Traffic Stop Script by Trent Goodbaudy

"That which is Free cannot ALSO be that which is governed." One is free. Or one is not free.
That which is Free cannot ALSO be that which is governed.
One is free. Or one is not free.

Memorize this traffic stop script for your next police encounter!??


The first (and biggest) step is to get your mind right. Then it won’t matter what they try to throw at you, you will know how to counter every attack. Spend ample time learning and practicing BEFORE manifesting any of this outwardly. You need to have confidence, and knowledge provides this confidence, then the combination of the knowledge and confidence will guide what you manifest externally. My goal is to be honorable, I want to give them proper notice, and I want to make a record of everything just like I am gathering evidence for a lawsuit.

Remember: To stay in common law your entity must be from common law. A wo/man cannot act in commerce. It runs entities but never is an entity.

DONT EVEN TRY THIS WITH ANY TYPE OF STATE PLATE ON YOUR CAR, they have been trained to believe that any car with a public brand (state plate) is also public property (meaning it is their property). You cannot be double minded it is all or nothing. You cannot give them evidence that shows you have contracted with the state.

DO NOT GET EMOTIONAL except for filling yourself with love. Use the golden rule:??Dont think of others as an enemy or competition think of others as YOUR alternate self. Do you love yourself? Then treat both your-self AND your alternate-selves like it. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. We are all one.This is the ONLY way that we will be able to conclude peace.

First off, always find a safe place to pull over NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY (A church parking lot is best). Always greet the officer in a friendly manner and ask them for their name and badge number (you may remind them that Officer is a title and not their name if you want), and then continue using the following:

(Im gonna boil it down to one question on my next encounter (that is if I decide to speak at all).)

The question is:

Do you have probable cause to believe that I have committed a crime involving a victim; because if you do I would like you to articulate that to me , otherwise this is an unlawful detention and I have no obligation to provide you with anything and I should be free to go on my way Right? ~ Trent Goodbaudy

There are a few more appropriate questions you can ask for example; if??they ask for any documentation from you ask them if they plan on using any of it against you in court. And if they want to give you a citation, ask Are you authorized to NEGOTIATE a FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT????When they ask: What is your name? it would be fair to ask: Are you asking me legally or lawfully? His answer: Legally. Your response: Please show me where I am legally required to have a NAME or better yet, where is the law which states that I am lawfully required to have a NAME? They will likely respond with: I do not understand. and in that case, all I would want to know is which one of those corporate officers has a CLAIM against me? If they have a claim; they will have no problem articulating it, and if NOT they need to leave me the hell alone. NEVER make statements! If you must make a statement, make it a non-rebuttable statement. If you don’t know what that is please check out my short $.99 ebook that will explain it beautifully. You can get it by clicking on this sentence (plus MANY other GREAT tools to assist you).

The other strategy that you can use is when the agent asks for “License, insurance, and registration…” ask if he plans on using any of those against you in court, and it doesn’t even matter what his answer to that question is because then you tell him that in order for him to get anything from you, he is going to have to perform a warrantless search and siezure to get it because you are not going to give him anything (testify against yourself). Then if he takes anything from you, you can have any of that evidence excluded using the courts own exclusionary rule.

If you are still not getting anywhere, ask for a supervisor and then shut the hell up except to repeat the same thing to the supervisor.

Important notes to remember:

  • To detain is to arrest. Look it up in Blacks Law, in fact here you go read and learn.

Detain To retain as the possession of personalty. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to restrain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438; State v. King, 303 S.W.2d 930, 934.
See Confinement; Custody.

  • Ask, no DEMAND them to articulate their probable cause, otherwise it is an unlawful detention. By the way, it is not a crime to refuse to give the cops ANYTHING unless you have victimized someone.??WE ARE KINGS! NOT SLAVES!??The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that ???each man???s home is his castle???, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  • If they say you fit the description of someone who they are looking for make them produce the report number and prove it.
  • If you don’t already have one or three get a dashcam. Cameras help you create a record. Tell them that the video is streaming live to YouTube (they are likely too dumb to know better if you aren’t live streaming).
  • Get Cell 411 so that you can call for REAL help. It also has a live video streaming feature if you have signal.??
  • Be prepared because corporate POLICYMEN have little to no knowledge of de jure law or law enforcement and they do not understand the unalienable and imprescriptable Rights of the American people in the fifty states either. Most have no idea what their own state and federal constitutions say nor do they understand what actual laws they are supposed to be enforcing in the first place.

Police officers in America are not doing their job and they probably never will. They seem to exhibit minimal knowledge of law and law enforcement. They are tyrants and just an extension of political aims for ill-gotten gains, theft within the special maritime jurisdiction, piracy and extortion. Police are Corporate Revenue Collection Officers who are para-military trained to kill and take your unalienable Right to do something, away from you. The??American Gestapo are protected by the foreign BAR attorneys as officers of the corporate commercial court systems. The so-called courts are operating in bankruptcy and the police are an extension of those private tribunals to enforce the bankruptcy (and collect $) against what are deemed corporate US citizens. You are tried as a corporation.

Think about this: There is not any legitimate job you can have where you act in the capacity as a domestic terrorist with a corporate badge to get away with it. Police officers are domestic and do not possess lawful venue and jurisdiction. The American people in the fifty states are all non-domestic.


  1. A police officer is not doing his/her job when they initiate threat, duress and coercion at automobile stops and take people’s Rights away if they don’t waive them during a corporate administrative proceeding on the side of the road.
  2. A COP is not doing his/her job when they step on State and federal constitutions and commit high treason against the Constitution for these united states of America.
  3. A police officer is not doing their job when they operate under State statutory color of law and make legal determinations contrary to the forty-three Supreme Court decisions regarding the right to travel, right of way, right of free passage. Police officers will take away your right to travel on the postal rural routes of passage in a private automobile for non-commercial purposes.
  4. Police will violate our Right to locomotion to travel freely, safely and unencumbered for such non-commercial purposes as ordinary travel, recreation or pleasure in any given day.
  5. Police are not doing their job when they rip off your car or make criminal conversions and fraudulent conveyances (tow/impound) of private property over to the financial benefit of third parties without our consent.
  6. COPS break the law when they force you and intimidate you into surrendering your persons, houses, papers and effects and implement para-military trained Gestapo style tactics to force you to bear false witness against yourself.
  7. COPS are not doing their job when they are in contempt of the current Chapter eleven reorganization bankruptcy of the United States, violate public policy and try to steal your labor.
  8. Police are not doing their job when they force you into commerce, force you to CONTRACT with them (against your will), write a SECURITY (commercial traffic ticket) absent a public hazard or surety bond (violation of the SEC Act of 1933/1934 -Secureties and Exchange Commission) while acting in the public.
  9. A police officer is not doing their job when they cite a FICTIONAL State statute, practice law without a license and act in the capacity as PROSECUTOR, executioner, judge and jury over the lives of innocent men and women within the fifty-states.
  10. Police are not doing their job when they waste tax payer dollars protecting State and municipal property and the financial assets of STATE corporations and their crooked politicians.

Since when does a POLICE OFFICER within the several states for the union of fifty-states, ever do their job as it was originally intended and for the protection of the of the Rights of men and women? As most Americans will agree, the police do not work for the people anymore. They are predatory, dishonest, liars and are quite possibly more dangerous to our liberties (as a free people) than standing armies.

For valuable tools in your travels visit


Affordable private travel tags now available and much more! CLICK HERE FOR MORE!

Does the Court Automatically Have Jurisdiction?

In rem jurisdiction (Latin, "power about or against 'the thing'") is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction.

Attorneys would have you believe that the court always automatically has jurisdiction according to a geographic border. If the STATE OF OREGON essentially is composed of articles of incorporation on paper that is commonly referred to as the Oregon Constitution, what does that have to do with the inhabitants or land?

My question is, how exactly does a piece of paper (Oregon Constitution), that I have not ever nor will I ever be a party to, give authority to a commercial entity to prosecute me without a victim or valid cause of action? Answer: it doesn’t.

The only duty we have delegated to government is the authority to PROTECT and DEFEND rights of the people, not GRANT or REVOKE them.

I think that they would AT LEAST need to show exactly where I agreed to participate in their tribunal with full disclosure and clean hands. If they can’t then I don’t care what they presume about me being their subject, it simply IS NOT TRUE until proven.

Check out how slick Arnold Law Firm is in his motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction, while at the same time he EXPRESSLY ADMITS PERSONAL JURISDICTION! This is a sneaky attorney move to close doors and lock Ammon Bundy in for the ride. Tell me what you think about this??? And then go ask Mike Arnold of Arnold Law what his strategy was here? Don’t be surprised if he ignores you or implies that you have a mental condition.

Arnold Law Firm playing typical attorney tricks.

Arnold Law Firm playing typical attorney tricks.

It is obvious to me that Mike Arnold is counting on you to remain ignorant. He has put a price tag of almost $14 million to take this case to trial and he stands to lose all that by challenging personal jurisdiction.

Comment excerpts from the same post:

Some comments on Arnold Law Firm post about pricing.
Some comments on Arnold Law Firm post about pricing.

Please contact Arnold Law and demand answers! This attorney’s job is to not let the fish (the client) off of the hook.

Does the government’s constitution say anything about being guaranteed representation by an attorney? Or does it protect assistance of counsel? Is there a difference between them? What is the difference? And the KICKER IF there is no requirement in the bill of rights to be represented by an attorney, why would an attorney tell you that you HAVE TO be represented by an attorney? (PS The lies they tell wouldn’t work on you if you knew your rights.)

Allow me to present, the Bill of Rights Amendment VI (look at the last sentence):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Does it EVER refer to being REPRESENTED by an ATTORNEY? Those words do not even appear in the text of the amendment, so my question now is why do they say that you have to be REPRESENTED by an ATTORNEY??? Why are they lying to us? Why are they lying to us?

What they will never tell you is that challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make, because if you use the right argument it is almost impossible for you to lose!

In rem jurisdiction (Latin, power about or against the thing’) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a status against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction.

Do they even have the authority to hear the matter?
Do they even have the authority to hear the matter?

If they attempt to tell you that you can’t question their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court rulings!

Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action. Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.
Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void. Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesnt exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be sovereign. At best, to proceed would be in excess of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the States/ USA s cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the governments cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well-established law that a void order can be challenged in any court OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction. Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted. Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. and Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal. Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist. Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction. Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property. Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio. In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction. Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris. Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest. Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.

The following is an oral course of action that you can use:

Are we on the record? I dont say anything further until we are.

Me, I am a man. I am competent. I am here under duress. I do not consent to this matter.

If I am here at all, I am here in special appearance to challenge jurisdiction and to have this matter dismissed.

I believe this court lacks a jurisdiction. I want to see the supposed jurisdiction duly placed into evidence.

What, this court can move on facts not in evidence?

Where is the competent fact witness? Where is the damaged party?

Who brings the claim? Who is underwriting this action?

I do not understand the nature and cause of the accusation with regard to the elements of personal jurisdiction, venue, underwriting and the nature of the action until the prosecution properly alleges them. I am therefore unable to plea to the charges until I have had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against the elements.

I cannot rebut an unstated presumption.

As a man, as an accused by law I come with the presumption of innocent and I can go with that.

Me, I am a man, not a corporation or a legal person nor am I a surety for one.

Hey, as keeper of the records for the thing, Im willing to plead the defendant guilty upon validated proof of claim.

Where is the contract wherein I knowingly and willingly, with full disclosure, consented or otherwise agreed to be treated this way?

Me, I see a yellow fringe around your flag which clearly advertises admiralty matters settled here so again I say, where is the contract?

Where is the Form 1099OID?

Who are you people and why do you deem yourselves better than me?

May I remind everyone, Equality under the Law is paramount and mandatory by law.

Me, I am unrepresented, I dont do Attorneys as I have found them to be injurious to my freedom, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Me, I reserve all rights at all times in all places and I waive no rights at any time or in any place. I do waive benefit privilege.

Am I under arrest or am I free to go?