Category Archives: Fiduciary relationship

Notice, the Right of Inquiry and 18 USC 1001

IRS Notice (courtesy Google Images)

IRS Notice (courtesy Google Images)

My research indicates that that the current legal system is characterized by notice, notice, and, uh, notice.  When the IRS comes a-callin’, their first act is to send you a notice.  So far as I can tell, virtually all civil causes of action (especially if initiated by the “government”) start with a notice.

Procedural due process includes: 1) Notice; and 2) Opportunity to be Heard.  While true crimes (like murder or robbery) cannot be said to start with notice, I suspect that most penal offenses (which are of a civil nature with attached criminal penalties) probably start with notice.

As I’ve explained in other articles dealing with notice (see,; especially, and it appears that a notice need not present or allege all facts or law relevant to a particular claim.  The notice must merely provide sufficient facts or law to put the recipient “on inquiry”.  I.e., the notice must merely be sufficient to cause the recipient to ask questions.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on May 21, 2013 in Fiduciary relationship, Fraud, Notice


Tags: , , , , , ,

Pledges of Servitude?

13th Amendment of the nited States Constitution.

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »


Deficit Spending

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »


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

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

Read the rest of this entry »


The Power of a Name

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

Read the rest of this entry »


What do you “believe” about “belief”?

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »