Dear Elected Officials…

I am writing you this letter today acting in the capacity as assistance of counsel for multiple People that your subordinates have been targeting and victimizing for attempting to exercise their inherent, non-negotiable rights, and unlawful code and policy enforcement over those whom it does not apply. (1)

The problem arises when your officers initiate improper traffic stops over individuals who are not operating under a licensing agreement with the department of motor vehicles, and are not acting in commerce and therefore are not subject to the commercial vehicle code or any statutes unless you can show how they agreed to be bound by these codes with full disclosure and meeting of the minds. To have a policy and/or custom of committing felonies because of a traffic safety issue is not only ludicrous, but lawless and unacceptable. (2)

These actions by alleged “peace officers” of Aggravated Kidnapping, Grand Larceny, Fraud, Identity Theft, Extortion, Armed Robbery, Malicious Prosecution, Barratry, Personage, Trespass, Assault, Securities Fraud, Conspiracy, Unlawful Arrest and Imprisonment to name a few are not becoming of those wishing to uphold peace and protect the communities which they serve. To make an unlawful traffic stop for the purposes of revenue generation in the name of “keeping you safe” is wrong in itself, but then to add to that criminal behavior consisting of multiple aggravated felonies is unfathomable and something needs to be done about it, and if you refuse to take action, you will be implicated and included by your inaction. Make note that I will be sending evidence of these crimes to the California Attorney General’s office to open an official investigation into these matters, along with your response (if any) to this communication.

I would strongly advise that if you are aware and have knowledge of these high crimes being committed against people in the community with whom you are entrusted to keep the peace and also to protect and serve, that you do the honorable thing and look into these matters immediately instead of victimizing those whom you are supposed to be protecting by proxy.
The one point and question I have for you in this entire message is to simply find out if you are also involved in these unlawful policies and procedures, customs and behavior. So, I must ask you if you condone (ratify) this rogue behavior by the officers that you supervise. Please send your response in writing to the return address listed above, a simple response is acceptable, as long as it is written and signed by you.

If you do not condone this behavior you would be wise to open an investigation so that you are not thought of to be participating or even directing these criminal activities. I would honorably ask that you immediately open an honest and transparent investigation immediately into this matter as a significant number of the officers under your command are currently liable for substantial violations of rights under both the Constitution for the California Republic and also the Constitution for the United States of America, and will not only be subject to a criminal investigation by the State Attorney General’s office for violations of title 18 USC section 241, 242 and 245 among other federal crimes, but also by civil title 42 USC 1983 causes of action.

Please also be aware that we are actively collecting any and all evidence to support our case/s so please act accordingly.
If you fail to respond to this communication, it will be presumed that you are tacitly acquiescing by your silence and you will also be subject to being named individually and officially in pending litigation for encouraging and possibly even directing the actions of the officers that you manage.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter,

Trent Goodbaudy

Footnotes:
(1) – The People of the California Republic are not subjects of government; they are the creators and grantors of the government, whom are entrusted with the sole objective of protecting our rights and liberties.
(2) – “governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them, But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. … The sovereignty on every state resided in the people of the state and they may alter or change their form of government at their own pleasure.” – Luther v Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 Led 581
“…at the revolution the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereign of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects… and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and joint tenants in the sovereignty.” – Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall 440, at pg. 471.

——–
This is a rough draft of a letter I plan on sending to elected officials in the future.
——–

The Big Three – Articles IV, V, and VI of the Bill of Rights.

THIS WEEKS CLASS ASSIGNMENT

The Big Three – Memorize Articles IV, V, and VI of the Bill of Rights.

A) Memorize Article IV for police encounters

B) Memorize Article V to understand two distinct forms of process, Judicial (article III courts) and Administrative (article I, II and IV territorial and administrative tribunals).

C) Memorize Article VI to understand MMPPR – ‘mandatory minimum pleading practice requirements’ and the due process rights and protections you must be afforded at a probable cause hearing considered waived if not demanded at arraignment or initial appearance before pleading.
————————————————–

Article 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 [for these] shall issue [by any court for any road side seizure] but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”

Officer – “License, insurance and registration please, I need to see them.”

Response – do you have a warrant for my personal papers and private documents, or is this a shake down?

NOTE: officers and agents of government, public and civil servants acting in a capacity representative of public office are required to display Identification on demand. Do you qualify for the requirement attributed to this class distinction?

————————————————–

Article V

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising [by ticket or citation] in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in times of actual service… [ tickets and citations for infractions and violations of statutory commercial duties and obligations apply only to public officers and civil servants ]”

Only public officers, civil servants and governmental service providers are subject to tickets and citations for dereliction of an official duty or obligation of public office against the dignity of the state, as distinguished from a crime against the people or a person in violation of the law of nature against doing harm, injury or damage to the life, liberty and property of another.

————————————————–

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… 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.”

Entering any plea admits jurisdiction and serves as a waiver of your right to a probable cause hearing, also referred to as an examination hearing, where you are entitled to everything here stated in article VI before being required to plead.

NOTE : Stating that you do not understand the NATURE of the proceedings is just cause in law for the Judge or Magistrate to order a Psychological evaluation or Psychiatric examination, unless your inability to understand is for good cause shown, such as the prosecutions notice being inadequate or service of process being incomplete or defective, failing to provide you with paper work that comports with MMPPR, such as would reasonably apprise you of BOTH the nature and cause for the accusations or charges against you.

Cause for the charges against you would include subject matter and personal jurisdiction, subject matter being sufficient alleged facts or evidence supporting the charge, personal jurisdiction being the capacity of the parties to sue and be sued.
———————————————–

CLARIFICATION AND POINTS IN AUTHORITY

Are you being prosecuted in an private individual or official public capacity, and do you qualify to be prosecuted in a official public capacity if lacking official title of public office?

Civilians are exempt and immune from dereliction of duty charges where the duty is legislated and proscribed by exclusively for public/civil servants.

Do you know which laws, common and civil, apply to which class of persons, natural and corperate?

“Two national [and state] governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution [for civilians], with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress [and the state legislatures] outside and Independently of that instrument [and the constitutions of the respective states, for civil servants] ” (Downes vs. Bidwell 182 US 244)

“It is clear that Congress, as a [or any state] legislative body, exercise[s] two specie of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects [ effecting civilians]: the other, an absolute, exclusive power [to restrict the liberty rights, restrain and regulate the official activities and compell performance of civil servants]… The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?” (Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)). “… for with them [civilians] Congress does not assume to deal [has no delegated authority to legislate beyond the law of nature] and they are neither the subject nor the object of revenue laws ….”, as stated in the cases of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922), De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 176, 179, and Gerth v.United States, 132 F. Supp. 894 (1955).

“As of the time of the writing of the Constitution, there were two great systems of law in the world —the Civil Law… and the Common Law. — the basic concept of these two systems was as opposite as the poles—in the Civil Law the source of all law is the personal ruler [superior officer]; In the Common Law. . . the source of all law is the people; they, as a whole, are sovereign. During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Civil Law and its fundamental concepts being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotism; the Common Law, with its basic principles, being the instrument through which men of equal genius, but with the love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions. . . The Civil Law was developed by Rome. . . The people under this system have those rights, powers, and privileges, and those only which the sovereign [or superior of officer]considers are for their good or for his advantage. He adds or takes away as suits his royal pleasure. All the residuum of power is in the Emperor. Under this system, the people look into the law to see what they may do. They may only do what the Emperor has declared they may do. . . Under our common law system, we look into the law to see what we may not do, for we may do everything we are not forbidden to do. This civil law concept explains why, over the centuries, it has been possible for the head of a state, operating under this concept, to establish with comparative ease a dictatorship. We must always remember that despotism and tyranny, with all their attendant tragedies to the people, as in Russia today, come to nations because one man, or a small group of men, seize and exercise by themselves the three great divisions of government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.. . When the [Civil Law] concept has been operative, [peoples] have suffered the resulting tragedies—[such as] loss of liberty, oppression, great poverty among the masses, insecurity, [and] wanton disregard of human life.” ¬ J. Reuben Clark, former US Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico.

“The Common Law is absolutely distinguishable from the Roman or Civil Law systems.”(People v. Ballard 155 NYS 2d 59).

“There are two systems of law at work in the world, the [common] law of the land, and the [ civil ] law of the sea.” ¬ Jordan Maxwell

By: Neil Rowe

ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS

we-the-people-session-vii-rights-of-the-accused-39-638The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,
 

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It’s benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person.” McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.” [Emphasis added.]

 

Notice the verdict’s confrontational language: “fighting”, “combat”, and most surprising, “belligerent”. Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being “passive” or “ignorant”? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be “belligerent” IN COURT…?
 
Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.
 
Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Sir Edmund Burke said,
 
“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
But apathy (“doing nothing”) isn’t simply a function of cowardice or indifference; “apathy” is a synonym for “ignorance”.
 
What is it — apathy or ignorance? “I don’t know and I don’t care.”
 
Ignorance makes the public more “manageable” in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizen’s Rights, government has a vested interest in the public’s ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be.
 
If you are a product [victim] of the public school system then consider this, The Department of Education gets what it pays for. …and you need to ‘get yourself smart’ — the sooner the better! This is not a good time for ‘dumb-ass’.
 
‘Silence gives consent’, is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud – or – silence gives rise to agreement. What better way to acquiesce than to not object?

Acquiescence is acceptance!
“The right of a person under the 5th Amendment to refuse to incriminate himself is purely a personal privilege of the witness. It was never intended to permit him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he was the agent of such person.” — Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.

Not only that, but if you allow anyone to “represent you”, instead of being “the belligerent claimant in person” (Hale v Henkel, i.s.c.), you become a “ward of the court”. Why? Because obviously, if someone else has to defend your rights for you, you must be incompetent! Clients are called “wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. See a copy of “Regarding Lawyer Discipline & Other Rules”, as well as Canons 1 through 9.

Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client:

“The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.” (emphasis mine)

Lord Yeshua the Christ said in Luke 11:52

“Woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

And also in Matt 23:13,33 (NIV)

“You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to … How will you escape being condemned to hell?”

“A lawyer cannot claim that you have rights.” U.S. v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538

Lawyers cannot defend your rights because they are franchisees of the English bar association, a corporation that licenses its franchisees and regulates their activities. All a lawyer can do is get the master of the ship to go easy on you if you confess to the fictional claim against you. A lawyer will not help you prove your sovereignty for fear of being disbarred. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the only person who can claim his rights is the belligerent claimant in person. To effectively accomplish this you must be able to establish the record with certifiable knowledge of the law.

 


“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant [Jesus style], nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person…once he testifies to part, he has waived his…he must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”~ US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).

The “Real-World” Example:

 

The Frederick, Maryland kidnapping of the baby: We can recall from the Lawrence case that this girl has cross examined cops before, and knows how to enter evidence to the record of the court. So she went into the FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with a script and a game-plan.

The judge asked four times consecutively, “Are you sure you don’t want a court appointed attorney???”

Her only reply was “That she was with TITLE 42 SEC. 1986 certifiable knowledge of the law and that she will be representing the name on the docket of the court.”

The Attorney for the state went blah, blah, blah, and when the young Mother cross-examined the cops she ripped the cop to shreds like a Momma eagle feeds little strips of bloody rabbit flesh to her baby eagles. She turned it into a trial of the State where the cop confessed that he committed at least two felonies. She asked him these questions:

1. State your name.
2. What’s your badge number?
3. What’s your rank?
4. Who do you work for?
5. How do you get paid?
6. Is that in the form of a bank check, direct deposit?
7. Would that be considered commerce?
8. When you were hired, did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America?

Right about there is where the State’s case started breaking down, because the cop said, “I took an oath but I don’t know if it was for America.” – busted!!! –The judge stepped in and said “every public servant has to take an oath! Did you get a warrant to enter the motor home?!?” and “This is a perfectly competent mother with more care and attention to detail than any other I’ve ever seen. I’m going to order that the State release the child back to the mother immediately.” Co-incidentally, the Attorney for the State approached me and said that he had spent quite a bit of time at my web site and he handed me a hardbound copy of “Constitutional Law” from his personal library.

The judge’s personal assistant found the Mom at a restaurant later that day and spent half an hour with her over lunch just to tell her that the judge was totally impressed, and that has never happened in the history of FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with the suspended rules where anything the judge says goes. She said that the STATE always holds a child for a minimum of 30 days and that this is the first time in the court’s history that any one has ever proven that the STATE has no claim, Especially a 22-year old single mom.

I guran-freakin-tee that a lawyer won’t do that for you!

So fire him and move on!


UNALIENABLE: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that ‘THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that ‘all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS’ UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

“Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as “the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;” and therefore it has been justly said, that “absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security–the right of personal liberty–and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Potter’s Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429. Continue reading “UNALIENABLE: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.”

Why You Can’t Buy Freedom At The Drive-up Window

You cannot digest freedom as easy as you can digest a meal.
It is too bad that you cannot digest learning about your freedom as easy as you can digest a meal.

Do you know what the problem in today’s world is? The problem is that everyone has become accustomed to living a life of commercial convenience where everything is done for them if they have enough money. Everyone presumes to know what the “law” is because of what they have been “told” but then they never verify that for themselves, leaving them stuck doing exactly what they are wagering you will do. The powers that be not only know this, but they are the one’s who created and were the inventors of this Ponzi scheme, so they make their rules just tough enough that they can still convince you that you are free, while running the best fear game in the business. This is why the demand for money is so great, because when you have money, you essentially have another’s sweat equity, or labor, or even intelligence at your disposal.

First, evaluate how important it is to you to be free. I know that without knowing how important it is, you will never be able to justify spending time on it. How important is it to you to learn all you can about becoming free?

You know the old saying: “Money can’t buy happiness.”? Well, that is true because money can buy stuff or services, but to be happy takes something inside you to make happen and while I realize that you might be thinking that you can buy happiness in the form of pharmaceuticals or other drugs, and maybe that is a way that you could buy happiness. There is something wrong with that too because constant happiness would not be gratifying without anything to contrast it with so you STILL would not be happy (satisfied) with life.

Learning how to exercise your liberty is not ever something that can be done for you. Freedom doesn’t care how much money you have, because short of buying a mental implant in the future, there is no current way to augment our knowledge base except by doing it the old fashioned way.

Don’t get me wrong, the tools that you can use to learn are better than ever, but the problem is getting the tools to deliver the information with an effective percentage of comprehension on your end. You have to do your own due diligence, you have to know the truth with every fiber of your being. You have to be able to rely on something more solid that what someone else has told you. Use your intuition, you know right from wrong. Would it be right to fraudulently portray yourself as something that you are not? Is there any difference between you and the little piece of plastic with your picture and vital information on it?

And sure you might not have time for all that studying and learning about what is REALLY going on. But if you don’t give it the importance that it is worthy of, you will continue to struggle, swimming against the current your entire life. It is not until you can learn to “let go” and relax and go with the flow that you will see from new perspectives that you never imagined existed.

My how beautiful some of those views are. Take the route less traveled. Don’t try to bite off more than you can handle at one time. A friend once compared learning and processing the concepts to “layers of paint”. Apply one coat at a time. And you have to let each coat dry between applications. So when you try and learn a new concept, first do an overview of the info (a fresh coat of paint), and then when that one dries do another coat of paint (progress into the information incrementally and give yourself time to process it in between) do another coat, let it dry, and keep repeating the process until you fully comprehend the information.

After you fully comprehend you then must learn to be able to express it to others to be truly effective. You have to know what to say when they run their fear game on you. Then the best way to reaffirm and make it easier is to practice teaching what you have learned. Once you are a good teacher… you will have become a master.

Good luck on your journeys, may blessings and peace be with you brothers and sisters.

Trent G.