I declare;

I am not a “United States citizen.” I am not a “resident of,” an “inhabitant of,” a “franchise of,” a “subject of,” a “ward of,” the “property of,” the “chattel of,” or “subject to the jurisdiction of” any “monarch” or any corporate “commonwealth,” “federal,” “state,” “territory,” “county,” “council,” “city,” “municipal body politic,” or other “government” allegedly “created” under the “authority” of a “constitution” or other “enactment.” I am not subject to any “legislation,” department, or agency created by such “authorities,” nor to the “jurisdiction” of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their “authority” therefrom. Nor do any of the “statutes” or “regulations” of such “authorities” apply to me or have any “jurisdiction” over me.

Further, I am not a subject of any “courts” or bound by “precedents” of any “courts,” deriving their “jurisdiction” from said “authorities.”

Take notice that I hereby cancel and make void from the beginning any such “instrument” or any presumed “election” made by any “government” or any agency or department thereof, that I am or ever have voluntarily elected to be treated as a subject of any “monarch” or as a citizen,” or a “resident” of any “commonwealth,” “state,” “territory,” “possession,” “instrumentality,” “enclave,” “division,” “district,” or “province,” subject to their “jurisdiction(s).””Constitution”: The document supposedly setting forth the foundations of a “country” and “its” “government,” has no inherent authority or obligation.

A “constitution” has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between two or more individuals, and then it is limited only to those individuals who have specifically entered into it. At most, such a document could be a contract between the existing people at the time of its creation, but no-one has the right, authority, or power to bind their posterity. I have not knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally entered into any such “constitution” contract to oblige myself thereby, therefore such a document is inapplicable to me, and anyone claiming to derive their “authority” from such a document has no “jurisdiction” over me.

Use of semantics: There are some immature people with mental imbalances, such as the craving to dominate other people, who masquerade as “government,” and call the noises and scribbles that emanate from their mouths and pens “the law” which “must be obeyed.”

Just because they alter definitions of words in their “law” books to their supposed advantage, doesn’t mean I accept those definitions. The fact that they define the words “person,” “address,” “mail,” “resident,” “motor vehicle,” “driving,” “passenger,” “employee,” “income,” and many others, in ways different from the common usage, so as to be associated with a subject or slave status, means nothing in real life.

Because the “courts” have become entangled in the game of semantics, be it known to all “courts” and all parties, that if I have ever signed any document or spoken any words on record, using words defined by twists in any “law” books different from the common usage, there can be no effect whatsoever on my sovereign status in society thereby, nor can there be created any “obligation” to perform in any manner, by the mere use of such words. Where the definition in the common dictionary differs from the definition in the “law” dictionary, it is the definition in the common dictionary that prevails, because it is more trustworthy.

Such compelled and supposed “benefits” include, but are not limited to, the aforementioned typical examples. My use of such alleged “benefits” is under duress only, and is with full reservation of all my natural inherent rights. I have waived none of my intrinsic rights and freedoms by my use thereof. Furthermore, my use of such compelled “benefits” may be temporary, until alternatives become available, practical, and widely recognized.

Got Insurance?

Any and every insurance scheme is racketeering, If you look to the uniform bonding code any law that is made compulsory is gambling/racketeering and any judge who “knowingly” enforces a racketeering scheme can be disbarred.

The key here is “knowingly” he can’t deny it once you forward that let him know that you know.

Anyway, I have never been formally charged with an insurance charge because of this fact in court.

Let’s go deeper what’s the first thing the government wants you to do when you buy a car? They want you to register it so now it technically and legally belongs to whoever issues you the registration papers. You can not even be “legally” obligated to pay insurance on a car that is not even yours, can you? That is fraud so they made compulsory insurance NO-FAULT at the same time because they had to.

Let’s say you do have an accident, you still have to pay the deductible which is usually the first $1000 on the damage so it’s not insurance at all, is it? They know that most fender benders don’t cost much more than that. then if you factor in the total amount of fraud you paid into, all the years that you have paid, your car would be paid off over and over again a thousand times already.

To go deeper into the scam of insurance. It is not an assurance of anything in fact it is the opposite. the prefix “IN” negates the word.

It makes the coherent ‘incoherent’ by design, the tolerant intolerant to their wordplay like myself, the sufficient insufficient because you pay out everything to this fraud and if you live this lie long enough it makes the sane insane.


I have never used insurance and I use my car very carefully due to this fact, I see people flying around like maniacs every day because they have this false sense of security from their policy.

Demand for Dismissal

Now Comes James Trent Goodbaudy, a man standing on the land of the Oregon republic, alleged defendant, by special visitation, not submitting to the court’s jurisdiction, who hereby demands this court immediately dismiss all charges based on the natural law and the creator’s commandments. In addition, the Oregon Constitution Article one Section two reads: “Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. —”

The Oregon Constitution Article one Section three reads: “Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience. —“Grounds are further set forth below.

All agents and officers of American government have sworn an oath, Oregon is no different as evidenced in the following provision of the Oregon constitution, Article fifteen Section three; “Oaths of office.

Every person elected or appointed to any office under this Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties thereof, take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, and also an oath of office.—”I declare that I am subject only to natural law which is God’s law.I declare that I have sworn no oaths, and therefore I have no duty of allegiance to any “Government”, “Constitution”, “State”, “Statute”, “Code”, “Corporation” or “Policy”.I object to this entire process as it is offensive to my conscience because the whole process is evil.

This process is offensive to my faith in God, and to participate in it is offensive to my conscience.

The practice of swearing oaths violates one of the commandments. Violating commandments is satanic and the practice of it is idolatry.

These proceedings are satanic; as factually evidenced by the oaths that are administered, the wearing of black robes, the practice of “summoning”, use of books filled with spells, and the practice of prayers in pleadings.

The prosecution has entered no facts in evidence to show that this satanic process has any authority whatsoever over me.

The Oregon constitution states that “No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.”, therefore my freedom of worship is not subject to any man made laws.

I hereby make a conscientious objection to this process in it’s entirety as it is offensive to my conscience because the whole process is evil.

I hereby demand that the court dismiss or cease and desist all pending matters because participating in a satanic process is offensive to my conscience and my faith.

Participating in something that is spiritually offensive to my faith in God amounts to involuntary servitude and/or slavery.


Because the plaintiff has failed to enter any facts that the court has any authority over me, let it be known that the plaintiff will now hereby be acting in direct violation of the Oregon Constitution if I am forced to continue to participate in this process. As such, the court should either strike any complaint filed against me, or dismiss it.

Declared this day

Resident vs Native

Four (4) Classes of Citizenship in America

1. Oregonian (State Citizen, highest form, on the land by right, owns land (home), not property (resident). Right to do all except violate another mans rights. Inhabits land that is private, land not owned by United States) Property is that which one has a right to, not ownership of. Property tax is different than a land tax.

2. Resident = Resident Alien (An alien residing on the land by permission.) All “state” license require proof of residency. Taking a license waives rights held by the Oregonian.

3. United States citizen of right 1790 to 1868, (Pre 14th Amendment citizen)

4. 14th Amendment State citizen from 1868 to present. Inferior to all of the above.

(( citizen = subject of a citi, citi is a body politic (unified group of people) ))

Three *proverbial states in America are?

Below are three of the main “state” distinctions one should be aware of.

–1. *state Oregon = the land that is within the exterior boundaries of what we call the *territory of Nebraska.  This “state” term is a noun.  This state is presently occupied by Nebraskans (native by right).

–2. *state of Oregon (legally styled as – STATE OF OREGON) = a created entity, part of the perpetual union, created by chartered permission pursuant to the United States Constitution.  This “state” term is a noun.  This *state consists of resident aliens.  Resident aliens are not classed as native; they reside only by permission and are governed by the Federal Congress and State Legislative written law.

–3. United States *state = a created entity, created pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation (legally styled as The United States of America), and the North West Ordinance.  A tool for the Confederacies needs.

So if asked; are you a state citizen, ask which state?

If asked for a resident address; reply by saying do you have any evidence that I am a resident of any state.

Resident is not a location it is a class of privilege, a class that state jurisdiction governs entirely.

US courts have clearly identified the differences in association (contract), and citizenship, of the various states.

One can live in Oregon as a native or as a resident.

A native is by right, a resident is of permission.

Natives are governed by the people’s state of law.

Residents are governed by the state entities that the native people allow to operate on the same land.

A “resident” is a subject to US, state, written law.

A “native” is subject to God’s law.

A resident does business (travel, etc.) as a granted privileges of the state.

A native does business (travel etc.) by grant, permission, of God.

When one gets a state drivers license he is presumed to be a resident of Oregon and thus governed by the state, an alien, not a native.  No one can get a state drivers license without signing a document that they are a resident in/of that given state.  Natives need no such license for they have a right to the open highways of Oregon

Such license is only considered *prima-facie evidence of residency and can be rebutted because residency is a contract and no contract is valid if a right is given up without full disclosure.

Learn more about maintaining independence (contract avoidance) from any deceptive “state” near you.

I recommend having little association with godless states.

NOTE – A 14th Amendment citizen is vastly different than a “state” citizen, and both of those are vastly different that a Oregon “native” citizen.



*pro·ver·bi·al, adjective

5.  having become an object of common mention or reference:

**state, noun

1.  the condition of a thing, as with respect to attributes

*state, adjective

15.  of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority.

16.  made, maintained, or chartered by or under the authority of one of the commonwealths that make up a federal union: 

*prima-facie evidence – evidence / facts considered to be true until controverted.

NOTICE of Libel of Review in ADMIRALTY

This is an advanced notice for those looking to seek remedy and/or enforcement from a refusal for cause. If you are not sure what a R4C is, please see this article for more.

The clerk is in authority over the record and therefore has more authority than the judge. The judge may order the clerk but he can only do so within the rules of court. Since the judge is a taxpayer he obviously has no sway and is recused from the case, leaving the court of record (authority) being with the clerk. Refusal for Cause will only work on novations (innovations) and initial presentments. However it works a lot more often that one might expect. What you see with all this privacy invasion is a flurry of R4C’s on the record in the dismissed Libels of Review. If you read any Libel of Review (LoR) you will find an example clerk instruction. If you get a presentment of any form that you do not like then Refuse it for Cause. Put a copy in your evidence repository and include a copy of the clerk instruction back to the presenter. You have done all you can to stop the process. If you are entrenched and the presenter knows it, maybe it will not work. The administrative billing processes are much more voluntary than many would like to believe.

Point 012 B. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant is restricted from proceeding in Admiralty Jurisdiction.
ADMIT – Libellee(s) listed within this document admit and agree to the procedures set forth under Admiralty Jurisdiction for settlement and closure to the issues at hand in this instant matter.

EXHIBIT 012 B – NOTICE of Libel of Review in ADMIRALTY

John-Quincy: Jones, lawful man, agent
Real Party in Interest


1. The district court of the United States is the proper venue and has jurisdiction to hear this libel of review. This is a proceeding in Admiralty.

“In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of admiralty cognizance, that congress considered them as CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, ‘including’, etc. This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they had in England. The Act gives exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the district court. As a court of the law of nations…
THE HUNTRESS, 12 Fed. Case 984 @ 992 & 989, (Case No. 6,914) (D. Me. 1840):

2. As further evidence that the action before the court is in fact an Admiralty action we find in UNITED STATES of AMERICA v $3,976.62 in currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. OC66W145329,

“Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as Proceeding in Admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings Rules of Civil Procedures control.

3. The Petitioners refer the court to 1 Benedict, 6th ed, chap 17, pg. 28, which reads in pertinent part: “As no court other than a court of admiralty can enforce maritime liens, no other court can displace, discharge or subordinate them. Neither the state courts nor the United States courts on their common law, equity and bankruptcy sides can divest, transfer to proceeds or adjudicate the maritime liens unless the maritime lienor voluntarily submit themselves to the jurisdiction. [emphasis added]

4. Pursuant to 28 USC 2463 “All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States…shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.” [emphasis added]
5. As a further indication that the issue before the court is a matter of admiralty, Petitioners refer the court again to “Benedict’s Admiralty,” 7th ed., Vol. 2, Chapter IV, par 51 ftn. 7. “…(i)t is now generally held that government tax claims under 26 USC 6321 ‘upon all property and rights of property whether real or personal’ rank below all other maritime liens…”

6. “A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the institution of the action; the assignment of a right of action being deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies possessed by the assignor. According to the rule of the common law, the injured party alone is permitted to sue for a trespass, the damages being deemed not legally assignable; and if there be an equitable claimant, he may sue only in the name of the injured party. In admiralty, however, the common practice is to have the suit conducted in the names of the real parties IN INTEREST.” 1 R.C.L. 33, pg. 424 (1914); “…and when a statute of the United States so provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the United States.” F.R.Civ.P. 17. The district courts are prohibited from granting venue where the United States has less than “one-half of its capital stock…” of the Respondents/Libelants Principal, the Fund and Bank. 28 USC 1349 The government by becoming a corporator (see 22 USCA 286e) lays down it s sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen 28 USC 3002 (15) (A-C). It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (see: The Bank of the United States vs. Platners Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed. (9Wheat) 244; U.S. vs BURR, 309 U.S. 242). The REAL PARTY IN INTEREST is not the de jure “United States of America” or “State”, but “The Bank” and “The Fund”. (22 USCA 286, et seq.). The acts committed under fraud, force and seizures are many times done under “Letters of Marque and Reprisal”, i.e., “recapture”. (see 31 USCA 5323) Such principles as “Fraud and justice never dwell together”, Wingate’s Maxims 680, and “A right of action cannot rise out of fraud.” Broom’s Maxims 297, 729.

7. “According to international law it has long been established that, although a person who claims to be the owner of a ship is bound by the character fastened upon her by the flag, under which he has chosen to let her pass, captors are not affected by the flag, but are entitled to go behind it, and to show the true character of the ship by reference to the substantial interest in it, the effective control over it, and the real proprietorship of it.” Prize Law During the World War , James Wilford Garner, MacMillian Co., (1927) sec 284, pgs 378, 379, quote of Sir Samuel in the Kankakee, Hoching and Genesee, British Prize Court 1918. (see Benedict, 6th ed., sec 400, pgs. 92 & 93. 254 U.S. 671 @ P. 689, Admiralty Rules of Practice – Claim-How Verified-Rule 25.

8. This court lacks jurisdiction over the Petitioners who are appearing specially and not generally. Although in most courts special appearance has been abolished and in this instant case since the issue before the court is admiralty, the Petitioners point out: “While the modern version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (h) (1) has abolished the distinction between general and special appearances for virtually all suits brought under those rules, the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims has been preserved two forms of restricted appearance…Rule E(5)(a) …Rule (E)(8)…The rules were fashioned in order to avoid subjecting an in rem party, John-Quincy: Jones, to the jurisdiction of the court with reference to other claims for which ‘such process is not available or has not been served…’…” U.S. v. Republic Marine, Inc., 829 F2d. 1399 @ p. 1402.

9. Petitioner draws attention to 2 Benedict, 6th ed., sec 275, pg 119, 120: “But where a party discovers that … he has had no proper notice…and has thereby deprived of property; or where there has been fraud of any kind…so that no regular remedy is left him he may obtain redress by filing a libel of review. The subsequent proceedings will be the same as in any suit and the decree of the court will be such as equity demands. There is no corresponding provision in the Civil Rules.” (emphasis added)

10. The Petitioner/Claimant pray the indulgence of the court in reviewing 26 USC 7323 JUDICIAL ACTION TO ENFORCE FORFEITURE. 7323 (a) reads: Nature and Venue. The proceedings to enforce such forfeitures shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem in the United States District Court for the district where such seizure is made. (see Petitioners Exhibit D). No action was brought against John-Quincy: Jones in the United States District Court.

11. The Petitioner/Claimant again direct the attention of the court to 26 USC 7401 AUTHORIZATION. No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced. A review of the record maintained by the Attorney General failed to show any authorization.

12. As a matter of public record contained in the GAO audit of 1992/3 the Internal Revenue Service falsifies documents routinely in order to meet its goals. (See pg. 5 of audit results.)

13. Since the statutes themselves declare that seizures and forfeitures are admiralty operations, the property is held by the law and cannot be conveyed unless by court order. A question arises based upon the actions of the Respondents/Libelants. Monies have been seized from the John-Quincy: Jones fiduciaries as noted in the Verified Complaint. Evidently no court of competent jurisdiction has been notified, served or engaged in any fashion or manner. (Again see Petitioners/Claimants Exhibit D) This is a clear violation/failure of due process circumventing the 4th and 5th Articles in Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (taking without just compensation).

14. Through the testimony of witnesses and evidence at hand and to be discovered, evidence of a systematic scheme or enterprise is visible which are predicated acts under R.I.C.O. statutes 18 USC 1961 et. seq. To wit: three or more parties engaged in an unlawful activity to deprive American citizens of their property without just compensation or due process of law pursuant to 18 USC 2, 3, 4, and 241.

15. Under 26 USC 6902 (a) burden of proof. “…burden of proof shall be upon the secretary to show that the Petitioner is libel as a transferee [or back up withholding agent of tax payer] of property of tax payer, but not show that the tax payer [United States] was libel for the tax. Petitioner/Claimant et. al., is not claiming any rights to tax court implied or otherwise.

16. In the above statement of the court will note that the term United States was inserted after tax payer. The association between the International Monetary Fund and it’s contractual member the United States (for definition see 28 USC 3002 (15) (A,B,C)) present a fortiori which demands an examination of the contractual arrangement/agreement that in any way hold the Petitioner/ Claimant responsible as co-signors to such instrument. This simply precludes the cavalier use of the term tax payer and demands a narrow interpretation of same. The term tax payer for the purposes of this document are not those associated with the common English language. Very simply put, the term tax payer does not apply to John-Quincy: Jones in this instant action but refers to the United States in it’s corporate capacity in all instances.

17. No indication of any bond or surety has been made by the international Monetary Fund or it’s agents. As a matter of fact, no action has been filed before any court of competent jurisdiction. (see Exhibit D) The Attorney General (AG) for the United States as indicated in the documents before this court is unaware of any action civil, criminal or otherwise pending pursuant to 26 USC 7401. (see Exhibit E) A possibility exists that property may be concealed, converted or destroyed to preclude the intervention of this Honorable Court. In such instances the prohibition contained in 26 USC 7421 do not apply. It was not the intention of Congress to circumvent the safe guards contained in the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution for the United States of America and therefore, enacted 5 USC 706 for the purposes of review of administrative agencies. Pursuant to the United States Attorney’s Manual (USAM) 6-5.330 INJUNCTION ACTIONS: Section 7421(a), provides, generally that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment of any tax shall be maintained by any person in any court, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed. In light of 26 USC 7421, injunctive relief may be had only upon satisfaction of the twofold test laid down in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1 (1962).

18. It is interesting to note that the term BY ANY PERSON IN ANY COURT is used in the above cite. The law is dis-positive in directing that, “ALL PROPERTY taken or detained UNDER ANY REVENUE LAW of the United States…shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.” (emphasis added) Since no court order issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction is evident a question is raised, who receives the property and where did the money go that was in the custody of the law? (see USC 2463. Did the governor of the International Monetary Fund or any of his agents post a bond (28 USC 2464) in order to protect the interest of the United States of America? Is it reasonable to assume that this court is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act 26 USC 7421 in protecting the property that is placed in it’s custody by the agents of the International Monetary Fund pursuant to the revenue laws of the corporate United States?

19. Upon review of the Unification Act of 1964 and interesting comment was made which bares light on this instant case. This following is not a direct quotation but is simply paraphrased: Most attorneys and for that matter most courts are singularly lacking expertise in Admiralty/Maritime Law. Judicial Canon #1 is extremely important. Due diligence and a complete review of the merits of the case are necessary in the interest of justice. These pro se litigants are not knowledgeable in the law and rely upon the discretion of the court to apply justice fairly and evenly pursuant to 28 USC 471, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 81 and rights and safe guards paid for in the highest premium, the blood of patriots, for the people of the United States of America and their posterity.
John-Quincy: Jones

By: __________________________ _______
John-Quincy: Jones, agent, Real Party in Interest date
I, John-Quincy: Jones, upon my own unlimited commercial liability, do say that I have read the above Memorandum and do know the contents to be true, correct, and complete, and not misleading, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
________________________ ________
John-Quincy: Jones, lawful man date
I, ______________________________ , a notary public residing in ________________ county, ________________ state, do say that on the date of ______________ , 2004, a man known to me as John-Quincy: Jones did appear before me in his true character and did affix his signature to the above document.
_________________________ ________


What should “YOU” do when you get an offer from Government? Send a ‘Notice of Mistake’!

I received a letter from the Oregon Department of Justice “requiring” information.

I don’t know what you would do, but I know what I am going to do with this most recent “offer” from government. I am going to let them know that there has been a mistake, and remove some presumptions that they may have had. If you do not rebut any presumptions made then they become fact and are therefore said to be true.

You must rebut the presumptions!

For example; in the correspondence that I recently received from the Oregon Department of Justice, a reference was made to “You” several times within the letter. “You” is an interesting word, you see it can apply to plural individuals. When I say “Hey you!” in a room full of people, who exactly am I talking to? I could be talking to one of them, or all of them, so I am simply asking for this to be clarified and at the same time removing some key presumptions.

I am sending them back a certified notice of mistake.

The following is the full text of the certified notice I am sending to the Attorney General for Oregon, Ellen F Rosenblum along with the original correspondence from one of her thugs, I don’t mess with lower officers… I go to straight to the boss.
Text of the notice I am sending:

USPS Certified Mail #7012 1010 0001 4118 6661

Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity
Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096

Dear Ellen F Rosenblum:

We, thank Ms Rosenblum for her correspondence which we received 05-09-2013.

There appears to be a mistake as although the included correspondence was sent to JAMES T GOODBAUDY the correspondence implies that an ORDER/JUDGEMENT was against “You”. Would Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity kindly confirm who “You” is, and/or forward this correspondence to You.

In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a MISTAKE as the SOLE BENEFICIARY has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as a party in this matter. If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led the COURT or Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity or the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE to believe by responding to “You” and or “JAMES T GOODBAUDY” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS COURT HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE and please forgive me.


WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the United States of America corporation?

WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal?

WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?

As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.

Notice: Failure by Ms Ellen F Rosenblum in her private capacity to respond within ten days from receipt of this correspondence shall constitute legal accord and satisfaction of all claims.

AUTHORIZED BY____________________________ SEAL _________ _


Hopefully they get back to me soon! They have ten days before their claims are satisfied in full. I will keep you posted, but in the meantime:

It is out of my hands now! I will let you know what happens!

And it’s off to the wizard!

Update: January 2016, this entire account has disappeared from my credit report.

Child support gone.

Notice of Mistake – I don’t know what you would do, but I know what I am going to do with this most recent “offer” from government. I am going to let them know that there has been a mistake, and remove some presumptions that they may have had. If you do not rebut any presumptions made then they become fact and are therefore said to be true. You must rebut the presumptions!


By Neil Rowe P.A.G.; Professor of Law

No, I’m not going into to traffic court and arguing illegitimate corporate government, or any of the other varied long winded arguments people and persons propose. Just not interested in approaching it that way for reasons of my own. What follows is my standard template for transportation code or driving offense charges and I’m retiring from answering any more questions related to traffic tickets, until and unless you can quote this back to me verbatim and understand it and still have a problem, moving on to more important issues and frontiers in law. Yes, I could use dozens of additional citations, and you may add them and over complicate matters if you choose, I just don’t think it’s necessary to go into much more detail. Keep it simple stupid.

Submitted to the Public Domain without copyright. Copy and share.

Notice of and Motion for Bill of Particulars and Discovery Request for Brady Material In Answer and Response to Inadequate Notice and Defective Service of Process by Complaint or Information that Fails to State the Requisite Jurisdictional Elements of a Valid Cause of Action and Controversy of Both Fact and Law Required to Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Proposed Jury Instructions

COMES NOW the accused defendant herein named by special appearance in Pro Se, by liberal construction waiving professional rules of pleading practice, and for his preliminary Answer and Response, Discovery request for Brady Material and Motion as styled and en-captioned above, by his own hand and under oath affiant shows this honorable court and states as follows; To Wit:

Based Upon information and belief, affiant states:

1. THAT the undersigned writer is charged in the instant action and proceedings with a Transportation Code or Driving offense.

2. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law narrowly define “Driving” as the professional commercial activity of “transporting persons or property for profit.”

3. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law defining the elements of “Driving” omit “traveling for recreation or pleasure,” the writer contends, because ‘A Citizen must be free to travel throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.’ (Shapiro v. Thomson, 394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 ( )); “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.” (Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22). “As has been well said in the case of Ex parte Dickey (W.Va. 85 S.E. 781): The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” (Thielke v. Albee, 79 Or. 48, 153 P. 793); “It is to clear for the purpose of extended discussion that it was competent for the legislature under the police power to regulate the use of the streets and the public places by jitney operators, who, as common carriers, have no vested right to use the same without complying with a requirement as to obtaining a permit or license. The right to make such use is a franchise, to be withheld or granted as the legislature may see fit.” (Fifth Ave. Coach Co. V. New York, 194 N.Y. 19,86 N.E. 824, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 744, 16 Ann.Cas. 695; Dill. Mun. Corp. 1210, 1229); “[W]hile a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” (State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078. (For further distinction between traveling and transportation, See : Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784).

4. WHEREFORE the writer contents and asserts, based on information and belief supported by points in authority provided, that transporting persons or property for profit in commerce is a condition precedent and form the requisite jurisdictional elements of any transportation code driving offense.

5. THAT the Plaintiff officer by state attorney has failed by sufficient complaint or information to state or inform the accused defendant of the “person(s)” or “property” the accused defendant is accused of transporting, or for what “profit.”

6. THAT the plaintiff prosecution is required to inform the accused defendant of the essential elements of, and material facts alleged substantiating the crime as charged and to prove these same elements and material facts beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, and for this reason the accused defendant contends jury instructions must reflect the requirement that the prosecution plaintiff establish and prove the person(s ) or property that were transported for what profit, and who those persons or what that property transported for what profit was, with particularity.


WHEREFORE all the good and proper reasons stated, the undersigned accused defendant prays this honorable court grant the motion for bill of particulars, or provide discovery of the essential material facts constituting the driving or transportation code offense charged, and compel the plaintiff prosecution to amend defective information or complaint to apprise the accused defendant of the same so that he might reasonably respond or prepare his defense having notice of both the nature of, and, cause for the instant charges and proceedings as required by rules of substantive and procedural due process, or in the alternative quash the information or complaint for inadequate notice and defective service of process and dismiss the instant action and proceedings for failure to prosecute, and grant any other relief this court deems equitable and fair in good faith and conscience.

Foot Note: I am not arguing against statutory authority. Travel is mentioned, but Statutory authority to regulate Transportation is accepted and acknowledged.

I am asking for fair and proper notice. The elements of driving are clear.

If charged with assault, how, by punching, kicking or slapping?

If contempt of court for disrupting proceedings, how? By what noise, outburst or disruptive behavior, specifically?

If murder, who, and by what means?

The prosecution must demonstrate the case he intends to put on, so the defendant is informed of the case he must meet.

Driving drunk? Driving on suspended?

Forget drunk, forget suspended…

How driving?

It’s simple calculus.

And with that having been said, I’m charging for the next question.

Dedicated to my parents, who took a clever little six year old intent on being the worlds greatest liar and cheat, and changed the course of his life by paddling his behind, conditioning him to study instead and violently hate liars and cheats.



Refused for cause example

This is quite the complex process, simple though it is, simply because one needs to have irrefutable proof that any presentment has been properly refused within the timeframe permitted for Refusal for Cause (aka R4C) – generally within 72 hours.

The law behind the Refusal for Cause comes from our right to refuse to contract with whomever we do not wish to contract with. This principle is addressed in Truth in Lending Act as well as the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code) §2-207(c) and §3-501(b). These sections state as follows:
Ҥ 2-207. Additional Terms in Acceptance or Confirmation.

(1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.

(2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless:
(a) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer;
(b) they materially alter it; or
(c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received [emphasis added].

(3) Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. In such case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any other provisions of this Act.

Please note specifically section (c) above, which states, “Notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received.” This is the basis of the Refusal for Cause process. The accepted time frame (as stated in Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act) is generally 72 hours or 3 days.

Refused for cause example

“§ 3-501. PRESENTMENT.(a) “Presentment” means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce aninstrument(i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or aparty obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee.(b) The following rules are subject to Article 4, agreement of the parties[emphasis added], and clearing-house rules and the like:(1) Presentment may be made at the place of payment of the instrument and must be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the person to whompresentment is made; and is effective if made to any one of two or more makers,acceptors,drawees, or other payors.(2) Upon demand of the person to whompresentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.

(3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the partyto whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement, or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule [emphasis added].

(4) The party to whom presentment is made may treat presentment as occurring on the next business day after the day of presentment if the party to whom presentment is made has established a cut-off hour not earlier than 2 p.m. for the receipt and processing ofinstrumentspresented for payment or acceptance and presentment is made after the cut-off hour.

Each and every state has added the U.C.C. to their statutes, so you will also need to do a search of your state’s statutes to ascertain the corresponding statute(s) for your state. For instance, in the state of Oregon, UCC 2-207 is labeled O.R.S. (Oregon Revised Statute) 72.207. See, they even kept the numbers the same, except for that it is now a part of Chapter 72.

Refusal for cause example

When we receive a presentment from anyone, we have the right to refuse to contract with them. This is based on the fact that they are intruding or appealing to us on our own territory, which gives us the right to refuse. This is not the case if we go to someone else’s home or place of business and contract with them there. This only applies if we are contacted while we are on our own territory. This includes service of process by process servers (i.e. lawsuits), by the postal service (i.e. suits delivered by mail, bills, debt collectors, notices, fines, and etc.), or by officers of the law while we are driving our vehicles on the roads. The last item is because we have the constitutional right to travel, and they are stopping us on our territory – our vehicle.

When you determine you want to refuse any presentment for cause, you will need to write across the face of it (and also on all pages) in bold red letters “Refusal for Cause.” You do not need to actually state the cause, however.

Take a quick trip to the post office and pick up a few red Registered Mail stickers. You will need one for each Refusal for Cause that you are mailing back to the Presenter.

Next write up a cover letter that goes with the item you are Refusing for Cause. This gets sent back to the Presenter (whoever it was who mailed you the Presentment). Make sure you put the date on it and identify yourself as well (standard letter format). The body of the letter should have words to the effect of, “I am returning your Presentment marked Refusal for Cause in a timely manner in accordance with U.C.C.

2-207(c) and U.C.C. 3-501(b)(3) (or the corresponding statute(s) for your state). Please cease and desist all further communication with me in regards to this matter.” ALSO (very important!) write or type in the Registered Mail (RA) number from the red registered mail sticker opposite the name and address of the Presenter. (This is the sticker that you will have hopefully gotten from the post office in advance; try to keep some on hand at home for future presentments). Sign the original cover letter in blue ink.

You will next need to put the original cover letter and the red-marked original presentment in your copy machine. Make one copy of the entire stack. Staple the originals together, and staple the copies together. Get the envelope ready with the Presenter’s name and address on it; take both the original R4C and the copy with you and head on over to the post office. Don’t forget the envelope!

Now, this is where things get interesting. You will need the postal clerk’s help in proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you refused in a timely manner. Keeping this in mind, you will need to send the original presentment back using registered mail. This is because by use of registered mail, the contents are guaranteed. Certified mail only guarantees the envelope, not its contents… Registered mail is much more expensive, but worth the peace of mind in knowing that the process is irrefutable in case it needs to be produced in court at a future time.

Once you get to the counter, show the postal clerk both the original and the copy of the mailing. Ask them to review that the RA number you have placed on your cover sheet is the same as appears on the sticker that will be affixed to the outside of the envelope. Once they review and verify that the number is correct, have them use their round-stamp close to the RA number on both the original and the copy of the cover letter. This is the disinterested 3rd party witness! It verifies that the contents went in the Registered Mailing as stated on your cover letter.

Yes, we will be using the postal clerk to help us perfect process, and they act as our disinterested 3rd party witness!

Next, ask the postal clerk for 2 (two) certificates of mailing (PS Form 3817, the current cost is $1.05 each). Also tell the clerk that you will need a green return receipt requested card to go along with the registered mailing.

Fill out both certificates of mailing and the green return receipt card. The certificates of mailing will be affixed in a permanent way to both the original and the copy of the cover letter. The bottom right hand corner is a good spot. Before you affix these to the cover letters, put $1.05 in stamps (not metered stickers) on each certificate of mailing (total cost $2.10). You will affix these to both cover letters (the original and your copy) with two strips of clear packaging tape. BEFORE the clerk affixes the certificate of mailing to the cover letter, have him round-stamp the certificate of mailing on at least two edges (half-on, half-off) of the certificate, with the cover letter in place beneath it. After they are round-stamped (half-on, half-off), they can be affixed permanently with the packaging tape, and hope that the clerk does a fairly decent job taping it so the round-stamps line up pretty well. Do this on both the original R4C and your copy as well.

This process makes it virtually impossible for any Presenter to remove the certificate of mailing, which is irrefutable proof that you mailed it back within the three-day time-frame permitted by law. Having the round-date stamp on both the certificate of mailing and the cover letter that it is attached to (one-half of the stamp on the cover letter, the other half of the stamp on the certificate of mailing) makes it virtually impossible to remove without glaring evidence that it has been tampered with.

Additionally, your copy of the R4C, with the clerk’s original round-date stamp verifying the RA number, and with the permanently affixed certificate of mailing, will be absolute proof-positive in any court of law, proving that you did Refuse for Cause in a timely manner.

The clerk will ask you to insert the contents to be mailed into the envelope, which will then be sent registered with return receipt requested. Make sure you mail the original back to the Presenter, not your copy…

Lastly, be sure to attach the green return receipt to your copy of the R4C when you get it back in the mail.

I personally know someone who had his daughter use this process to have a DUI abated! So it does work! (Of course, you should also write “without prejudice” after your signature on your driver’s license, in accordance with U.C.C. 1-308, Reservation of Rights, but this is another subject altogether).

Best of luck!

Also, you can copy this jpg file and paste it on your instruction letter. That way they will affix the postage directly to your letter and it won’t get lost or become unattached!

Certificate of Mailing