in part:

        Every traffic enforcement officer upon issuing a traffic citation to an alleged violator of any provision of the motor vehicle laws of this state or of any traffic ordinance of any city or town shall deposit the original or a copy of such traffic citation with a court having competent jurisdiction over the alleged offense. (emphasis added)

        and of RCW 46.64.010, which states:

        [I]t shall be unlawful and official misconduct for any traffic enforcement officer or other officer or public employee to dispose of a traffic citation or copies thereof or of the record of the issuance of the same in a manner other than as required herein.”

        20.1 RCW 5.24.010, regarding judicial notice of the constitution and laws, requires that [a] court shall take mandatory judicial notice pursuant to ER201 (d)(e) and (f) if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary adjudicative facts and information. Every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the constitution, common law, civil law, and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States. [1941 c 82 1; Rem. Supp. 1941 1278. ]

        21.0 In Shea v. Okl, 537 P2d 417,418, the court stated: Regardless of the instrument, however, whether constitution, statute, deed, contract, or whatever, courts not infrequently construe ” may” as “shall” or “must” to the end that justice may not be the slave of grammar.

        21.1 Also, CrRLJ 2.1 (d), (2) states [a] notice of infraction not filed within the time limits of this section may be dismissed without prejudice” but inversely the Citation must be dismissed with prejudice if the 48 hour rule is violated by the officer. (emphasis added)

        22.0 Municipal and district court judges frequently determine the term “may” as giving them discretion to dismiss. Such interpretations are flawed in that they ignore decisional case law of our state and do so outside of the scope of authority set out under CRLJ 1, which governs civil procedure in courts of limited jurisdiction and which supersede all procedural statutes and rules that otherwise conflict. Furthermore, those rules must be interpreted and supplemented in light of the common law and the decisional law of this state, which shall not be construed to affect or derogate from the constitutional rights of any defendant.

        22.1 The intent of applicable rules provide an option for judges to dismiss with without prejudice. They do not, however, exempt the Court from not dismissing and a dismissal is mandatory.

        23.0 Pursuant to IRLJ 2.6 (a) and IRLJ 2.6 (e), this Court must dismiss, with prejudice, any infraction not prosecuted within 120 days of issuance of a Notice of Infraction.

        23.1 The cases of Seattle v. Bonifacio, 127 Wn.2d 482, 900 P.2d 1105 (1995); Orting v. Ruschner, 66 Wn.(2d) 732-737 (1965); State v. Doolittle, 69 Wn.2d 744-751 (1966); and, State v. Dolman, 22 Wn. App. 917, 594 P.2d 450 (1979)) address the speedy trial rule in infraction cases. They established the time for computing speedy trial as running from the date the UCD was issued and clearly impose upon courts a duty to dismiss, with prejudice (CrRLJ 1.1), any infraction matter not timely brought to trial.

        23.2 Excluding the day of issuance of the infraction, one hundred thirty-five days have passed since the date of issuance of the UCD on October 30, 2001.

        23.3 I have not, at any time, waived my speedy trial right. As such, except for a dismissal, I object to any further proceedings in this matter and this Court should, on Defendant’s motion or of its own volition (sue sponte) dismiss this action.

        24.0 For the reasons set out above, this Court should dismiss Town of Rainier’s and 7P2’s action, with prejudice. Criterion Ins. Co. v. State, 458 So. 2d. 22 (Fla 1st DCA 1984).

        25.0 I reserve all rights and liberties, including the right to amend and supplement this challenge to jurisdiction and motion to dismiss.

        I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        Signed at ___________, on the _____ day of July, 2001. _____________________
        XXXXX XXXXXX, Defendant

  22. Peter

    January 22, 2014 at 1:37 PM

    I certainly hope you consider a shortwave station for your new program . With shortwave there are costs exceding cash available, I used to listen to American Indepedence Hour some time ago and found it to be most excellant. If financial support is necessary it would be willing to support it in a 20 dollar a month type contribution.Computer access is difficult for me.

    • J.M.

      January 22, 2014 at 3:14 PM

      @ Computer access is difficult for me.
      Please post a shipping address, even a friend’s & you will have a computer on the way. courtesy of another friend. He does not want his e-mail address known tho.

      • Yartap

        January 23, 2014 at 11:49 AM

        Greetings, Jim,

        I’m sorry I missed your question. It took me awhile to find it.

        You asked, “Ok DEAR Brother, what about this? > And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them..Where are these feet located, IF the “THEM” & THEY are the Old & New Testaments? Where are these feet? AND if they have feet, they, I would think have legs too,&, well, you get my drift. I know you do.” (Revelations 11)

        It certainly sounds like the Two Witnesses are humans. Plus, the people showed great disrespect by allowing their “dead bodies” to lay out upon the City’s (Roman by Geneva Bible) street for 3 and a half days. More evidence that the Witnesses are human.

        For my theory and belief, that the Two Witnesses are the old and new Testaments, to be true; then the scriptures must be using an “analogy” to describe the old and new Testaments as being the Two Witnesses.

        We must remember that John is describing things in the future, and that God uses parables for our seeking Him out for our approval. Plus, John tells us (future generations) that once the Two had finished their “testimony,” their were killed. Remember, the new and old Testaments were not yet created, because John’s Revelations is part of the new Testament and was not yet included with all other Books of the new Testament. So, how could it be present for its death in a future time.

        Later we read in Revelations 13 about the “beast” giving out the “mark of the beast,” which I believe to be the monetary system that we live under today. This is also another analogy. You and I know the danger of usury, which is forbidden by commandment, so how is it that most of the churches have accepted it? You see, disregard (or death) of the scriptures grow daily and continue. Even the church destroys the Law.

        I hope this has helped.

        Blessings, Yartap.

  23. dejure

    January 23, 2014 at 11:58 AM

    Regarding “the right of inquiry,” there is a mountain of case law that establishes “an unrepresented litigant’s pleadings, motions and things are to be liberally construed.” As such, the lower court would be compelled to treat your inquiry as a Request for Production of Documents, a Request for Admissions and Denials or as Interrogatories.

    • J.M.

      January 23, 2014 at 2:08 PM

      @ >……..compelled…….
      Compelled ??? In essence, my experiences have been, they are not compelled to do anything except whatever turns their crank. They do what ever they want to. A single bottom rung judge “overrules” every higher & up to & including the Final court’s Judgment by simply saying, Well, I disagree,30 days, etc.. Then the next “trial de novo” judge agrees with that lower court. Next step up,the 3 appeals court judges agree that the “trial de novo Judge” acted without authority & his order is invalid but because of the trial de novo judge’s CONTEMPT POWER the “defendant” rightly was punished for not obeying the made without authority invalid order. They have all the bases covered now, it seems. They are like a family,literally. Bottom rung is the son, next up is the daddy, next up, grandaddy, then the great granddaddys to finally the GREAT GREAT Grand pops & moms who add insult to the injury by saying: Our judgement is not final because it’s right or wrong, but it is right because it’s final

      • dejure

        January 23, 2014 at 3:14 PM

        When I started leaving out the patriot mumbo jumbo, I started winning. For example, if I’m going to challenge jurisdiction, I don’t need to raise flag by challenging the gold fringed flag.

        When I helped a land owner, I told him, up front, they would continue to break the rules, but when we got done, they’d be breaking them in his favor. In the end, the gave him permits to build on his five, seven acre lots, but only charged him for one.

        Over time, I’ve improved my writings. I look at my early stuff and see all sorts of patriot theory. Later, such as when I won custody of my daughter, all that was absent from my motions and things.

        We all know we can take on only so many battles. If you’re going to lose, why rush in? Biblical characters knew to not volunteer needlessly (e.g., “[t]ell them you’re my sister.). Sometimes, it really is more important to win than to be right.

        Add to the foregoing, many things espoused by the patriot community are nothing more than theory. Take the liens processes. I remember when Hartford introduced them (and when laws were changed to combat them). Since then, I see others introduce the same, after they rebrand it and explain how the others “did it wrong.” Or take the strawman. It’s built on shreds of truth and it keeps resurfacing. Always, the guys before were just doing it wrong.

        When friends abandoned all that and used the systems rules, they won.

        The point of this is, compare your work to others. Is the grammar and spelling good? Does it have a professional ring, or what the system wants to portray as quackery? Law is all smoke and mirrors and when I learned to build smoldering fires, and had enough mirrors of my own, things started changing. My early writings got my butt kicked. My later ones often killed actions before they ever made it to court.

        One of the hardest thing to learn is, being able to step back from your own case and look at it dispassionately. Like a cut throat attorney, treat it as just business, with only one rule: win

        When they don’t know, with certainty, how things are going to go for them, they change their course. For example, read many cases and you’ll say “they won.” When it gets to the higher court, that court says “there were no facts in evidence supporting the appellant’s case. What that means is, no record for appeal was made. Things were tossed in the file, but not introduced at trial and moved into evidence.

        Little things can make a difference. For example, a district issued a Failure to Appear warrant against me about a decade back. First, I bought a certified copy of the docket, or index of the case, if you prefer. There was no reference to an affidavit of service. Next, I demanded proof of service of the demand I appear [several years down the road]. The clerk admitted there was none and even went so far as to say they didn’t need to give notice, because they gave it YEARS before. She was kind enough to actually write this on the docket, then sell me a certified copy of that docket too. How do you suppose that went for them? (hint- not well, the court failed to obtain jurisdiction, so there went the immunity

        SIDE NOTE ON HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS: I was walking across the courtyard one day when I met the prosecutor. I told him I understood he was working on prosecution of a friend for the unlawful practice of law. Then I reminded him we had court on Friday and I’d probably prevail on that one, but if he dropped the one on my friend I’d strike mine. All he said was “okay” and walked away. I went over and struck my case and that was the end of it.

    • J.M.

      January 23, 2014 at 5:07 PM

      @ patriot mumbo jumbo, …..

      I do not call,still with standing, never overturned/overruled State Supreme & “Final Supreme Court” judgments patriot mumbo jumbo.

      Consider this for the sake of trying to make myself clear. Let’s say I am a Magistrate. You present State & Final Supreme Court Judgments proving you are right. I simply say, I disagree. 30 days. Also consider this. You are alone. You do not have one single solitary soul to help in any way in anything and I, the magistrate know this. So does ALL the rest of your oppressors. Do you think this makes a difference? I DO .Also, Your “trial de novo Judge” next up the ladder is my boyfriend. He’s the sweetest thing on earth, to me Baliff, please remove dejure from my courtroom. NEXT !!

      • J.M.

        January 23, 2014 at 5:39 PM

        my comment re: .Also, Your “trial de novo Judge” next up the ladder is my boyfriend. He’s the sweetest thing on earth…..
        Of course very few people know this because we’re still closet lovers. We haven’t come out of the closet yet. We will someday, when the time is right. We have friends that are coast to coast newscasters that have come out of the closet, but their position is not as sensitive as ours Most people are not calloused enough YET to welcome us into their hearts, just yet, but we will be welcome there, in their hearts, sooner or later.
        dejure do you know that some people are actually going to say now they have proof that I am a homo. they are the deep thinkers, at least they think they are.

      • dejure

        January 23, 2014 at 9:35 PM

        As I read your “closet lover” lines and such, I found myself on the border of laughing. Your “deep thinker” comment pushed me over the edge. I understood the point you were trying to make, but found humor in your means.

        Sadly, what you are point to is often true. I have seen it first hand. However, it does no happen on each occasion we are hauled before the priest in black associated with, in WA, the Temple of Justice.

        I consider patriot mubo jumbo to be all that cannot be supported in the laws of men. If it is supported in case law, it’s not mumbo jumbo. When you find yourself in their courts, you have to play by their rules. I’ve seen several patriot schemes over the years and I’ve seen some of them come around couple times. Sometimes they try to put new dressing on it.

        Though much of the mumbo jumbo is routed in fact, there is, more often than not, a lot of nonsense attached. For example, I went to one of Hartford Vandyke’s seminars a couple decades back. The stuff he promoted offered those he promoted it to hope. However, he failed to give any cites supporting any of it. In the end, he and people using his work went to jail for cashing in on the liens.

        I’ve seen people who say you cannot go into the system, behind the bar and so forth. Often, they point to religious reasons. However, Jesus dealt with the same system in his time.

        The point I am trying to make can best be understood by going back in time and to the story of the Scarlet Pimpernel, or Percy Blakeney, if you prefer. I have a deep respect for the character, because he understood he could stand and die in one battle on a principal, or win a thousand, and, wisely chose the latter. The Bible holds examples of not volunteering information the enemy could use against you. This could mean not disclosing your disdain for Satan’s system or other things that could cause you to become a target for being made into an example.

        I’m not picking on anyone. I’m just saying, if you are doing something and it isn’t working, it may be time to try something different. I got trashed by court commissioners and judges like you describe early on. My ex had thirty-six contempts against her and the court would not hold her accountable for even one, even though the fact clearly showed it should have. I didn’t like it either, so I kept learning. I became more fussy about using spell check and making sure punctuation was correct. As I moved ahead in my ability to form documents, court results started changing. Insulting though it might be, I could not count the time an attorney representing the other side accused me of being a Bar member and not disclosing it.

        On prejudice:

        In was in court one day on a suit I started against the county I lived in. The prosecutor in charge of civil matters represented the county, of course. The judge ruled in his favor, but I objected and cited an applicable court rule. The judge left the bench and was gone nearly ten minutes. He came back with the rules in hand and admitted I was correct, then withdrew his ruling and ruled in my favor. Minutes passed and he ruled in the prosecutor’s favor again. Again, I cited a court rule countering a ruling in favor of the prosecution. The judge looked through his book for a moment, paused, then said he had to withdraw his ruling again and rule in my favor, again. Several minutes more passed and, surprise, the judge ruled against me a third time. For a third time, I cited a court rule and he went to his book again. He then sat back in his chair, gave an exasperated look and rambled about his having wasted a lot of the courts time, before withdrawing that ruling to and ruling in my favor.

        This was about being prepared. I had reviewed the rules. In no instance did the prosecutor give a cite supporting his claims, but the judge presumed in his favor. This, of course, was highly improper, since this was a suit an nothing allowed the judge to presume in the county’s favor. My HUGE mistake was not setting the record with the fact of his obvious prejudice, since, for purposes of law, he and I were equals and ruling in the prosecutors favor, then having to withdraw each ruling showed a clear prejudice.

        On prejudice, we are often told we only get to file one Affidavit of Prejudice. This is untrue. Were it otherwise, that boyfriend still hiding in the closet could not be prejudiced from the case. For that reason, they have an obligation to tell us, well in advance, who the trying judge it (I lost the blasted cite for that).

    • J.M.

      January 23, 2014 at 7:53 PM

      @ Regarding “the right of inquiry,” there is a mountain of case law that establishes “an unrepresented litigant’s pleadings, motions and things are to be liberally construed

      TRUE, but try convincing someone with an IQ of 60 what this means while he’s spittin his chawn baccer in his spittoon.

    • J.M.

      January 25, 2014 at 12:10 AM

      I clicked on the link you provided showing up in red letters & what you see below is what came up with a place for writing you a message. Now, if I go to my e-mail page to send you a message, will the e-mail address showing below work? I don’t understand why the second half of your e-mail address is as showing. Just tell me if what is showing below will get my message through to you

      • J.M.

        January 25, 2014 at 12:22 AM

        This is strange. My message showed up somewhat different than it did before I sent it.There were 2 e mail addresses & all in black letters. Now after it posts, there is ONE e mail address & in red letters. Maybe if you click on it, it might come up the way it did for me & then you will see what I am trying to say. Anyway, I will try to send you a message,via E mail

  24. Adrian

    January 23, 2014 at 2:20 PM

    Your signature on any corporate agreement is only as proof of liability for the stawman.He is the party to the real contract.He already signed it with his feet at the time of birth.
    STOP using that strawman ID and do not sign anything with that strawman on it.
    You as a new born baby=strawman.

  25. J.M.

    January 23, 2014 at 2:29 PM

    First,dear brother, you answered this on the wrong thread. 2nd, you still understand some of my questions to be questions asking you to explain the meaning to me as tho I do not understand, WHEN in reality, my question(s) are for the purpose of “food for thought” for YOU to consider. “God” created MAN, not a HUMAN I cannot accept your “theory” It’s close to contradicting yourself. If we proceed, or SHARE,as you call it re:this particular, let’s do it on the WJJD thread, ok ?

    • Yartap

      January 23, 2014 at 4:00 PM

      Greetings, Jim.

      I understand, I’ll meet you there (WWJD).

      Blessings, Yartap.

      • J.M.

        January 23, 2014 at 5:10 PM

        Yartap, see ya lator gator. “over there.” THANKS !!!

  26. J.M.

    January 23, 2014 at 11:35 PM

    dejure, Shalom,
    I really wanted to start this message out by saying, I love you, but I thought, no, I am in enough trouble. It’s the kind of love like I have for my parents. I try to love My friend Jesus too, but I guess it’s more like lip service than the walking kind.I am trying to let my talk walk. I truly am

    @ This was about being prepared.
    Yes.I understand. Apparently I am still weak in this area even after years of study. I am a “fan” of people like Justice James Wilson,(Chisholm v. Georgia) Justice Joseph Story etc. (Story’s commentaries) & now I am a fan of yours,dejure.

    @ I had reviewed the rules. In no instance did the prosecutor give a cite supporting his claims, but the judge presumed in his favor.

    WHAT !!! NO WAY !!!THE JUDGE PRESUMED IN HIS FAVOR??!! OH NO !! Now you have gone to far, dejure. The Judge presumed in his favor? That’s unrealistic. Please tell me you are just joking. Oh that’s ok, I know you were just kidding.

    dejure,I sent you a message earlier about a physical address. PLEASE respond to that message in some manner. I don’t really like to send messages like that over the internet, but I don’t know how to do otherwise.under these conditions.

  27. dejure

    January 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM

    First, I’d use the Washington Public Records Act, directed at DOL, for:

    1) each notice given you regarding the suspension.
    2) Each hearing had on the suspension
    3) A documents on which the suspension was based.
    4) Your last known address on their records
    5) Documents the agency looks to for procedures when individuals do not have a place of housekeeping, such as individuals who live out of their cars, on various park benches and so forth.

    For reference, chapter 42.56 RCW (the laws which were previously found under chapter 42.17 RCW) is the codification of Washington’s Public Records Act [PRA], also known as the Public Disclosure Act [PDA]. If you are not familiar with it, become familiar. It is one of the most powerful tools citizens have. With it, you not only can review records, you can build an administrative record (and so on), which is what the higher courts will rely on when a matter is moved before them.

    The PRA, at RCW 42.56.070(6), states, “[b]efore any public records can be used to adversely affect someone, it must be indexed, or you must have received notice of it.” From that, the fun can begin. DOL often suspends licenses based on nothing more than the word of some clerk. However, pursuant to the PRA, you have the right to see records, unless exempted from disclosure by law. Even then, they must cite the exemption, in writing, and tell you how it applies. Going down that road, you have the right to see:

    6) The document relied on, from a court of law, to suspend your license.

    Years ago, DOL said they were suspending my license. Problem was, I hadn’t had one for over a decade. As such, I reviewed the codified statutes to see what was required to obtain a license. What showed was: 1) Pay a fee, take a written test, take a driving test, take a photo, sign the license (hmmm, didn’t we just have a bunch of posts on contracts?) ……)

    I was excited and told them so in my writing (I also incorporate a PDA records request into each correspondence with an agency to build a record – agencies are required to reply within five days, or you can start a simple show cause action to receive a penalty of up to $100/day for each document erroneously withheld) . Specifically, I stated I loved the idea of a free license, and without taking tests and things. HOWEVER, I needed to see the documents wherein could be found the authority of DOL to waive the mandatory requirements established by the legislature. I also sought the record they were relying on to suspend the license they were going to issue me.

    As I noted before, they tried to drag the Attorney General in on this one, but he wrote us both back, informing DOL he’d have nothing to do with it. Can you imagine what would happen if YOU were to seek records:

    7) – that would allow you to determine how many times, in the last five years, DOL has taken it upon itself to rewrite law and suspend licensing requirements, such as testing and so forth, to issue licenses, just so they could suspend it?

    Here’s a hint: Sometime you have to take the back door in. Maybe they didn’t try to issue you a license so they could suspend it. But do you think they want it disclosed they are making their own laws up as they go along? Specifically, issuing free licenses just to be able to suspend them?

    NOW, if the suspension is for non-payment of a fine, you need to put together an Affidavit of Indigence stating you cannot pay the money.

    As to addresses, it would take too much time for me to dig up the cites, but case law makes clear you can, literally, use a park bench as your address.

    One thing that has to be overcome is the matter of keeping your address up do date, but that could be fun. After all, you’re a rover and that would require a change nightly. This sets up a potential discrimination suit.

    Meanwhile, it would be a good idea to come up with something. I know many who use General Delivery. Just as many Postal employees ignorantly claim a ZIP is mandatory, many will claim you can’t use General Delivery long term. However, that is not true and you can drag them before the Postmaster General for denying you mail delivery when you are without a home (similarly, the Domestic Mail Manuals [DMM] state ZIP Codes are voluntary – but that’s another issue for another day). Just for reference, I know several people who have used General Delivery for nearly three decades, and they own their own property. Of course, they do, from time to time, have to educate a new Postmaster.

    If DOL cannot produce documents, you can DEMAND and administrative hearing. When doing so, I would incorporate a “Motion to Reinstate License for Failure to Produce Authority to Suspend.”

    Act just like you are going to court. Copy the pattern of someone elses motion. It doesn’t have to be perfect, but do as good a job as you can.

    To Dejure, Wa. DOL cancelled my Drivers License nearly 1 year ago without my knowledge until A police license scanner picked me out at an intersection. DOL claims I need to sumit a residential address which I don’t have. Yet I own and operate 2 business’ in Washington, pay taxes, vote etc., using a pony express mail box. I travel the west coast extensively and don,t have a fixed residence to sleep other than friends, family and hotels and a estranged wife. DOL supervisor Insisted they need to know where I sleep, I’am a vagabond. Want to shut them down and get my license back so I can earn a living, pay taxes to the same creeps who are without souls. Bill

  28. dejure

    January 24, 2014 at 4:28 PM

    While it is true all the governments of men are no more solid than any concept, those who animate the system remain quite real and command power.

    Since early times, the likes of them have banded together to demand earthly government, then to overthrow it and set in place one favorable to them. As the Bible points out, that system lies under the power of the great deceiver.

    On creators and the created, the Public Fool System (perhaps I spelled that wrong, or not) does a great job of convincing us all is backward (hmm, the Bible talks of that too (right will be wrong….)). It does this even as it states the obvious truth. Specifically, the impression is given we have a central government.

    In truth, Dejure, JM and others from the past got together and said, each of us is good at throwing dirt clods, but if we banded together, we’d be better and could hold off more bad guys. So we decided to, each, reach into our basket of individual rights, pull out a SMALL piece, and drop that into another basket. Even though the whole of new basket might be better than the sum of the parts, it remained less than that which each individual yet had. We called this new basket The State of Washington, or The State of California and it was, in and of itself, a country.

    Next, we came to the realization we could, again, combine with others to defend ourselves. However, this time, it was from that smaller basket of rights we donated, not from those rights we retained. As such, we remained the ultimate power and the new power, which we placed in a ten mile square area, was bound and left inferior to its creators. To this day, it exists at the pleasure of those who created it.
    Great read Mr. Adask, I like the way your mind works. Its fun to play in the legal system but we all know it is just a fiction created by man right? There is no reality to it other than what we consent to give it. It is a challenge to survive with in the […]

    @ How can an entity created by man be superior to man?
    Easy. But hard to figure out. If we could have a life span of 200 years instead of 70 we would know the who,what,when,why,where of it. Give me a job, I hire two more, there’s 3 of us v. 1 You are really at our mercy if we 3 “handle” it right,e.g. how to make the river rise above its source like in an illusion.

    • J.M.

      January 24, 2014 at 6:06 PM

      @ >In truth, Dejure, JM and others from the past got together and said, each of us is good at throwing dirt clods,………….”
      IF IF, I, am the JM, well I cannot be the above mentioned JM because I have been on my own. I have not gotten together with anyone OR any group. I have tried, but I was a misfit. However I made that determination. Being on this blog is the ONLY & closest thing I’m involved in as far as getting together with anyone or group. And you know what, I am still alone but I am not lonely. Did you, dejure, get my message to you re: a physical address & my reason for requesting same?? Once again, will you respond in “some way?” Maybe you have responded. I cannot see the forest for the trees in some things either.

    • J.M.

      January 24, 2014 at 6:29 PM

      P.S. I hope my wanting to freely give back to you is not throwing “another” dirt clod. I was looking at this from the understanding of, freely I received & it is my duty to freely give. I was & still am trying to show my gratitude to you, dejure, for that which you have “shared freely.” Just saying thank you, is lip service But I will say thank you, from my heart, heart service is a little better than lip service, I guess. Heck I don’t know. Sometimes our best is not quite good enough. All I can do is try & trust & hope. But, I do know this, I can hope in one hand & do-do in the other & I know which one will get full first

      • dejure

        January 24, 2014 at 7:19 PM

        J.M., your offer to give back, whatever form that might take, is appreciated.

        For years I helped others and lived like a pauper for it. I watched people drive up to my house in nice cars and knew they would be returning to nice homes they owned (all or in part). Many of them spent thousands on the services of a Bar member, but would balk at paying even a few hundred for help that actually won their cases.

        I wonder that many of the successful people I helped back then were not bright enough to figure out I could not be there for them in the future if I couldn’t earn enough to pay the electric (Often, it was only through my knowledge of administrative law I was able to keep it on).

        Interestingly, it was usually those with the least who tried to give the most.

        Repeatedly, I’ve been told I was a bit different. One of my quirks was notes, I used to joke that I had notes about my notes (okay, it wasn’t a joke). Too, though I had enough going on it was not always evident, I was fanatical about organization. Those characteristics carried over to my computer habits (I started working for the feds in computer repair back around 70). Subsequently, I am a fanatic about organizing folders and subfolders.

        I’ve written thousands of pages and stolen several times as many from other sources. They are on my drive(s) in PDF, doc files, text files, WordPerfect files, a few Lotus files (back to text again) and even some WordStar files. They are stored on a folder called “Law, Cites, Forms & FYI’s.” Under that folder are subfolders like “Case Law,” “Books and Manuals,” and “Topcial.”

        If you go into the Topical folder, for example, you will find the alphabet. The reason is simple, the files and folders were growing to into a list to long to deal with, so anything that started with “a” went under A.

        So, if you wanted to look up “attorney,” “affidavit,” “alounge” or some other word starting with that letter, you, naturally clicked on the “A” folder and scrolled down until you found what you wanted.

        I also tried to put “See Attorney” in other locations, where appropriate, to remind someone researching they could find more relative information there.

        My mentor, a fellow who won two grand jury cases against the flower people said he thought he could run a case just off the contents of the files.

        When I last printed the index, over ten years ago, that, alone, was 366 pages.

        Because of my location, a large percentage of the files relate to Washington law, but there is also much of the original patriot info, a bit about Story, federalist, federalist and antifederalist papers, axioms of law and on and on. It used to take a few DVD’s to get it all on, but now, a simple flash drive will handle it.

        The books and manuals section ranges from county stuff to federal stuff and would cost around 10k to replace. It even contains “my back up copy” of things like “Making and Meeting Objections,” judges manuals (civil and criminal for superior and inferior courts).

        Of course, many of my documents are on the drive, some of which are in use by agencies of WA.

        I rarely update it anymore because I decided to pursue my own interests. Sadly, I know of no one who has or will step in to take my place, unless you count [even more comprehensive and more searchable web sites like] VersusLaw, Westlaw or Lexis Law. Sadly, most were too ignorant to know what they were being given (an entire law library), or they let their greed take priority.

        The point of all this is, if you are interested in a flash drive containing all this information, all I ask is you send at least a 4 gig drive and a few bucks for postage (I just sent one out in an envelope, but the fellow had to track it down because the Post Office trashed the envelope, so a tiny pouch might be a better bet) to the address I’ll provide via direct email:

        Just for reference, I live in a small community in Eastern Washington, about an hour, regardless which direction you go, from civilization. So Post Office runs for picking up shipping goods out is a hit and miss situation.

  29. J.M.

    January 24, 2014 at 8:48 PM

    @ Interestingly, it was usually those with the least who tried to give the most.
    I, myself, the way it’s figured today, am 6,000 below the poverty level.
    @ I wonder that many of the successful people I helped back then were not bright enough ….’ Greedy people only see what they can GET. I don’t think they even know there is a good 4 letter word call GIVE.
    @ but now, a simple flash drive will handle it.
    It’s obvious you know a lot about computers. I only know how to turn it on & off. My files,etc were pasted all over the walls. Years later after I purchased my 1st computer, I had everything from A 2 Z (that I was aware of) on floppy disks, about 50 of them. Some things I memorized, but darn it I did not remember the source but that’s because I never tried to memorize the source. I am trying to find & have been for several days, the case where the Court said, Federal reserve notes are not dollars and are not money. Somebody asked me if those words were dicta or dictum. I said, I don’t know, but I believe those words are true. Senseless to say anymore on how the rest of the conversation went. BUT, ain’t no way a note is a dollar. It may be a promise to pay a dollar or owe a dollar. Anyway Hmmmm. Sorry for the ramblin I admit I ramble a lot, but that’s because I’m a ramblin man. When they persecute you in one place move it on over to another,& on & on.

    I clicked on your earlier link from another one of you messages & a web page did come up that had many selections on woodworking, etc. I also saw where you commented about a video you watched. Do you have a link for that video you can provide? If so.will you?

    As far as your offer re: a few bucks, I want to send you a few bucks monthly but I cannot accept your flash drive material.I don’t even know what a flash drive is, much less how to use one. Also, I hope you will not throw me away when I tell you I only have a 6th grade education. But, I think I have a pretty good Christian education. I want to share with you for what you have already shared on this blog. It is really difficult to exchange thoughts,etc.via the internet,like this,at least for me.I really don’t like to discuss these kind of things publicly. But let me say, IF there is still no statute of limitations re:fraud, & with your help we both can be millionaires again. I honestly don’t care if I am a millionaire anymore. It will be worth zillions for me to live to see the oppressors & thieves just get their come up pance.

    • dejure

      January 24, 2014 at 9:15 PM

      I don’t know what the case is, off the top of my head, but focus on the federal reserve NOTE part. A note, is a note. Might be something in here: What Is Money? 1. A promissory note is a written promise by one person to pay to another or to bearer a fixed sum of money. See: Davis v. Spencer, 267 Ill 57; 107 NE 826; Jencks v. Rice, 119 Iowa 451; Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass 113. 2. As a decree by a court of the U.S. for the payment of money can be made only for the payment of so many dollars of some specie of money that is made lawful money by a statute of the U.S., it follows that a recovery upon such a promissory note or contract must be for some dollars in gold and silver coins. See: The Edith, D.C. N.Y. (1875), 5 Ben. 144, 8 Fed. Cases 4,281; Forbes v. Murray, D.C. N.Y. (1869), 3 Ben. 497, 9 Fed. Cases 4,928. 3. The general rule is that a final judgment for money must specify the amount awarded. See: U.S. v. F. & M. Shaefer Brewing, 356 US 227; 45 Am Jur 2d 81. 4. An act by the legislature of Alabama, September 30, 1920, page 36, providing when a check is presented or forwarded to the payee bank for payment, it may at its option pay or remit the same in money or in exchange drawn on its reserves. However, it is unconstitutional and void as an attempt by the state to make a class of debts payable at the option of the debtor in something other than gold and silver coin. See: Capitol Grain and Feed Co v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, D.C. Ga. (1925), 3 F.2d 614, 269 US 589, 70 L Ed 427. What your government thinks about using gold and silver as money. _______________ Federal statutes indicate that taxes assessed or levied in anything other than legal tender are unlawful, to wit: Title 31, United States Code, Section 3124 states in part: Section 3124. Exemption from taxation (a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax. … Title 18, United States Code, Section 8 states: Section 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued. (Emphasis Added) 1792 Mint and Coinage Act which has NEVER been repealed. ____________________ Lawful money of the United States is Gold or Silver Coin. 12 USC 152 says the LAWFUL money of the United States is gold and silver coin. 31 USC 371 says the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars. According to the Bland-Allison Act of 1878, the Coinage Act of 1837, the Coinage Act of 1834, and the Coinage Act of 1792, a “dollar” is at least 371.25 grains or point seven seven eight (.778) ounces of silver, and it STILL is. __________________________________ DEBTS ARE NOT A LEGAL TENDER AS STATED BY NO NOTHING ROB NOBODY. See Dennis v. Moses, supra. ______________________________________ In the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784, the court explained the legal distinction between the words “payment” and “discharge”: “There is a distinction between a `debt discharged’ and a `debt paid.’ When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment.” __________________________________ INDEX OF AUTHORITIES for SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM ON MONEY United States Constitution, Article 6……………………………….1 Cook v. Moffat & Curtis, 5 HOW (46US) 295, 12 L Ed 159………………..1 People ex rel Happell v. Sischo, 23 Cal 2d 478, 144 Pac 2d 785…………1 In re Lindquist’s Estate, 25 Cal 2d 697, 154 Pac 2d 879, rev’g (Call App), 144 Pac 2d 438…………………………………………….1 Ritchie v. Johnson, 158 Kan 103, l44 Pac 2d 925………………………1 People ex rel Woll v. Graber, 394 Ill 362, 68 NE 2d 750……………….1 Walz v. Lavelle, (Ohio St.), 70 NE 2d 750……………………………1 Norris v. Baltimore, 192 A 531……………………………………..1 State v. Sutton, 63 Minn 147, 65 NW 262, 30 LRS 630, 56 Am St 459………1 Lindberg v. Johnson, 93 Minn 267, 101 NW 74……………………….1 Hepburn v. Griswald, 8 Wall 611,613, 615, 616, 634..1,5,9,15,27,30,32,33,38 Thayer v. Hedges, 22 Ind 296, 300………………………………1,2,9 Hamilton, #78, Federalist, p. 467…………………………………..2 Justice Green, In re Dorsey, 7 Porter (Ala) 293, 377, 378 (1838)……….2 16 Am Jur 2d Section 226…………………………………………..2 16 Am Jur 2d Section 256…………………………………………2,3 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr 137, L Ed 60 (1803)…………………………3 Ex Parte Siebold, 100 US 371, L Ed 717………………………………3 Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 US 197, 48 L Ed 679, 24 SCR 436……3 In re Opinions of the Justices, 226 Ala 565, 148 So 107……………….3 16 Am Jur 2d Section 257…………………………………………3,4 Summer v. Beeler, 50 Ind 341……………………………………….4 Kelly v. Bemis, 70 Mass 83…………………………………………4 Titus v. Poland Coal Co., 275 Pa 431, 119 A 540………………………4 Nass v. Maxwell (Tex Civ App) 32 SW 561……………………….4 Flemming v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., (CA 4 SC), 239 F 2d 277….4 Board of Highway Corn’rs v. Bloomington, 253 Ill 164, 97 NE 280………..4 Fisher v. McGirr, 67 Mass 1……………………………………….4 Saratoga State Waters Corp. v. Pratt, 227 NY 429, 125 NE 834…………..4 16 Am Jur 2d Section 178…………………………………………..4 State ex rel Nuveen v. Greer, 88 Fla 249, 102 So 739, 37 ALR 1298………4 United States Constitution, Article 5……………………………….4 United States Constitution, Article 1, Sections 8 & 10………………..4 United States Constitution, 9th & 10th Amendments………………….5 2 Story on the Constitution, 142, Sec. 1253…………………………5 McCullough v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 421…………………………………5 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 US 46, (1907)……………………………..5,6 Ogden v. Sanders, 12 Wheat 212, 288, 334…………………………6,11b Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429, 558……………….6,7 Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41, 95………………………………….6,7 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat 122, 206…………………………..7 Bancroft’s History of the Formation of the Constitution, 2 Vol 134, 137…7 Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall (78US) 493, 504…………………………….7 4 Webster’s Works, 271…………………………………………….8 Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421, 463-465, 4 S Ct 122, 28 L Ed 204 …………………………………8,9,17,18,23,24,28,29,33,34,36,38 Mr. Webster, 1830………………………………………………9,10 Craig v. Missouri, 4 Peters 408, 433,434…………………10,11,44,45,46 Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall 71 (1868)………………………..11,11a City of Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutcher 398 (1857)……………………….11 Perry v. Washburn, 20 California 350……………………………….11 1 Parsons on Contracts, 7………………………………………..11a Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 US 701, 706, 707………….11a Title 31 USC Section 392……………………………………….12,45 Title 31 USC Section 311……………………………………….12,13 Title 31 USC Section 371………………………………………….13 People v. Penn (1930), 340 Ill 535, 173 NE 86…………………….13 Webber v. American Union Bank (1926), 128 Misc 123, 217 NYS 833, rev’d on other grounds, 221 App Div 94, 222 NYS 359…………….13 Legal Tender Cases (1871), 79 US 457, 20 L Ed 287……………………13 – ii – Title 31 USC Section 314……………………………………………13 Title 31 USC Section 821………………………………………13,14,37 Title 31 CFR Part 55, 1981 Code of Federal Regulations………………14,37 United States Coinage Acts, 1792 – 1900……………………………14 Bland Allison Act of February 28, 1878, 20 Statutes 25…………………14 Bank Holding Company Act, PL 91-607, United States Code, Congressional and Administrative News, Vol 3, P. 5536, 5545……………………….14 54 Am Jur 2d Money Sections 1,4,6,11,12,14,15,17,18…………15,16,17,18,36 Paul v. Ball, 31Tex 10…………………………………………..15,36 Kennedy v. Briere, 45 Tex 305……………………………………15,36 Nortz v. United States, 294 US 317, 79 L Ed 907, 55 S Ct 428,95 ALR 1346.15 United States v. Van Auken, 96 US 366, 24 L Ed 852………………….15,16 Devenney v. Devenney, 74 Ohio St 96, 77 NE 688…………………..16 36 ALR 1358……………………………………………………….16 Woodruff v. Mississippi, 162 US 291, 40 L Ed 973, 16 S Ct 820…………..16 Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis 551, 3 NW 357………………..16,35 Howe v. Hartness, 11 Ohio St 449…………………………………..16 Westfall v. Braley, 10 Ohio St 188…………………………………..16 United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment………………………17 Norman v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 265 NY 37, 191 NE 726, 92 ALR 1523, aff’d 294 US 240, 79 L Ed 885, 55 S Ct 407, 95 ALR 1352……………17 Title 31 USC Section 731……………………………………………17 PL 95-147, Section 4(c), 91 Stat. 1229……………………………….17 United States v. Ballard, 14 Wall (US) 457, 20 L Ed 845………………..18 Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall 533, 19 L Ed 482…………………….18 Title 31 USC Section 731……………………………………………18 Title 31 USC Section 152…………………………………………19,36 Pl Exh A, p. 16……………………………………………………19 Black’s Law Dictionary: Definition of a “Note”……………………..19 Title 12 USC Section 411…………………………………………19,20 HJR 192, June 5, 1933………………………………………………20 Title 31 USC Sections 443, 463, & 408a……………………………….21 Title 31 USC Section 315b…………………………………………..22 PL 93-374, August 14, 1974………………………………………….22 Milam v. United States, 524 F 2d 629 (1974)…………………………23 Fulton Bank v. Phoenix Bank, 1 Hall (NY) 577………………………….24 Lowvy v. McGhee, 16 Tenn 242 (1835)………………………………….24 Ward v. Smith, 7 Wall 447, 19 L Ed 207……………………………….24 Ontario Bank v. Lighbody, 3 Wend 101……………………………24,25,35 Johnson v. State, 167 Ala 82………………………………………..25 Perry v. United States, 204 US 330, 79 L Ed 917………………….25,26,37 Sinking Fund Cases, 99 US 700, 25 L Ed 496……………………….26 United States v. Bank of the Metropolis, 51 Pet 377, 10 LEd 774…………26 3 Hamilton’s Works 518……………………………………………..26 United States Constitution, 4th & 5th Amendments………………………27 Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall 552, 353, 361, 562………………………..27,28,38 Bank of New York v. New York County, 7 Wall 26……………………..28,37 Don E. Williams Co. v. CIR, 97 S Ct 850, 51 L Ed 2d (1977)…………..28,29 Hart v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 54 F 2d 846, 332 (1932)……….29 Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner, 12 TC 524 (1949); Rev Rul 54-465, 1954-2 Cum Bull 93………………………………………….29 Eckert v. Burnet, 283 US 140, 51 S Ct 373, 75 L Ed 911 (1931)…………..29 Helvering v. Price, 309 US 409, 60 S Ct 673, 84 L Ed 836 (194O)…………29 Petty v. Commissioner, 40 TC 521, 524 (1963)………………………….29 Guren v. Commissioner, 66 TC 118 (1976)………………………………29 Baltimore Dairy Lunch, Inc. v. United States, 231 F 2d 870, 875 (CA8 1956).29 Vaughn & Telegraph, 14 Wall 258, 267, 268…………………………30,31 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England by Blackstone, 1 Blackstone, Sec. 387, 389, 391…………………………..31,32 14 Geo. III c 42…………………………………………………..31 3 Story 16, 18…………………………………………………….32 Pol.Economy p. 222………………………………………………..32 – iii – 2 Mill’s Pol. Economy p. 19…………………………………………32 18 Ind 471………………………………………………………..32 3 Webster”s Works, 41………………………………………………34 United States Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheat 333…………..34 Miller v. Race, 1 Burrow 452…………………………………..34 Young v. Scott, 5 Ala 475…………………………………………..35 Carlisle v. Davis, 7 Ala 42…………………………………………35 Flemming v. Nall,, 1 Tex 246………………………………………..35 Pierson v. Wallace, 7 Ark 282………………………………35,36 Irvine v. Laury, 14 Pet 293…………………………………………35 Miller v. Austin, 13 How 218,228…………………………………….35 Lieber v. Goodrich, 5 Cw 187……………………………………..35,36 General Service Administration, Form T-588-R (12-72)…………………..35 15 Am & Eng Enc of Law 701………………………………………….36 Cook v. State, 130 Ark 95…………………………………………..36 103 US 792………………………………………………………..36 25 Ark 215………………………………………………………..36 83 Ala 51…………………………………………………………36 23 Ind 21…………………………………………………………36 35 Ill 58…………………………………………………………36 8 Minn 324………………………………………………………..36 27 Mich 191……………………………………………………….36 Serbian & Brazilian Bond Cases, P.C.I.J. Series A, Nos. 20-21, pp 32-34, 109,110………………………………………………….37 Gregory v. Morris, 96 US 619 , 24 L Ed 740……………………………37 Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 2 L Ed 162…………………………….37 60 Am Jur 2d Payment Sections 28, 52, 62, 64……………………….41,42 The Emily Souder, 17 Wall 666, 21 LEd 683……………………41 Duncan v. Kimball, 3 Wall 37, 18 L Ed 50……………………………..41 Keller v. North American L. Ins. Co., 301 Ill 198, 133 NE 726…………..41 Emerson v. Providence Hat Mfg. Co., 12 Mass 237………………41 Wright v. First Crockery Ware Co., 1 NH 281………………….41 Parker v. Cousins, 2 Gratt (Va) 372…………………………41 11 Am Jur 2d Bills & Notes Sections 216 & 217………………………42,43 Harrshbarger v. Eby, 28 Idaho 753, 156 P 619…………………43,46 Hannon v. Fink, 66 Okla 115, 167 P 1152…………………..43,46 Ballard v. Burton, 64 Vt 387, 24 A 769……………………………….43 Good v. Dyer, 137 Va 114, 119 SE 277…………………………………43 17 Am Jur 2d Contracts Section 85……………………………………43 Anheuser Bush Brewing Ass’n v. Mason, 44 Minn 318, 46 NW 558……………43 17 Am Jur 2d Contracts Section 86……………………………………43 Bailey v. Gentry, 1 Mo 164 (1822)………………………………..46 Lorber v. Tooley, 47 Cal App 2d 47, 117 P 2d 421………………………46 Wolford V. Powers, 85 Ind 294……………………………………..46 Rauschenbach v. McDaniel’s Estate, 122 W Va 632, 11 SE 2d 852…………..46 1 Am Jur 2d Actions Section 51………………………………………47 United States Constitution, 6th & 7th Amendments…………………..48 An Essay on the Trial by Jury, By Lysander Spooner…………………….48 Chief Justice John Jay, State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall 1……..48,49 Twelve for the People, by Claire Kelly & W. Vaughn Ellsworth, includes Excerpts from the Trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase………49 Springfield Bank v. Merrick et al., 14 Mass 322……………………….45 Hunt v. Knickerbocker, 5 Johns 327 ………………………………….45 ______________________ Paper Money Paying Taxes US v Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1911) Neither Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 19 L. ed. 101, nor Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U.S. 472 , 26 L. ed. 197, relied upon by the defendants, involved the question. In the former case it was held that the acts of Congress of 1862 and 1863 [12 Stat. at L. 345, 532, 709, chaps. 33, 142, 73], making United States notes a legal tender for debts, had no reference to taxes imposed by state authority. The legal tender acts expressly provided that the notes should be receivable for national taxes, and the context forbade the conclusion that Congress intended to include state taxes under the term ‘debts,’ and there was hence no conflict with the statute of Oregon which required the taxes due the state to be collected in coin. In Meriwether v. Garrett, supra, it was held that taxes levied before the repeal of the charter of a municipality, other than such as were levied in obedience to the special requiremant of contracts entered into under the authority of law, and such as were levied under judicial direction for the payments of juegments recovered against the city, could not be collected through the instrumentality of a court of chancery at the instance of the city’s creditors. Such taxes could be collected only under authority from the legislature. A tax may or may not be a ‘debt’ under a particular statute, according to the sense in which the word is found to be used. But whether the government may recover a personal judgment for a tax depends upon the existence of the duty to pay, for the enforcement of which another remedy has not been made exclusive. Whether an action of debt is maintainable depends not upon the question who is the plaintiff or in what manner the obligation was [219 U.S. 250, 263] incurred, but it lies whenever there is due a sum either certain or readily reduced to certainty. Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. p. 542, 20 L. ed. 493. Carter and Carter v. Penn, 4 Ala. 140 (1842): “The note does not stipulate for the payment of a debt in Bank bills, but is an undertaking to pay ‘current money of the State of Alabama.’ It is true that an infinite variety of commodities have been used as money in different periods and countries. . . and in common parlance all these different representations of the common standard of value have been designated as money. But the notes of the Bank which are not redeemable in coin, on demand, cannot, with any propriety be regarded as such; in fact, the best Bank paper passes as money by consent only, and it cannot be otherwise so long as the inhibition of the Federal Constitution ____________________________________ B. ARKANSAS Dillard v. Evans, 4 Ark. 175 (1842): “Bank issues are not, in the constitutional sense of the term, lawful money of legal coin. Gold and silver alone are a legal tender of debts, and the only true constitutional currency know to the laws.” Foquet v. Hoadley, 3 Conn. 534 (1821): “A promissory note, payable in money, cannot be discharged, by the act of the debtor, without the co-operation of the creditor, unless in gold and silver coin. Const. U.S. art. 1. sec. 10. Bank notes are not a legal tender, if the creditor objects to receive them.” McChord v. Ford, 19 Ky 167 (1826): “but as bank notes are not money, it also follows that this note can not intend bank notes, but gold or silver.” Sinclair v. Piercy, 28 Ky 63 (1830): “The result from an examination of all the cases is that money in its strict legal sense, means gold or silver coin, and that an obligation for money alone can not be satisfied with any thing else.” Pryor v. Commonwealth, 32 Ky 298 (1834): “Yet, that its true technical import is lawful money of the United States, in other words, gold or silver coin, and when used in judicial proceedings it is always to be taken in this technical sense.” Gray v. Donahoe, 4 Watts (Pa.) 400 (1835): “No principle is better established or more necessary to be maintained than that bank notes are not `money’ in the legal sense of the word . . . Coins struck at the Mint or authorized by act of Congress are alone lawful money. They possess a fixed and permanent value or, at least, as nearly so as human affairs admit of. Bank notes are merely promissory notes for the payment of money – ordinarily, it is true, convertible into coin on demand at the bank where they are issued.” What is Money – Court Definitions “Downloads” of “What is Money” are at the bottom of the page A promissory note is a written promise by one person to pay to another or to bearer a fixed sum of money. See: Davis v. Spencer, 267 Ill 57; 107 NE 826; Jencks v. Rice, 119 Iowa 451; Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass 113. As a decree by a court of the U.S. for the payment of money can be made only for the payment of so many dollars of some specie of money that is made lawful money by a statute of the U.S., it follows that a recovery upon such a promissory note or contract must be for some dollars in gold and silver coins. See: The Edith, D.C. N.Y. (1875), 5 Ben. 144, 8 Fed. Cases 4,281; Forbes v. Murray, D.C. N.Y. (1869), 3 Ben. 497, 9 Fed. Cases 4,928. The general rule is that a final judgment for money must specify the amount awarded. See: U.S. v. F. & M. Shaefer Brewing, 356 US 227; 45 Am Jur 2d 81. An act by the legislature of Alabama, September 30, 1920, page 36, providing when a check is presented or forwarded to the payee bank for payment, it may at its option pay or remit the same in money or in exchange drawn on its reserves. However, it is unconstitutional and void as an attempt by the state to make a class of debts payable at the option of the debtor in something other than gold and silver coin. See: Capitol Grain and Feed Co v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, D.C. Ga. (1925), 3 F.2d 614, 269 US 589, 70 L Ed 427. As bills of credit were entirely abolished, the paper money of the state banks was the only currency or circulating medium to which the prohibition (Art. 1, Sec. 10) could have had any application. See: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 US 533. (What is checkbook credit, lines of credit, etc.?) Congress was vested with the power to borrow money and that the promise of payment having been given, no authority remained to alter or destroy the original promise. See: Perry v. U.S., 294 US 330. The states are not forbidden to issue coupons receivable for taxes, nor execute instruments binding themselves to pay money at a future day for services rendered or money borrowed. See: Poindexter v. Greenbow, 114 US 70; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 US 567; Houston & Texas Central R.R. v. Texas, 177 US 66. (If this is true, then why do states borrow from banks? States issue bonds and the banks buy the bonds by creating a new demand deposit and nothing is deposited. When it comes time to pay the bonds, the state acts as a collection agent for the bank.) Neither the president nor the cashier of a bank has a right to accept anything but money in payment of an obligation due the bank. See: Aliquippa National Bank v. Harvey, 12 A.2d 409, 340 Pa 223; First National Bank of Mt. Holley Springs v. Cumbler, 21 A.2d 120; Re Bowen 46 F. Supp 631, 16 A.2d 409. “Some years ago a new type of installment credit appeared in banks throughout the country. It became known as check credit or revolving check credit. Basically, it provided that those eligible for such credit be granted a line of credit in the agreed amount. In order to use that line, the borrower needed merely to write checks. The checks were special checks, and were NOT actually checking accounts. The check was merely the instrument by which the loan account was activated. Usually it did not go through all the processes that an ORDINARY check does once it reaches the bank. However, it had the APPEARANCE of an ORDINARY check, and was so used by the customer and the person to whom he gave the check.” Source: “The Bankers Handbook” (?edition), page 530. (Does the bank disclose this information to you? It should be quite important for you to know that the bank just created a bookkeeping entry to create the “loan”, and that the checks were not actually checks, but had the appearance of checks. This is what is known as a common law cheat and should be in violation of Fair Trade Practices because it gives banks a much greater advantage in business than you or I, or other businesses.) See: Title 15, Sec. 1635 of Chap. 41. Unless there is what the law considers a valuable consideration, it will not be sufficient to maintain an action. And there is a distinction between a valuable consideration, other than money, and a money consideration. While in the “former” case the slightest consideration will support a promise (consideration other than money) to pay the largest amount to the full extent of the promise, in the latter the consideration will support a promise only to the extent of the money forming the consideration. The law leaves the measure of a valuable consideration other than money, for a promise to pay, to the parties to the contract; but money being the standard of value, is not the subject to be changed by contract, and will support a promise to pay money only to the extent of the amount of the consideration. See: Sawyer v. McLouth, 46 Barb 350. The term “tender” as used in the books, denotes a legal OFFER, one which one party is under obligation to make and the other bound to accept. See: Duluth v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229; Patnote v. Sanders, 41 Vt. 66. The promissory note, even when payable on demand and fully secured, is still, as its name implies, only a PROMISE to pay, and does not represent the paying out or reduction of assets. See: Don E. Williams Co. v. Commissioner of IRS, 51 L.Ed. 2d 48 (Feb. 22, 1977). Money does not embrace notes (promises to pay money). See: Lane v. Railey; U.S. v. Wells; Devenny v. Devenny; State v. Hoke; Hamilton v. State; etc.. (Since a Federal Reserve Note is not even a note [a promise to pay], money cannot embrace a Federal Reserve note.) An agent (clerk) has no implied authority to receive anything else than MONEY in satisfaction of a debt due his principal. He cannot, therefore, take payment in a check. See: Hall v. Storrs, 7 Wis. 217; Buckwalter v. Craig, 55 Mo. 71. Payment of debts is imperative/axiomatic/essential for the right of contract/property to exist, for without payment (delivery of money), the debt still exists. See: Stanek v. White, 215 NW 784. It is the general rule that a pledger, whose tender (offer) has been refused, will not be granted affirmative relief of an equitable nature, unless he has kept the tender good or at least comes before the court in an attitude of willingness to pay what is due him. See: Norton v. Baxter, 41 Minn. d 146; Tuthill v. Morris, 81 NY 94. Negotiable note must be promise to pay money. See: Roads v. Webb, 91 Me 410. (Federal Reserve Notes are not money.) Federal Reserve notes may be refused. See: MacLeod v. Hoover, 105 So 205, 159 La 244. The only substances ever declared as money within the U.S. were gold and silver, in coin form, with copper/nickel serving in token capacity only. See: 12 USCA 152 re. “lawful money” and Coinage Act of April 2, 1792, at Sections 11, 16, & 20; re. copper/nickel tokens, see Sec. 9, and 31 USCA 460. A legal tender, when made, must be kept good according to the rules of the common law. See: William Wolf Co. v. Canadian R.R. Co., 56 Pac. Rep 453. It has been held that if the instrument recites on its face its consideration, the consideration must be proved. See: Smith v. Doherty, 60 SW 380, 109 Ky 616. Where the instrument sued upon is nonnegotiable, plaintiff must prove its consideration. See: Shubert Theatrical Co. v. Dalton, 167 NY S 332. A promissory note is defined as an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in dollars. See: Regulation A, Sec. 4 (1005) (a) Federal Reserve Act. (Dollars = money, not Federal Reserve notes.) Money imports value. See: Neufield v. U.S., 118 F.2d 375. (What value has a piece of paper with green ink on it, especially when it is redeemable in no-thing?) Money has value only by law and not by nature so that a conviction of those who use it is sufficient to deprive it of its value and of its purchasing power. See: Incitti v. Ferrante, 175 A 908. When a contract is agreed to be paid in dollars, a payment in money is meant and not the transfer of notes. See: Simon v. Douglas, 225 SW 721; 189 Ky 644. Income must be money or that which is convertible into money. See: Snyders Estate, 31 A.2d 132, 136; 346 Pa 615. (Is any Federal Reserve note convertible at par or otherwise, through a bank, for money?) Monetary value means value calculated on the basis of $1 for an amount of silver or gold equal to the amount at the time contained in the standard silver dollar or gold dollar. See: USCA Title 31, Chap. 8, Sec. 448(b) (Gold and silver have a value lies in and of themselves — notes do not.) Money is a commodity, having a value of its own. It is a common measure of value. It has change ability. See: U.S. v. Gellman, D.C. Minn. 44 F. Supp. 360. (Gold and silver are commodities and have a value in and of themselves — notes are not commodities and have no value in and of themselves. Granted they are speculated upon in the money markets but that does not mean they have a value in and of themselves. Their value lies in the confidence of the people, not in the thing itself.) Money is defined as meaning a representative standard or measure of value. See: Jones v. Overstreet, 4 T.B. Mon. 547. The courts have found occasion to decide that the pleading did not raise certain issues such as: want of consideration See: Sopp v. Linfrand, 36 P.2d 794; negotiability Banca Commission Italiana Dr. Genova v. P. Schlegal Co., 80 P 414; ownership Sheffield v. Hatch, 135 So 165); payment Minor v. Carpenter, 152 P 737. Checkbook money is not legal tender. See: Story of Checks, Federal Reserve Bank of NY, p 20. Commercial banks are important financial institutions because they can create money — checkbook money. See: Money’s Economic Balance, Federal Reserve Bank of NY, P 17 (8th ed., 1979). A check is defined as a draft or order upon a bank, purporting to be drawn upon a deposit of funds for the payment of a certain sum of money. See: Federal Reserve Act, Reg. J, Sec. 3 (12). (Money is not notes.) Nothing contained in this chapter shall impair the redeemability of any currency of the United States. See: 31 USC 9?6. (If currency has any redeemability — where?) Bank notes are promissory notes of a bank, payable to bearer. They are a good tender unless objected to at the time because not money. See: Parsons Laws of Business, Page 172. (Anything is acceptable as a tender unless objected to.) It cannot be doubted that under the Constitution the power to provide a circulating of coins is given to Congress. And it is settled by the uniform practice of the government and repeated decisions, that Congress may constitutionally authorize the omission of bills of credit. Having this in the exercise of undisputed constitutional power undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may constitutionally secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the quality of legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by law against the imposition of counterfeit and base coin on the community. See: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall 533, 19 L Ed 48. “Federal Reserve notes are valueless.” See: Internal Revenue Code at section 1.1001-1 (4657) C.C.H. Taxes lawfully assessed are collectible by agents in money, and notes cannot be accepted in payment. See: Town of Frankfort v. Waldo, 128 Me 1. (If notes cannot be accepted, what about checks?) Securities are defined as notes or evidences of debt. See: Rev. Rule 66-321, CB 1966-2, p 59. Negotiable note must be promise to pay money. See: Roads v. Webb, 91 Me 410. Only the note which represents money is negotiable. See: Omohumbro v. Crumm, 18 Gratt 703. (What note represents money? If there is none, nothing is negotiable.) A check, to negotiable, must be payable in cash. See: Little v. Bank, 2 Hill 425. (Checks and notes are not cash.) One of the factors showing that notes are worth their full face value is “the willingness of the payee to guarantee payment.” See: Volume 10, Law of Fed. Income Tax, Se. 59.51. (Who will guarantee the face value payment of a federal Reserve note? You can change notes for notes but that is not a payment of the note.) Congress may issue treasury notes, their issue being an exchange of credit for money or property. See: Metropolitan Bank v. Dyke, 27 NY 400. A state cannot, by indirect means, or any device, emit bills of credit. See: Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet 431. A bill of credit is not a good consideration for a contract. See: Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 431; Bank v. Clark, 4 Mo 59; Linn v. Bank, 5 Ill 87. A state cannot incorporate individuals and authorize them to coin money. See: Briscoe v. Bank, 11 Pet 257. (But can the Federal government?) Tender is an unconditional offer to perform couples with a manifested ability to carry out the offer and production of the subject matter of the tender. See: 243 F. Supp 741, 744. An offer of performance which, if unjustifiably refused, places the refusing party in default and permits the party making tender to exercise his remedy for breach of contract. See: 17 P.2d 952, 953. A check is a written order or request addressed to a bank, by a party having money in their hands, desiring them to pay, on presentment, to a person therein named, or bearer, or to such person, or order, a named sum of money. See: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. (No one has money in the bank to pay any person. Money is not notes or checks.) A check is an order on a bank, drawn on a deposit of funds, for the payment of a certain sum of money. See: Norton on Bills and Notes. 53. A check, to be negotiable, must be payable in money. See: Little v. Bank, 2 Hill (NY) 425. (Notes are not money.) A check given in exchange for a negotiable instrument is a conditional payment only unless there is an express agreement to the contrary. See: Steele v. Vanderslice, 367 p 2d 636. Promissory note within meaning of V.A.M.S. Sec. 401.001 is a promise to pay sum certain in money. See: Dillard v. Dillard, 269 SW 2d 481. A note is an acknowledgment of debt. See: Smith v. Mills, 296 P 2d 481, 49 SE 2d 431; Gales v. Frank, 121 NY S 2d 435. (Do those who possess notes, possess debt?) Where note is void ab initio it is nonnegotiable. See: Modern Ind. Bank v. Taub, 47 A.2d 348. 58. Parties to a negotiable instrument are generally held to be liable in capacity in which they signed the instrument and sueable accordingly. See: Reed v. Buck, 370 SW 2d 867. (Who signs Federal Reserve notes?) Petition seeking to enforce the terms of a promissory note must allege a promise to pay made by defendant. See: McGee v. Taylor, 242 SW 2d 621. (Court cases have often been dismissed because all parties to the action were not named. Anyone suing a bank should include the Secretary of Treasury and whoever signed the note. However, Federal Reserve notes are not really promissory notes and there is no promise to pay thereon.) The essence of a check is that the instrument is an unconditional order in writing to pay a sum certain in money. See: State v. DeNicola, 126 NE 2d 62; Aetna Oil Co. v. Glenn, 53 F. Supp. 961. A check is not money. See: School Dist. v. U.S. National Bank, 211 P 2d 723. (Notes are not money.) A bank note is a promissory note of a bank, payable on demand, and intended to circulate as money. See: Commissioner v. Gallagher, 126 Mass 54. (Payable in what?) Nothing is consideration for a note that is not regarded as such by both parties. See: Standly v. Western Mutual Life Ins., 95 Ind 254; Sterns v. Franks, 96 P.2d 802; 35 Cal App. 2d 676. Instruments not bearing terms of negotiability such as words “or order” or “or bearer” were not negotiable. See: Inst. Penn. v. Utne, D.C. Minn (1962), 360 SW 2d 823. (Today’s Federal Reserve notes contain no such words and are not negotiable except for more notes.) A note is an instrument which, by its terms, purports to evidence unconditional promise to pay. See: McCullough Tool v. C.I.R., (1963), 318 F.2d 790. Note which was not payable to order or bearer was not negotiable. See: Strom v. Dickson, (1962), 361 SW 2d 823. A holder of a note is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course and is entitled to sue on the note. See: Waterman v. Sullivan, 81964, 397 P 2d 739. (But we do not have valid notes.) In order for a note to be negotiable it must contain both an unconditional promise to pay and a fixed or determined date of payment. See: Bank of Kimbol v. Rostek, (1967), 423 P 2d 579. A promissory cannot be received as cash. Nothing shall be deemed capital paid in except money bona fide. Under no circumstances shall a promissory note, check, or other obligation be treated as actual paid in capital. See: Pac. Trust v. Dorsey, 72 Cal 55. It will not do to say that their interest in the welfare of the state and their responsibility to their constituents will be sufficient safeguards against corrupt legislation of this or any other character. Suppose the powerful mining and other corporations doing business in this territory were to concentrate a heavy and combined moneyed influence upon a corrupt and venal legislature — an institution not entirely unknown to the history of our republic — and should procure the passage of an act making their certificates of stock lawful money in the payment of taxes, I think it would be difficult to find a lawyer who valued his legal opinion as worth anything, who would be willing to defend such an act as valid. See: Haas v. Misner, 1 Idaho 170, 178. Act of Dec. 23, 1923, Sec. 317: Upon the deposit with the treasurer of the U.S. of bonds so purchased, and Federal Reserve bank making such deposit, shall be entitled to receive from the comptroller of the currency circulating notes in blank. Such notes shall be the obligations of the Federal Reserve Bank. They shall be issued and redeemed under the same terms as national bank notes. (In the beginning the Federal Reserve banks bought the bonds with money; they issued notes in the amount of bonds purchased. The Federal Reserve banks bought bonds and deposited them with the treasurer. The U.S. Treasurer had possession of both the bond and the money. The Federal Reserve banks issued the notes. The notes were to be obligations of the Federal Reserve banks. The Federal Reserve banks loaned the notes to the government, and in this way the Federal Reserve banks got back all the money they paid for the bonds; but also, in the beginning, the notes were to be used only for settling accounts between the 12 Federal Reserve banks, and for no other purpose were they authorized.) See: 12 USC 411. The case of a State which pays off its own debts with paper money, no more resembles this than do those to which we have already adverted. The courts have no jurisdiction over the contract. They cannot enforce it, nor judge of its violation. Let it be that the act discharging the debt is a mere nullity, and that it is still due. Yet the federal courts have no cognizance of the case. But suppose a State to institute proceedings against an individual, which depended on the validity of an act emitting bills of credit; suppose a State to prosecute one of its citizens for refusing paper money, who should plead the constitution in bar of such prosecution. If his plea should be overruled, and judgment rendered against him, his case would resemble this; and, unless the jurisdiction of this court might be exercised over it, the constitution would be violated, and the injured party be unable to bring his case before that tribunal to which the people of the United States have assigned all such cases. See: Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wall 100. According to State v. Thomas money was property but Federal Reserve notes are only a claim on property and, Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money–not legal tender. See: State v. Thomas, 12 USC 411. Make the bank identify the thing loaned. Certainly if the bank claims to have loaned something they can identify it, and according to the law of tender, the tender must be kept good. If a judgement could be settled with a tender, then the litigation would never end. A Federal Reserve note being a chose in action, something to be sued upon (UCC), but then, under state law, there can be no “holder in due course” on an incomplete instrument, and a fed note is an incomplete instrument as it will not pay to bearer. This amounts to a common law cheat, which is the obtaining of money or property by means of false tokens, symbols, or device; this being the definition of a cheat or cheating at common law. See: State v. Renick, 33 Or 584, 56 p 275, 44 L R A 266, 72 Am. St. Rep. 758. What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious. In a word, they are determined to annihilate all debts, public and private, and have agrarian laws, which are easily effected by means of unfunded paper money which shall be a tender in all cases. See: Gen. Knox. In order to constitute a loan, there must be a contract whereby one party transfers to the other a sum of money. See: U.S. v. Neifert White, 247 F.Supp. 878. A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another of a sum of money. See: Kirkland v. Bailes, 155 S.E. 2d 701. (Yet the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says in Modern Money Mechanics that banks make loans by promising to lend.) (However a promise to lend cannot be enforced. In order to constitute a loan, money must be loaned, but banks make loans by promising to lend, and promises to lend cannot be enforced.) 5 MRSA. The thing given or taken in exchange must be specific and so distinguishable from things of like kind as to be clearly known and identifiable. See: Preston v. Keene, 14 Pet 133. The extension of credit is not the giving of value. See: UCC 3-303:0; Atkinson v. Englewood State Bank, 141 Colo 436. A loan is the creation of debt by the lenders agreement to pay MONEY TO THE DEBTOR. See: Maine Consumer Credit Code 9-A, Sec. 1.301 (23)(a)(1). Banks extend credit, not money. See: National Bank v. Atkinson, 55 Fed. Rep. 571. Fair and reasonable value means the best price to be at once in money — cash being the antonym of credit– cash value importing value in money. See: State v. Woodward, 93 SO 826, 208 Ala 31. A note given to town treasurer in payment of a tax, being illegal as against public policy, does not discharge the tax. See: Embden v. Bunker, 86 Me 313. There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred even though the transferee takes it subject to the disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation makes it the subject of transfer by assignment. See: Badger v. Gilmore, 33 N.H. 361, 66 Am. D. 729; William R. Stank v. M.W. White, 172 Minn. Reports 390. Although it apparently was still necessary in the 1790’s to allege fictionally that such bills were drawn “according to the custom of merchants,’ Butter v. Ouchterloney, S SC, 3-68) all agreed that an instrument executed by a non merchant was negotiable if it contained words of negotiability customarily used by merchants, such as “or order” in an appropriate place. See: Whitney v. Whitney, Quincy 117 (1765); Laws and Usages Respecting Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, by John Tisdall. According to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), “a debt can only be paid with money or goods.” The UCC, of course, is state law which supersedes federal law. “The Federal Government has no power to impose on any state officer any duty whatsoever, and compel him to perform it.” See: Commonwealth v. Dennison, 24 How. 66. A judgement for money must specify the amount in words or figures with some mark or character to indicate what they represent. Re See: Boyd (D.C. Or) Fed. Case No. l1746 (see also United Glover Co. v. Harvey Steel, 3 F.2d 634.) (Figures in the absence of dollar marks should be void as there would be no figure or mark to indicate what the numbers represent.) In the absence of any provision of law precluding payment in a particular kind of coin specifically designated in a contract, the general rule is that such contract may be enforced by the rendition of a judgement for the particular kind of coin designated. See: The Emily Sounder, 17 Wall 666; Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 Wall 687; Land v. Gluckauf, 28 Cal 288; Gilman v. Douglas County, 6 Nev. 27. The support of the general rule by the courts has been based not on the difference in the kinds of money, but on the ground that the party specifically contracted for payment in a specific thing. See: Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694. The issuance of Federal Reserve notes is not an attempt by the government to coin money, it is a pledge of the government to pay dollars. See: U.S. v. Ballard, 14 Wall 457. No payment is effectuated by the delivery of a bill or note which is unenforceable. See: Lee v. Fontaine, 10 Ala 755. (A note is unenforceable unless it is negotiable.) Giving of a note does not constitute payment. See: Echart v. Commissioners C.C.A., 42 F.2d 158, 283 US 140; Noland v. Maryland Casualty Co., D.C. Md. 38 F.Supp. 497. (See #70) When a decree provides for the payment of money, that term imports constitutional currency. See: Shackleford v. Cunningham, 41 Ala 203; West Oliver Co. v. Bail & Crommelin, 12 Ala 340. (Constitutional money is not notes or checks.) For judgements payable in US funds. See: Shaw Savill Albion & Co. v. The Frederickburg, C.A. N.Y. 189 F.2d 952. Definition of funds: Money in hand; assets; cash; money available. See: Galena Ins. Co. v. Kupfer, 28 Ill 335; U.S. v. Jenks, D.C. Pa. 264 F 697; Johnson v. State, 37 Ga. App 129. Money is property. Federal Reserve notes are liabilities, not assets. Cash, according to the book. See: “The Federal Reserve Bank; Its Purposes and Functions,” is coin. Current money: Whatever is receivable and current by law as money. See: Henderson v. Farmers Savings Bank, 199 Iowa 496. The precious metals alone are money, and whatever else is to perform the functions of money must be their representative and capable of being turned into them at will. So long as bank paper retains this quality it is a substitute for money; divested of this, nothing can give it that character. See: 3 Websters Works 41; Woodruff v. Miss, 162 US Reports 307. A Note is only promise to pay. See: Fidelity Savings v. Grimes, 131 P 2d 894. Legal tender notes are not good as lawful money of the U.S.. See: Rains v. State, 226 S.W. 189. Checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the U.S.. See: State v. Nealan, 43 Ore 158. Where the Fed. Gov. is a party to commercial paper, it is bound by same rules which govern private persons. See: Continental American Bank v. U.S., C.C.A. La. (1947) 161 F.2d 93. The government assumes all responsibilities of private persons when it issues commercial paper. See: U.S. v. First National Bank, 138 F.2d 681. The term “dollar” means money since it is the unit of money in this country, and in the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes or bonds or other evidences of debt. See: Devenny v. Devenny, 74 Ohio St. 96, 76 NE 688. Federal Reserve Notes are a first and paramount lien on all the assets of the issuing Federal Reserve bank. See: Moody’s Bank & Financial Manual, page 2105. (If Federal Reserve notes are a lien on the banks, no wonder they want to eliminate the use of Federal Reserve notes and deal only with computer entries.) Negotiable Instruments Law was designed to cover commercial paper and U.S. currency. See: LSA-R.S. 17; 1 et seq LSA-C.C. art 2139. The public’s use of demand deposits as money is not based on authorization by the Federal Government. Even today, legal tender, the kind of money in which debts are payable, does not include demand deposits. See: An Introduction to Money and Banking, by Colin and Rosemary Campbell, Professors of Economics. U.S. Currency does not contain all of essence of negotiable instrument under Louisiana law. U.S. currency is the object for which negotiable instruments issue. The very first requirement of our negotiable instrument law is that the instrument be signed by the maker. The signatures on paper money are made by facsimile stamp put there by machine. See: Civil Code Art. 2139 La; 120 So. 2d 845. We are involved in a confidence game; there is nothing to our currency except the confidence the people have in it. See: Congressman Ron Paul. Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all commerce and industry. See: President James Garfield. The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who would question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. See: Abraham Lincoln. Funny money supply: The Feds can’t count it let alone control it. See: Barron’s Financial Report, Feb. 3, 1975. This sound state of the currency will have another most happy effect upon the laboring man. He will receive his wages in gold and silver; and this will induce him to lay up, for future use, such portion of them as he can spare. This he will not do at present, because he knows not whether the trash which he is now compelled to receive as money will continue to be of any value a week or a month hereafter. See: James Buchanan, Jan. 22, 1840. A holder who does not give value cannot qualify as a holder in due course. See: UCC 3-303;1(1). (The bank holds a note but what did the bank give for the note; what thing of value did they part with?) With respect to a consumer credit sale, the creditor may not take a negotiable instrument other than a currently dated check or a draft payable within seven days. See: Maine Consumer Credit Code, Title 9, Sec. 3.307. A promise to pay is not the equivalent of actual payment. See: Christianson v. Beebe, 91 P 129, 32 Utah 406. Notes do not operate as payment in the absence of an agreement that they shall constitute payment. See: Blackshear Manufacturing Co. v. Harrell, 12 S.E. 2d 766. A court will take judicial notice of the worth of a dollar. See: Read v. State, 92 NY 321. Federal Reserve Notes and national bank notes may be used to pay an obligation evidenced by usual form of promissory note. See: Beery v. Los Angeles County, (1953), 253 P 2d 1005. (This case was over Wallace Berry, the movie actor. The notes in question were redeemable in lawful money and would pay to the bearer on demand.) Par: When used in connection with currency, treasury notes or bank bills, par means equal to gold. See: Crim v. Sellars, 37 Ga 324. Equal to gold and silver. See: Galloway v. Jenkin, 63 NC 147; Harrisburg Bank v. Commonwealth, 26 Pa 451. Thus it is laid down by books of authority that if a man draw a bill of exchange, he is, for the purposes of that bill, a merchant. See: Comyns Digest; Merchant, A,1. (are we all, than merchants?) One who is the cause or occasion of a condition by which a loss has been caused ought to bear it. See: Marion Mortgage Co. v. Grennan, 87 A LR 1492; 106 Fla 913. One who is not the cause of an occasion should not be made to suffer for it. See: Marion Mortgage Co v. Brennal, 87 A LR 1492; Buxbaum v. Assicurazioni v. Winston, Tx Civ. App 137 SW 2d 93. The simple meaning of money is current coin. See: Salt Lake County v. Utah Copper Co., CCA Utah, 93 F.2d 127. Payment is the discharge of an obligation by the actual delivery of money or its equivalent. See: Chrysler Corp. v. Hanover Ins. Co., C.A. 7, Ind. 350 F.2d 652; 383 US 906. Money is what is coined or stamped by public authority and has its value fixed by public authority. See: Paul v. Ball, 31 Tex 10′ Kennedy v. Briere, 45 Tex 305; Richard v. American Union Bank, 253 NY 166. The USA has no inland jurisdiction Arndt v. Griggs, 134 US 316 and thus cannot compel one, upon one’s proper objection, to obtain, use, tender, nor alienate any private negotiable instruments– not excluding FRAUDS (Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Devices), and this was held so by the state supreme courts, even when federal gold and silver coins were in existence (see ALZR administrative agency related fines, taxes, bails, etc. See: Perry v. Washburn, 20 Cal 318; Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall 71. Thus, where the judge (sic) chancellor adjudges imprisonment where he cannot fine, the same operation of law/equity destroys his necessary “discretion” and without discretion, he ceases to be a judge/chancellor, and the court CORAM NON JUDICE (no judge in attendance) as in Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 US 274, where the court is without power or refuses to grant a hearing; Windsor, Supra. Thus no fine nor imprisonment can be enforced at all. “Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that they days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” See: Deuteronomy 25: 13-15. From the Constitutional debates on bills of credit contained in Article 1, Section 8 which stated: The legislature of the United States shall have the power to . . . coin money . . . and emit bills of credit of the United States. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, by James Madison, Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, 1966. Mr. G. Morris moved to strike out and “and emit bills of credit.” If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary; if they had not, unjust and useless.MADISON: Will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.MORRIS: Striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The moneyed interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited. COL. MASON: Through he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergencies, he was willing to tie the hands of the legislature. (legislature = Congress) MERCER: (A friend of paper money) It was impolitic . . . to excite the oppression of all those who were friends to paper money. Mr. ELSEWORTH: thought this was a favorable movement to shut and bar the door against paper money. This mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new Government more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost anything else . . .. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good. Mr. WILSON: It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources. Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation. Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words “and emit bills.” —The motion for striking out carried. On August 28, Article 1 Section 10 was debated. The standing version was worded this way: “No state shall coin money; nor grant letters of marquee and reprisal; nor enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; nor grant any title of nobility.” “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their
      • J.M.

        January 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM

        J@ >January 24, 2014 at 9:15 PM

        @ >I don’t know what the case is, off the top of my head, but focus on the federal reserve NOTE part. A note, is a note. Might be something in here:
        WOW !!!
        This will keep us, or at least some of us busy for a while. I hope Pat Fields sees this. Did you dejure, see what the Commander and Chief of this blog said about you,he said, > “dejure makes almost astonishing contributions. I’m hoping to talk to him one of these days.”
        No response to this message is necessary. I have a full plate with your post of,anuary 24, 2014 at 9:15 PM.

    • dejure

      January 25, 2014 at 1:55 PM

      I don’t know what link showed, regarding my YouTube comment. I ramble a lot. Haven’t seen any emails come in via the gmail.

      On education – no big deal. I never graduated from high school, but believe I write better than many college grads, I’ve managed to win many a legal battle, have held federal jobs they waived the college requirements for to get the job done, have a wood shop and have produced things that have gotten me invited to prestigious art shows, though I’ve never worked for another in the trade or had schooling on it, and so on. My story is like a million others’ stories.

      More critical than a pieces of paper touting education is, our drive to improve ourselves. Many leave school and never learn another thing of any significance.

  30. Adrian

    January 25, 2014 at 2:54 PM

    Some of you are polluting this site with your crap.
    There is a good essay for you all to study.Was written in 19th century.Is as fresh as was written yesterday.
    Its name is: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.
    This study is your foundation for your salvation.

    • J.M.

      January 25, 2014 at 3:28 PM

      @ Some of you are polluting this site with your crap.
      You can always remove yourself. It’s not hard to do.

    • dejure

      January 25, 2014 at 3:54 PM

      Adrian, my apologies for the long post. My bad, as they say. Since this must be your site, hopefully, you can delete it.

    • J.M.

      January 25, 2014 at 11:18 PM

      @-Some of you are polluting this site with your crap
      I agree with “you.”

  31. J.M.

    January 25, 2014 at 9:06 PM

    dejure, Beloved,

    @ hopefully, you can delete it.

    dejure quit stealing my thunder. Only I am allowed to say things like that. Now back to the drawing board. Oh, I did try to send you an e-mail but, & I have never had anything like this to happen before. A page came up with blanks for me to fill in and I have no idea what it meant so I could not fill in what was necessary. However, I know somehow I will get through eventually. I cannot thank you enough for your well I am at a loss for words to explain it. I am overwhelmed. What a Godsend you are.

  32. Applessence

    January 27, 2014 at 10:55 AM

    J.M., You asked if it is ‘improper’ to ask for the before and after, regarding the tickets. There is ONLY a before. I have yet to have any traffic commissioner respond to my questionnaires, or ‘inquiry’. In my experience so far, they just don’t do it.

    I send them a denial of jurisdiction ( I do not have a license, and have not agreed to follow their rules for that license (Motor Vehicle Code), and I am not a ‘person’, so I do not follow through or get into debates with the court. I certainly would NEVER show up in their court, as that would be an admission they have jurisdiction in the first place.

    The only ‘proof’ I have is that I never hear from them again. I returned the license and plates 2 years ago, and the last encounter was in September. The only way to post before and after is if you go play THEIR game in THEIR court. I won’t be doing that voluntarily.

    I haven’t figures out how to sue them for the towing storage fees yet, without submitting to their jurisdiction, and again, taking such action might ‘prove’ I am subject to their jurisdiction.

    I live in the venue California Republic, as established by the 1849 California Constitution, not the federal territory STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CA), the corporate subsidiary of the UNITED STATES, established in the District of Columbia in 1879 by the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION of 1879.

    Simplest way to put it is: if you don’t want to get beat up, don’t go into the gang neighborhoods (venues), as Alfred discusses quite often. I don’t venture into their venues voluntarily. I do not find it ‘fun’ to keep messing in their venues or debating their laws, offering more ‘inquiries’,etc. It just sucks you deeper and deeper into their system. I want just the opposite: quiet and peaceful, no stress, no games. Such games are for armchair quarterbacks, and as has pointed out many times, it is almost impossible to win their game, if you choose to play. They set it up that way from the beginning.

    It is very interesting to see the breadth of knowledge on this site. Alfred seems to bring out the intellectuals. Biggest problem is, no matter how many times you quote the Constitution For The United States of America, it won’t help, because GovCo is not using that constitution, they are using the US CONstitution, as most people in this country have sworn under penalty of perjury (SSN) that they are US citizens (citizens of corporate District of Columbia : CA, TX, zip codes, etc.), so they HAVE subjected themselves to that venue and its statutes. I returned the SSN, procured for me by my parents when I was a child, 7 or 8 years ago. I have returned/cancelled ALL licenses/permissions from GovCo, either STATE or federal. I do not have any GovCo identifications at all, I do not collect any of my GovCo pensions or SSN. I do not take their handouts, as again, that would subject me to their rules, and there is NO way I am going to do that.

    I cashed out all my investments 6 years ago, bought physical gold and silver (as Alfred suggests all the time), and as soon as I have ‘extra’ money in my hands, I go buy more gold or silver. The system seems headed for an inevitable crash, as Alfred points out often. I do not want to be on that train or in their system when that happens.

    • J.M.

      January 27, 2014 at 1:35 PM

      Thank you so much for your response. My understanding of what you posted earlier was your way to show that what you did,”got them” off your back. This WAS my understanding. As of today, let’s say, & presuming you sometimes “use” your automobile, do you ever get “pulled over” & asked for those required “Stamp of approval documents?” Driver license & so on ? If so, how does this “end up?” You mentioned “towing” yes, I understand that, OH YES, but this leaves me to think you are still confronted,sometimes, maybe, with being harassed, etc. e.g., I may very well go to the flea market today & get back from there & not be harassed by being pulled over because of “unauthorized” license plate, as they call it, that the “peace officer” “noticed.” BUT, I may be”pulled over” & harassed. Are you ever harassed, now, after sending in the document you posted earlier?

      I will close by saying in their eyes, We the people of the U.S. (several states) are now, We the SUBJECTS of another U.S. AND Subject to ITS jurisdiction. And as long as we are obedient SUBJECTS & get their SUPERIOR authority grants, we will at least have SOME relief. You say, I want quiet and peace, no stress, no games.Same here.

      Oh, Would you consider posting a BEFORE document? Maybe dejure, A Godsend to this blog will see it & see if anything additional will help. I have affidavits filed & made a matter of PUBLIC Record of who I am, my parents, their parents,& on back, i.e. Great Grandparents, for 1 example These ARE my ID papers. BUT these are seized too when I am harassed. I have racked my brain trying to know WHO I have not sent same documents to in gov-co. Even went to the Secretary of State & had same filed there. It’s still the same ol same ol thing.

      So far, however, lately at least, the harassing officer NEVER shows up for court. In this sense, it has been a 180 turn. Don’t go to the trouble of trying to explain about what appearing in court does because my prior experiences have been they force me to appear. In jail attire. Why? because I did not volunteer on my own to appear. They got me there anyway. Today, I am to weary & my health is not that well & I don’t want to be physically tortured & beat up anymore. There is always for everybody a can’t take it anymore point. It would be a relief for me to be a martyr if they would get it over with at least fairly fast. That’s the best I can do because that is all I have left in me FOR THEM.

    • moon

      February 6, 2014 at 9:14 PM

      Applessence, concerning towing expenses, would a commercial lien work citing harm of aggravated auto theft…if you stop on private property, not the side of the road? It may not actually get a return of your expenses, but after a few times, you probably wouldn’t be towed as often. I’m writing as much for gathering information as for trying to help you.

  33. Peter

    January 27, 2014 at 11:31 AM

    J.M. you requested if I would like a computer to post an address , Peter Q @. 5201 ATLANTIC BLVD. UNIT 217 Jacksonville, Florida P/C 32207 ,Thank you and please indicate what I can barter for the unit . Maybe an ounce or two of silver $

    • J.M.

      January 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM

      Thanks Peter,
      I have freely received & I want to freely give. But thank you for your precious offer. Tomorrow I will start making arrangements for your computer. You are going to have to handle your internet connection costs etc. I would do that for you too, if I could, but I can’t, I regret to say. I will stay,or TRY to stay in touch with you on this thread about the computer. Oh, PERSONally, I like Windows XP but it seems most people like Windows 7. Tell me, what kind of computer you like & I will do the best I can to get “that type.” If I an unable to get exactly what you want, I’ll tell you what I can do, & you can tell me if what I can do is good enough. I hope I am able to get EXACTLY what you would like to have. This will make me happy.

    • J.M.

      January 27, 2014 at 6:31 PM

      Peter, I need to hear from you before I help make arrangements to get you a computer. I said tomorrow but, it won’t be tomorrow unless I hear from you re: my message to you on January 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM

    • J.M.

      January 28, 2014 at 12:53 AM

      We also need to at least try & have the computer shipped & requiring your signature for delivery. I have had quite a few things stolen including my very last order from Amazon. I found the empty box last Tuesday, 6 days after I was notified it “was” delivered while walking my dogs. I just don’t want your computer stolen after it is delivered.

  34. Peter

    January 28, 2014 at 3:52 PM

    J.M. I will leave that to you, I am a novice when it comes to computers. Anything I receive will be new to me so whatever you think is best. Generally the librairy is where I use the computer and a laptop is accessable some of the time. The address given is a trusted friend that will be glad to sign for it. Once again thank-you and thank-you for reminding me, I freely receive and freely give also, it works out .

    • J.M.

      January 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM

      Ok, Now when I say tomorrow, it will be tomorrow. In fact, I am going to “shop around” starting in a few minutes. Oh, you can have your trusted friend sign for it. I just hope he/she is trustworthy. I do not know your friend. I’m trusting that you do. I will have the computer shipped to the address you gave. Re: Novice. I only KNOW how to turn one on & off & that’s about it.

    • J.M.

      January 29, 2014 at 7:12 PM

      Here is the latest,
      It is a Dell OptiPlex 745 Small Form Factor desktop computer & comes with an Intel Dual Core 1.8GHz Processor, 2GB of DDR2 Memory, 80GB Hard Drive, CD-ROM Optical Drive, and the Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium(32-bit) Operating System, & Keyboard & mouse.Expected delivery date is Feb.4th but not guaranteed which is understandable. There may be a problem with a signature required as the seller said that was the shipper’s choice. I will keep you up to date, “or try to” with the information I receive Don’t know what else to say at this time.

    • J.M.

      January 31, 2014 at 4:31 AM

      Does your friend have an e-mail address I could send him/her the tracking number re: your computer? I understand, but to late, that some people may monitor this blog that have ulterior motives. They never comment, but anyone can gain access to this or any other blog I would think. Somebody may live on the other side of the world & have one of their “friends” who may live close to where your computer is being shipped to. All that is necessary is for a phone call to be made to that “friend.” Anyway, the date of arrival has not changed, as of yet anyway. Sometimes the weather plays a big part in arrival times. I have proven that I have no wisdom by handling this as I have. My heart has a mind of its own. I should have handled this strictly via e mail. It’s something I did not think of. I sure hope YOU get the computer.

      • J.M.

        February 3, 2014 at 12:10 PM

        Scheduled Delivery:

        Last Location:

        Hope you’re ok. I’m concerned because of no response from you.Latest info is showing above. I do not want to give out the tracking number on this blog & I have tried to explain why. As you see, the delivery date has moved up a day. U.P.S is deliverer per latest info. Will you, Pete, tell me if you get the computer?

      • J.M.

        February 6, 2014 at 1:46 PM

        The Computer was Delivered On:
        Wednesday, 02/05/2014 at 5:33 P.M.
        Tracking number U.P.S. 1Z3A91F70397815007
        Since this is the latest info., NOW it makes no difference who has the tracking number. If you did not PERSONALLY get the computer. Maybe you can contact U.P.S. & go from there. There is not anything else I can do.

  35. henry

    January 28, 2014 at 8:41 PM

    Great work. I am working on my own version now so I will not be in a rush when I need it (if ever). I see that you reference ‘express charitable trust entitled “The Constitution of The State of Texas” established in A.D. 1876′. Some States have had more than one constitution: Florida (1838, 1865, 1868, 1885, 1968), Pennsylvania (1776, 1790, 1838, 1874, 1968), Illinois (1818, 1848, 1870, 1970). In these States, does the latest constitution replace the earlier constitutions? If so, should one describe it with the year it was adopted? Should the older constitutions be mentioned?

    • Adask

      January 28, 2014 at 11:17 PM

      If you want to rely on any authority, you need to specify that authority as clearly as possible. If you were to refer to only The Constitution of Pennsylvania when there have been five different documents bearing the same title, you allow some ambiguity to enter into your claim. In theory the judge could presume that you meant the The Constitution of Pennsylvania from A.D. 1790 rather than A.D. 1968. Under that kind of pretext, the judge might dismiss your case. That’s an extreme possibility and perhaps unlikely, but its still a possibility.

      Insofar as I cited the authority of an earlier Constitution of The State of Texas, I was probably referencing Article I of that Constitution which is the Texas “Bill of Rights” and is declared to be in force in perpetuity. Therefore, I can reach back to older versions of the Constitution of The State of Texas because their Article I still carries some authority.

      But that’s just for The State of Texas. It makes no sense for you to make claims on older and presumably outdated versions of your State’s constitution unless they still have some authority that you can prove. If those older versions no longer carry any authority, there’s no apparent reason to rely on them.

      • Applessence

        February 6, 2014 at 11:47 AM

        Alfred, I am not sure there is any such thing as an “outdated” constitution. California has an 1849 AD Constitution, the one that came into existence with the California Republic as one of the several states of the perpetual Union. There is a second constitution, which almost every STATE has, around 1878, 1879, that, like the US Constitution, was essentially ‘copied’ from the several states constitutions, but applied to the federal territories with such names as STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (“this state) located in the District of Columbia, which is a subdivision of the private corporation UNITED STATES, and such ‘constitutions’ have essentially been substituted for the real constitutions of the several states of the union.

        As you have pointed out many, many times, it appears to be a matter of venue: where do you ‘exist’?

  36. moon

    February 3, 2014 at 10:59 PM

    Adask, why do you doubt the legality of sending your letter of inquiry to the judge?

    • Adask

      February 4, 2014 at 12:03 AM

      I understand my “right of inquiry” to be created by the governmental entity and/or the individual officer who sent the original notice to me. Thus, I am only entitled to ask questions of that particular governmental entity and/or the officer that sent the original notice. If the judge is not part of the governmental agency that sent the original notice and/or the judge himself did not sign the original notice, then the judge has not sent me a notice, the judge has not created my right of inquiry; I have no right to pose questions to the judge.

      • moon

        February 4, 2014 at 4:12 AM

        That explanation works for me. The officer has already been sent questions by registered mail with the judge, court clerk, and sheriff being put on notice with copies of the questions. The officer’s letter came back unaccepted, the others received theirs, so the judge, court clerk, and sheriff are aware of the questions. It’s Alabama where traffic tickets are “deemed” to be signed and “no signature required”, according to the ticket. The original ticket/notice only has the officer’s name (a state trooper), but no apparent indication that STATE OF ALABAMA or the State of Alabama is a party to the notice such as plaintiff or complainant. It appears the trooper initiated a judicial action on his own using a state approved form.. So, the trooper must be the only one to properly send a notice of inquiry to. Would you agree?

      • Adask

        February 4, 2014 at 2:59 PM

        That would be my argument. However, if the ticket starts with a heading like “DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION” or “CITY OF MOBILE” “MUNICIPAL COURT OF MOBILE,” I believe that whatever agency is specified at the top of the ticket is also subject to receiving your questions. Thus, I’d send questions to both the officer who issued the ticket and whatever agency he worked for.

        Insofar as the officer refused to answer your questions, the obligation to do so should fall on his employer (governmental agency) named at the top of the ticket/notice. If that agency also refuses, I would argue that I’ve been deprived of the first element of procedural due process (sufficient notice) and therefore the agency issuing the ticket would lose it’s legal capacity to take me to the “opportunity to be heard” in some administrative court.

        I would not enter the court believing that this argument would work at the trial court level. It might work, but I wouldn’t count on it. I would enter the court with the intent of creating evidence of my deprivation of procedural due process that would stand up on my first level of appeal (the county courts) or more likely to my second level of appeal (to a true, state appellate court).

    • J.M.

      February 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM

      I am having the same problem in trying to send you an email as I am having with dejure. I cut & pasted this email, > gr8ride4clyddatgmail. I get a notice that says, this appears to be invalid email address, try sending anyway? Then I click yes, & a notice pops up that says, message not sent, invalid email address.

  37. moon

    February 4, 2014 at 8:21 PM

    Yes, your point is well made.

    The heading reads “ALABAMA UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET AND COMPLAINT”, which, it seems, opens a door for discovering the meaning of “ALABAMA”. Just under the heading it reads: ALABAMA, COUNTY OF…(the county is in ALL CAPS). So, would you think the sheriff of the a possible proper one to receive the letter of inquiry? Keep in mind that the sheriff already has a copy of the previously mentioned questions, although they weren’t sent to him. He was only put on notice of them.

    Let’s put a bit of flavor into the mix before I ask another question about the letter of inquiry.

    Let’s say that the alleged offender (listed as “JOHN DOE” on the “TICKET AND COMPLAINT”) did not make an “appearance” in “court” at the stated date, time, and place,.concerning an alleged offense of “NO SEAT BELT”. By way of a possible related “offense”, a copy of court clerk records was sent to an ALL CAPS name and address. Apparently not a notice to appear, but a copy of court clerk records, signed ( /s/ ) by the “judge”, listing a “hearing” date (as opposed to a “plea docket” date as mentioned on the “TICKET AND COMPLAINT”).

    Here’s the question:

    Does this arrangement, in your opinion, qualify the “judge” to receive the letter of inquiry?

    • J.M.

      February 6, 2014 at 12:20 AM

      @ Does this arrangement, in your opinion, qualify the “judge” to receive the letter of inquiry?

      Moon, Call whatever so called court this will be/is held in & ask if it a “court of record.” My experiences have been that no matter what we do, they proceed like a bulldozer anyway in a court of no record.. We don’t get an appeal from a court not of record. The next step “up” is called a trial de novo. It starts out as nothing has transpired.This is where your position stand really begins Do us both a favor, if you will, & find out if you will be in any manner, communicating with a court of no record.

      • moon

        February 6, 2014 at 11:01 AM

        J.M., Thanks for your interest. According to Code of Alabama, Section 12-12-2, District Court, where traffic infractions are of concern, is a court of record, or, at least, it “shall be”. If one actually reads that code citation though, there is certainly room for wobble. Who keeps the record? When are records actually required?

        However, it appears I can arrange for my own reporter. My reporter uses video. That will probably be a sticky spot with the court, but it appears I have a basis to insist on video reporting. That’s WHENEVER I get to court, though.

        Check the statute and let me know what you get from it:

        Universal Citation: AL Code § 12-12-2 (2012)
        Section 12-12-2
        District court a court of record; preparation, maintenance, etc., of records of proceedings generally; employment of reporters or provision for transcripts of proceedings by parties.
        (a) The district court shall be a court of record.
        (b) Records of proceedings shall be made, maintained and preserved according to rules promulgated by the supreme court, but neither reports nor transcripts of proceedings shall be required, except as provided by law or rule.
        (c) Any party may employ a reporter or provide for a transcript of the proceedings on his own account.
        (Acts 1975, No. 1205, p. 2384, §4-110.)

    • J.M.

      February 7, 2014 at 12:51 PM

      moon, good morning,well I now see it’s afternoon where you are

      From what I can “understand” & at the point you are at now, I think Alfred has the best answer for you. Alfred said in pertinent part, > I would enter the court with the intent of creating evidence of my deprivation of procedural due process that would stand up on my first level of appeal (the county courts) or more likely to my second level of appeal (to a true, state appellate court).< His full message is dated on February 4, 2014 at 2:59 PM.
      I will still email you, or try to.

  38. J.M.

    February 6, 2014 at 1:38 PM

    Hi Moon,
    Oakie doak > (a) The district court shall be a court of record.< IF you, moon, "start out" in this "district court" then, it's a court of record, although it is really a "statutory" court of record. Ok, from what I understand re: where you "are" in this particular, by what "has transpired" & you mentioning who the letter of inquiry should go to,etc. the "prostitutor" I think, whoever will be prosecuting the case should have, be sent, a copy. Whoever your adversary will be, in court, speaking to the judge should be made aware of your position via the letter of inquiry BEFORE this "case" gets into court. I said, above, whoever will be, it may turn out there "won't be." Moon, I care for my fellowman. I am only trying to be of help. I hope it is understood that what I say is not what I am telling anyone to do, it's what I, myself would do. Just consider my "suggestions" as something to think about. If we can communicate via email, I will pass on to you what I have done via affidavits as my stand BEFORE anything happens & when or IF something does happen,I already have my army ready to start shootin. Oh, not knowing your time element in this matter, dejure,< another poster has GREAT info on other threads. It's hard for me to recall a lot of things but I will go back & see what thread dejure makes a comment on that may be of help in your situation.

    • moon

      February 6, 2014 at 6:52 PM

      Email is fine…I don’t know how to get to you without posting an address on here, though. Please advise.

      As for dejure writings, I looked into the 120 day idea, but it isn’t applicable on this one. Is there another dejure idea you’re referring to?

      • J.M.

        February 6, 2014 at 7:51 PM

        If you will, post an email address where I can “reach you.” What is that ol saying or whatever that says, You say tah-mah toe, I say 2 may toe, you, moon, say prosecutor. I say, prostitutor.< Stole it from, dejure. Yes, I admit, I am thief. But I am very choosy. I only steal from the very best. I am a thief that has CLASS !!Then again, I could say I borrowed it from dejure, RIGHT ?? Oh, re: "the living man" This seems to be the Name is the same game, program, remember that? Consider this, & only for the sake of a point. 3 people are in front of a judge. Judge asks, who are you? #1 says, I am the living man. Judge says to the next man,Who are you? #2 says, I am the living man, & so on. Moon, please leave an email address that you feel is safe if it can be done.

    • moon

      February 6, 2014 at 7:20 PM

      The “prosecutor” was sent the original set of questions just as the “complainant/officer” was sent.

      After considering complaint structures, signatures (or lack thereof), and inconsistencies, my feeling is that if I do nothing further, this situation will settle into the dust of it’s own weight. The “judge” probably does not want me in “her court”. She “found” me not guilty in another “no seat belt” situation by introducing “reasonable doubt” and she said, at the end, “we don’t want to see you back here again”. The “sheriff” probably doesn’t want me in his “jail” because he fears I might help other bright orange suits become aware and educated. He and the “judge” may be up for election this year…hmmmmm.

      This, however, could be a test of the ALL CAPS name v. the lower case name. I want some official, definitive language that, at least, sheds more light in that direction.

      Thanks for your offer of help J.M. .

      • J.M.

        February 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM

        @ This, however, could be a test of the ALL CAPS name v. the lower case name. I want some official, definitive language that, at least, sheds more light in that direction.

        All I need is the fact that “they” use it. But, there are excellent sources of on what is & is not a “proper name,etc. All caps is proper on a tombstone.One time the prostituting attorney said to the Judge, Your honor will you please instruct the “individual” that just spoke to identify himself. Judge said, please state your name for the record. At that time,I thought the word, individual” meant me & so I stated my name for the record, BAD BAD move on my part. “Individual” is one of “their terms” Individual, in division of, divided & so forth. I unknowingly VOIDED everything I had presented in my paperwork,< let's call it for now, AND by "identifying mysel"f as "requested" by the prostituting attorney. I have learned that at least many terms they use, I should know the meaning of & not touch them with a 20 foot pole.

        @ my feeling is that if I do nothing further, this situation will settle into the dust of it’s own weight

        Maybe so, but they also have what is called a warrant for arrest for failure to appear. I'm not trying to discourage you by saying this. Have you considered A petition for writ of Mandamus to the next level court? Now this is where I am weak in that I apparently do not know HOW to ask for something in a or the "way" that would be honored even tho they know exactly what I am asking for
        This is another way dejure can come to the rescue. What a blessing he is to this blog. I am having a BIG problem in trying to contact him via email but ask him on this blog what he thinks of You, moon, "presenting" a Petition for writ of mandamus.

    • moon

      February 6, 2014 at 9:36 PM

      Didn’t find a “reply” below where I wanted it. So, it’s here:

      I don’t want to insult a respectable, hard working confusing one with a prosecutor. It wasn’t meant as a correction or any such thing to you…call them what you feel in your heart.

      Like to hear more about the name game.


      • J.M.

        February 6, 2014 at 10:32 PM

        @ I don’t want to insult a respectable, hard working prostitute…………”

        Quit stealing my thunder !! Only I am allowed to make funny & hilarious comments. moon, I am tired & when I get this way, I am too stupid to know when to stop, & I very often misunderstand what is really said, or meant by the commen tay tor. I will at least try to make the effort to contact you as soon as possible. Did you see my “mandamus” suggestion ? I think the prosecutor is prostituting, himself. I call his pay, filthy lucre. Now let’s stay friends. Just give me the chance to correct myself when I am wrong. Anyone who does, is helping me. .Also, sometimes these comments arrive out of chronological order, time wise. You may have already responded to something when I ask about it but I might not get your response for a while.

      • J.M.

        February 13, 2014 at 3:09 AM

        Once again, your email address of gr8ride4clyddatgmail is invalid according to what I am notified of. It’s one extreme to the other in that I hit the send button & I instantly get a notice that says “message sent.” < This in reference to somebody else, NOT you, moon.Then I am notified via this blog that the messages were NEVER received by the man I sent them to. With you, moon I get a notice that says, message not sent, invalid email address.

  39. J.M.

    February 6, 2014 at 1:57 PM

    @ As you have pointed out many, many times, it appears to be a matter of venue:

    VENUE!!! You BETCHA !!! But, a few things must be done to make these “servants of the law” KNOW what venue we claim to be in BEFORE “we” are charged, etc with any kind of violation in THEIR venue. My comment is only for those who may be interested in this mass cycle of confusion we are trying to untangle. I’m not trying to educate anyone. Just adding to Applessence’s message

    • moon

      February 6, 2014 at 5:51 PM

      Adask, J.M., and any others who might be interested (the cumulative experience, study, and knowledge displayed on this site is amazing to me, and welcomed by me, the living man):

      Concerning “this mass cycle of confusion we are trying to untangle” (thanks J.M. for supplying the confusing phrase I was searching for), my focus is on immediate matters. I’m looking at the “BEFORE” that J.M. mentioned. I haven’t been to court on this particular situation and nothing is scheduled before the last of Feb, so, I have a few days to do the “BEFORE”.

      One reason I’m seeking a basis for sending the letter of inquiry to the “judge” is that I have a perfect opportunity to explore the possibility of a difference between the ALL CAPS name and the lower case name. The “JOHN DOE” listed on the “no seat belt” complaint is not that opportunity, but is a matter I’ll want to explore later.

      Associated with the same incident is a complaint of “obstructing government operations”. The “obstructing” paperwork uses both an ALL CAPS name and a lower case name. My focus right now is having a feasible way to ask the “judge” directly, but “BEFORE”: “exactly whom do you want to ‘appear’ “.

      Here’s some head knowledge concerning this particular situation:

      This is a small town/county and I’m known here in a certain way. Though my family has a long history here, it’s not generally considered that I’m from here. If one doesn’t go to high school here, one is not from here. It’s not likely anyone will say about me: “ye nois momma nis diddy nem”. (Adask, is there an interpreter for this site that speaks fluent Alabama? While you locate one, I’ll take a break and let my spell check recover.)

      However, I regularly see and speak with these folks who run the “courts” and are in “law enforcement”. It’s not like the big cities where one is trying to communicate with a faceless name. There is still, though, a wariness toward me that may be my ticket (enjoy the pun) to exploring a possible difference between the ALL CAPS name and the lower case name.

      Add this to the head knowledge as well: we are filmmakers and are considering some kind of video project from all this swirl of possibility. As my mind drifts in video creativeness, I’m thinking that a more impressive show might have me “appear” in “court” dressed in a bright orange jump suit.

      Just a bit more head knowledge: the “judge” is a fervent University of Alabama fan. Further research on your part may be necessary to appreciate the fact (oh, finally a fact…hmmmm) that bright orange is particularly offensive to her.

      Comments, thoughts, and ideas are welcome and will be appreciated…

      • J.M.

        February 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM


        @ >Concerning “this mass cycle of confusion we are trying to untangle”

        I did not mean this statement, “confusion we are trying to untangle”, in any way as applying to you, moon, & your current legal problem. Applessence made a comment to Alfred Adask. Read the last line in her comment. That is what I was commenting on & about. It is so hard for me to do anything right, communicating back & forth this way. I do not understand anything about computers & most of the computer terms. My mass cycle of confusion comment had absolutely nothing to do with your & my comments. I guess I should have put,> in reference to,Applessence’s comment on February 6, 2014 at 11:47 AM. Don’t be upset with me,moon, please..

      • J.M.

        February 6, 2014 at 9:31 PM

        IF IF I am understanding you, then you might be interested in the following › … › *Grown Folks Lounge*‎
        Jun 30, 2008 – 5 posts – ‎3 authors
        This is the reason behind the use of all caps when writing a proper name. The US and State Governments are deliberately using a legal fiction …

        I recall vaguely, Hobbs Harbrace College handbook had a thorough explanation of proper & improper names. I don’t know for sure if I am spelling the name of this book correctly, but it was Hobbs College or Hobbs Harbrace something or another.. I typed in “All caps names in the Google search bar & a web page appeared & I cut & pasted the above information

  40. moon

    February 6, 2014 at 9:52 PM

    No worries, J.M. I thought the statement fit where I put it, so, thanks to you AND Applessence. gr8ride4clyddatgmail

    • moon

      February 6, 2014 at 11:31 PM

      Not following your thought, J.M., concerning the above mentioned “dancehallreggae”.

      It’s not my desire to make this a j-o-b, so I’m looking for the most efficient way to avoid the expense of energy, etc, as others on this site are doing. Some of my research has been on various websites and you tube videos. Some ideas appeal to me, some don’t make sense. Regardless of where I search, most information comes from people of these several states: California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Texas, sometimes Georgia, and a bit from the Carolinas. Very little from Alabama. Though things tend to be generally the same in every location, there are differences. For example: simulating legal process, apparently, is a felony for those of Oregon.while it seems to be a statutory misdemeanor according to Code of Alabama.

      Alabama is a bit behind with people who insist on being something other than slaves. Those who enjoy history will see the irony in that statement.

      Someone had to do the research in other places in order to avoid being a slave. As it is now, many someones have applied themselves toward non slavery in other locations. Maybe I’m the one who needs to encourage the swell here. Maybe I’m the one who can wear the orange jumpsuit, if necessary, to promote awareness here. That’s why I’m seeking ideas and knowledge from others of you who are further along the journey than me.

      Oh, I’ve been called a sovereign citizen and corrected the caller, the chief deputy sheriff. How am I doing, so far?

      • J.M.

        February 7, 2014 at 1:58 AM

        @ >Oh, I’ve been called a sovereign citizen and corrected the caller, the chief deputy sheriff. How am I doing, so far?

        I think you are doing great !! I too have been called a sovereign citizen and also asked by those calling me that, how do you spell it? is it S-O-V-R-U-N is that how it’s spelled, then there’s the sarcastic chuckle & look along with their spelling sovrun. I’ve been called the, Hey look who just walked in, Y it’s the “notice & demand man himself or who is it this time the notice & demand man or the constructive notice & demand man Who do we have here today? moon, I could go on & on. I have had to learn everything the hard way. When I was recognized as these above mentioned known as is ziz, I thought I knew something, but I did not. STILL it was my way of telling them to STOP OPPRESSING PEOPLE. Ok now, once again, go to Google search, , all caps names < then click the magnifying glass or whatever you need to do for Google search to search for those 3 words. A web page should appear that will give you MANY things to select from re "All Caps Names", Names with all capitalization,< what it means,etc. Once again, I do not know much about computers. Maybe there are other ways to bring up information about all caps identities, names, etc. But, in my opinion it is a waste of time because your adversary doesn't care 1 whit about how much you know about all caps names. Whatever you make them ( adversaries) aware of re: the all caps name will be declared to be frivolous, specious, spurious, immaterial, irrelevant, & without foundation & merit & a few more goodies. At least that WAS my experience. BUT, maybe I just did not present it in a way they would honor. I have had State supreme & Final (top court) rulings that said what I was trying to say, & the bottom rung magistrates, judges just simply said, well I disagree. YEAH RIGHT, the lowest ranking magistrate/judge over rules the highest courts, by simply saying, I disagree 30 days, 45 days, 90 days, 364 days AND 500, 1,000, 2500,5000 dollars next please. HOWEVER,moon, there is something called an affidavit, a POWERHOUSE document IF the right info is put in it & made a matter of public record & a few more things need to be done re: the affidavit(s) & this is what I will discuss via email. Also, remember, I am not aware of what you do know so don't be upset with me for writing to you about things that may be old hat to you. BE GLAD that you have at least one other man/woman to be with you because from what I have become aware of you will need one other "helper" but you will need someone who knows what to do under any circumstances. I had nobody & still don't. But, things have turned into a 180 for me, at least for the last 5 or so years. Goodnight, I'm going to bed. IF i wake up, I will email you, we'll go from there.

    • J.M.

      February 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

      @ J.M. I thought the statement fit where I put it, ………………………”

      You’re right. My BAD. Sometimes I think I try too hard to be clear in my comments & I only make it cloudier. Some things can be understood differently. We can say something to 3 different people & it could be understood in 3 different ways.

    • J.M.

      February 8, 2014 at 12:47 AM

      Hey moon are you still out there? It looks like you & Peter, another Poster have left me.

      If a court calls out a name (which is fictitious), and the accused answers to that name, even if he says his name isn’t spelled that way, he is still admitting that it is his name! The body of the accused is present, what does it matter how it’s spelled now? Remember, either it is your name or it is not your name. If it’s not your name, you don’t answer to it. Period.( <Richard Anthony, www. Since I am still notified that the email address you provided is invalid, I guess we will just have to say fare-the-well. I don't know what else to do or say, except, shalom.

  41. J.M.

    February 7, 2014 at 2:10 AM

    P.S. I don’t know why some of my messages appear/post as they do. I did not type anything slanted to the right as it appears. italics, is that what it’s called? What once it was ain’t that way no more. Maybe there is a different definition for written words that are slanted to the right. Usually when this happens, only a part of my comment goes through. I’m going to bed regardless of how this comment posts if it does at all.

  42. J.M.

    February 7, 2014 at 1:20 PM

    Some of the below comments are really HARD to accept & follow, at least for me. Still, I certainly cannot fault them “ENTIRELY”.I do not believe that “God” excepts us to just roll over & play dead
    WHEN we are “attacked.”

    Russell v. US (WD Mich 1997) 969 F.Supp 24. “Petitioner…claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons…completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this court’s resources.”

    [To argue that your name is spelled in all caps is wrong, because then you are admitting it is your name. A name spelled in all caps is not your name, and to say it is your name gives jurisdiction to the court. Instead of saying, “My name is spelled in all caps on your papers,” one should say, “My godly name does not appear on your papers”].

    Wyatt v. Kelly, Chief Bankruptcy Judge (WD Texas unpub 3/23/98) 44 USPQ2d 1578, 81 AFTR2d 1463, 98 USTC para 50326. Tried to sue judge for violating his civil rights by having his name printed in court documents in a way other than the “appellation” this crank prefers. Crank reacted by refusing to respond to prosecution’s complaint whereupon the judge entered a Not Guilty plea on his behalf. Suit against judge dismissed.

    [#1: Civil Rights, which have men for their author, are an abomination to God because they create State Worship. If you partake of man’s created rights, you are under the power of the creator of those rights (man). The creator determines what the created violated, not the other way around. #2: By him admitting “his name” was spelled incorrectly, he admitted it was his name, and he, again, gave jurisdiction to the court. #3: Scripture forbids us to go to courts of law, and commands us not to sue others, but to forgive others. Therefore, he gave jurisdiction to the court simply by being lawless in God’s eyes.]

    Gdowik v. US (Bankr. SD Fla unpub 7/23/96) 78 AFTR2d 6243 aff’d (SD Fla unpub 11/6/97) 228 Bankr.Rptr 481, 482 80 AFTR2d 8254. Claims that “the use of his name JOHN E GDOWIK is an ‘illegal misnomer’ and use of said name violates the right to his “lawful status” was rejected.

    [Basically, John confessed to, and answered to, “his name” in all caps. Since by doing so, he gives jurisdiction to the court, it is no longer an “illegal misnomer.”]

    US v. Frech (10th Cir unpub 6/16/98) 149 F3d 1192(t). “Defendants’ assertion that the capitalization of their names in court documents constitutes constructive fraud, thereby depriving the district court of jurisdiction and venue, is without any basis in law or fact.”

    [The defendants already admitted it was “their name”, and answered to that name, so how can it be fraud? The court is correct].

    Giving Wrong Reasons

    US v. Washington (SDNY 1996) 947 F.Supp 87. “Finally, the defendant contends that the indictment must be dismissed because ‘Kurt Washington,’ spelled out in capital letters, is a fictitious name used by the Government to tax him improperly as a business, and that the correct spelling and presentation of his name is ‘Kurt Washington.’ This contention is baseless.”

    [The accused made the wrong argument. True, it is a fictitious name. However, to say it is used because the government wants to “tax him improperly as a business” is hypothetical and speculative. Opinions are not law and have no standing in law. There are other reasons why the government uses fictitious names, and to claim this one, without proof, is not a reason to dismiss the case].

    Jaeger v. Dubuque County (ND Iowa 1995) 880 F.Supp 640 at 643. “The court finds Jaeger’s arguments concerning capitalization otherwise specious. The court routinely capitalizes the names of all parties before this court in all matters, civil and criminal, without any regard to their corporate or individual status…”

    [Notice the court qualified the term “status.” The court did not say “without regard to their status,” but only to their “corporate or individual” status. Under the law, corporate and individual status is identical. Maxim of Law: “The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals.” Jaeger’s error was as follows; either he admitted he was an “individual,” or he did not rebut the presumption by his accusers that he was an individual.]

    Davis v. Deddens (SD Ohio unpub 4/18/98). “I believe that not only is this case subject to dismissal…but it is also subject to sanctions under Rule 11. Making a distinction between all-capital letters and capital and small letters is frivolous.” Litigant tried to deny validity of traffic ticket because it printed the court’s name in all-caps.

    [It does not matter how the court’s name is spelled (it was spelled correctly since it is a fiction). It has no bearing on the validity on a traffic ticket.] Similar court ruling in drug prosecution case US v. Wacker (10th Cir unpup 3/31/99).

    Rippy v. IRS (ND Calif unpub 1/26/99). “Plaintiff’s response…consists of nothing more than a protest against the capitalization of his name in the caption. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.” The same ruling is in Hancock v. State of Utah (10th Cir unpub 5/10/99) 176 F3d 488(t).

    US v. M.L. Lindsay (10th Cir 7/1/99) F3d, 99 USTC para 50648, 84 AFTR2d 5102. Tax evasion defendant’s refusal to read court papers that capitalized his name and his other misbehavior justified the court refusing to reduce his sentence.

    Stoecklin v. US (MD Fla unpub 12/8/97). “Tax evader complained of his name being in a prior order issued by this court and then…makes and incorrect reference to this form of using all capital letters as being proper only in reference to corporate entities. This is an incorrect statement of the law…is illustrative of [his] continued harassing and frivolous behavior.”

    Boyce v. CIR (9/25/96) TC Memo 1996-439 aff’d (9th Cir 1997) 122 F3d 1069. An objection to the spelling of petitioners’ names in capital letters because they are not ‘fictitious entities'” was rejected.

    US v. Lindbloom (WD Wash unpub 4/16/97) 79 AFTR 2d 2578, 97 USTC para 50650. “In this submission, Mr. Lindbloom states that he and his wife are not proper defendants to this action because their names are not spelled with all capital letters as indicated in the civil caption.” The CAPS argument and the “refused for fraud” contention were rejected.

    Similar Cases

    Sadlier v. Payne (D Utah 1997)974 F.Supp 1411. Crank called it “killed on paper”.
    Braun v. Stotts (D Kan unpub 6/19/97) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 2/4/98).
    Vos v. Boyle (WD Mich unpub 4/11/95).
    Liebig v. Kelly-Alle (EDNC 1996) 923 F.Supp 778).
    US v. J.F. Heard (ND WV 1996) 952 F.Supp 329).
    Napier v. Jones (WD Mich unpub 2/10/95).
    Wacker v. Crow (10th Cir unpub 7/1/99).
    Brown v. Mueller (ED Mich unpub 6/24/97).
    Harvard v. Pontesso (6th Cir unpub 8/8/97) 121 F3d 798(t).
    State v. Martz (Ohio App unpub 6/9/97).
    Cole v. Higgins (D. Ida unpub 1/23/95) 75 AFTR2d 1102 rept adopted (D. Ida unpub 2/27/95) 75 AFTR2d 1479 aff’d (9th Cir 4/1/96) 82 F3d 422(t), 77 AFTR2d 1586.
    Capaldi v. Pontesso (6th Cir 1998) 135 F3d 1122.
    Russell v. US (WD Mich 1997) 969 F.Supp 24.
    In re Shugrue (Bankr. ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr. Rptr 394.

  43. Peter

    February 10, 2014 at 11:05 AM

    DEAR J.M. I have received the computer in the mail, Thank-you. It was a good thing that it was shipped to a friend that is home all the time as the package was left at the door. I see how parcels can disappear, as with me I’m not home much due to my work schedule and there would be a risk of it being on the doorstep for an extended time period.

    • J.M.

      February 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM

      I thought something, lost for words, bad etc, happened to you since I did not hear from you.

      @Thank-you.<You are most welcome my friend. A keyboard & mouse was supposed to be included, were they? IF you have a telephone, you can gain access to the internet fairly cheap,around 10 "bills" a month Also, there are many providers that give up to the 1st 6 months, free.
      I want to know if you also received a mouse & keyboard because those items were "paid" for also.

  44. Peter

    February 12, 2014 at 12:46 PM

    Yes, Thanks again!!

    • J.M.

      February 12, 2014 at 10:03 PM

      I forgot about a Monitor. Today, I was in a thrift Store & I saw some beautiful Monitors for 15 & 20 bucks. So, if you are near a thrift store check it out, or better still, call first & ask IF they have any Monitors. Peter, you have a 1 year guarantee for your computer. Dis you get any paperwork to that effect? If not, & IF we can communicate by email I will tell you the name of the company the computer was purchased from, etc. I would rather not give out anymore info to you on this blog, & I would rather not say why.

  45. cie Demenagement Martin

    May 29, 2014 at 7:29 PM

    Hey there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my facebook group?
    There’s a lot of folks that I think would really appreciate your content.
    Please let me know. Thank you

    • Adask

      May 29, 2014 at 10:17 PM

      Please do. I’m always looking for more readers. Thanks.

  46. Pumpkin

    April 28, 2016 at 11:54 AM

    My experience is, failure to state a claim, no real party of interest, requesting pleadings not allowed by the court rules, abuse of process, failure to sign pleadings, court case number indiscernible, no stamp of the clerk, summons fails as a summons by rules of court, no injury to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, statute in conflict with the rules of court and failure of ratification of commencement worked for me in two states. Both civil, both ‘lost’ the file. No winning judgment, just abandonment.

  47. thu whorton

    June 10, 2016 at 9:21 AM

    Valuable comments – I was enlightened by the analysis , Does someone know where my assistant might grab a fillable a form form to fill in ?


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