New Court Strategy For The WIN!

“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 npon 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.


When playing chess, sometimes it makes sense to sacrifice a queen if it puts you in a position to win.

The point of the game is to win, not to collect pawns, points or a score.

I used to go to court and get jammed up initially because I would try and make the prosecution answer questions about status and standing. When I would answer the plaintiff or prosecutor directly, and what I didn’t realize was that my answers were essentially a non-sequitur and put me in dishonor which was really irrelevant and counter-productive to the point where the judge would actually tell me that “we’re not here for that”. Which was just a kick in the shins when I realized that the judge was right, we are not here for that. The reason that we are not here for those arguments, is because we had not given the court notice that we had wanted to talk about those things.

This is where the “Notice of Appearance” (or Notice of Visitation) comes into play. You need to give them notice of the things that you want to talk about so that they are on the same page as you are.

There are two different trains of thought that I have when I am in the courtroom. The first is where I want to ask about status and the second is if the prosecution has filed a claim upon which relief can be granted. These type of issues should not be brought up at arraignment without first giving the court notice that you are wanting to discuss these things. They automatically presume that you have waived those things or that they don’t matter to you because you never brought them up in the proper way.

These issues that you want to bring up with the prosecution are things that should go into your notice of appearance which you send to the court ahead of time. When you do this, you can then address the plaintiff or the prosecutor directly with the matter at hand that they wrote, and then you stay in honor along with providing the court your side of the case. These conversations tend to be a lot shorter as well when done properly.

You want to catch them with their own rules and win because they didn’t do something that was required, rather than forcing them to do something that they can’t do… which will always be a tougher uphill and unsustainable fight.

It helps if you have authenticated the BC, but this is not necessary. The beauty is that you can handle your status at the last minute. And I have been eyeballs to eyeballs with judges and I can promise you that there really is something to what I am about to express to you. So, when the judge calls the name, I say “I am here on that.”, so essentially I am kind of taking a step back in the conversation figuratively, while also compelling the judge to say more. He will likely raise his voice and say “are you JOHN DOE OR NOT?!?!” It may not be so intense but you know we have all seen the judge white knuckling it trying to get you to admit to being the name, right?

Following Gordon Hall, and contract and understanding language I will say “I am John Doe, as long as it doesn’t give you the idea that I have agreed to joinder or surety to a fiction.” In other words, I am taking control of it. He KNOWS he needs the trust all caps nonsense, but I make sure to say when I use that word, this is what I mean by it. We clarify what that name means when we use it, which forces him to do one of two things; either he will have to explain in detail what the name really means (which is impossible), or he has to let you have it. And they do, they let you have it. So I say, “As long as it doesn’t give anyone the idea that I agree to joinder or surety to a fiction”.

What will happen at this point is that the judge will stumble along and respond one of several ways. He will probably say something like: “what do you mean by that?” In other words, you got him and he is now trying to fix it. So then we shift gears and handle how he is trying to fix it.

Another thing they will try is to give you a command addressing you as “Mr. Doe”. We have all seen how they will address you as “Mister” even when you ask them not to. As a matter of fact I have a recent video on my YouTube channel where the defendant asks the judge to please not address him as “Mister” and then he does it again not more than a minute later! If you don’t catch them when they call you “Mister” and correct them you end up acquiescing to a lower position and they get you that way. So, what we do is we clarify this up front and redefine it from the beginning and nip that whole Mr. Mister game in the bud from the get-go. Say: “The same terms and conditions apply to Mister.” Now, whenever he uses it, it does not give him joinder or surety to the fiction. As a matter of fact, the judge can use that title now without it doing you any harm!

Just tell them that the same terms and conditions apply to the name as they do to Mister! In other words, when you use that word, you are talking to the Man… I don’t know about this other stuff.

Now let’s skip over the rest of the hearing because there is a way that he will get you later on as far as status with the person and the “Mr.” and all that. What he will do is go on and on about this and that and tell you all about how what you are trying to do is this or that. But you have to pay close attention because at some point he will bury the needle in the haystack so to speak and he will talk about representation. It will likely go something like: “Whenever someone is not represented by an attorney, and representing themselves such as you are…” then x,y,z. In other words, he is slyly implying that you are “representing yourself”. This may not sound so bad until you look up the definition for “represent”.

You need to respond to this accusation that you are “represented” or he will have acquired your consent unwittingly. So you respond with “I am not representing myself, I am myself.”

By accepting representation you are essentially giving up your inheritance. “7. To stand in the place of, in the right of inheritance. “ (

This is also why he may be ok with letting you do some of this stuff at the beginning, he knows that he always has that “represent” card up his sleeve.

Also, it likely will not be enough that you only say it once because you have to show that you have conviction. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a pattern. They will capitulate the third time.

In the 1828 Noah Webster’ dictionary refusal is defined as: “1. The act of refusing; denial of any thing demanded, solicited or offered for acceptance. The first refusal is not always proof that the request will not be ultimately granted.“ ( Pay particular attention to that second sentence.

But the judge still has another ace up his sleeve. How they will usually ultimately get out of it is to tell you that they will have your decision in a week. What they are doing is asking you for your permission for them to use general discretion. (Black’s 4th 1968 / Pg 523 – DISCRETION. Power or privilege of the court to act unhampered by legal rule.)

Respond by saying: “Very well your honor but I object to general discretion and I want the decision based on the facts as they have been expressed (as opposed to presumed) here today.”

For the notice of appearance, you need to say two things:

1) I am unrepresented, not politically affiliated (essentially status information).

2) I am not an expert in law. (You have to say this because all the presumptions are in favor of the one who is well versed in law. For example, if you go silent they will presume that you do it deliberately or willingly unless you are not an expert in law.)

There is a common misconception in the liberty movement and that is that the word “understand” means to “stand under” their authority or what they said, but I am not convinced that this is the case. If you look up the word “understand” in the Noah Websters 1828 dictionary you will see a bunch of definitions for “understand”, one of which is: “12. To know what is not expressed.” (

So, when he asks if you “understand” him, he is really asking you if you know what has not been expressed. But if you say that you “don’t understand” he will act like it means the general definition and public’s understanding of that word. He will say “Well, what is it that you don’t understand?” How can you possibly understand what has not been expressed? To answer the “Do you understand?” question, I believe that it would be safe to say: “To some degree I do, but not completely because I can’t know everything that is in your mind.” You don’t want to respond in a way that puts a padlock on it up to that point. You also need to remove any agreement that you have implied up to that point.

At this point, I must tell you to make sure that you don’t push it too far or get into irrelevant topics. We want to avoid being made a ward of the court and having them assign an attorney to us, or even worse if you push it too far they may order a mental evaluation onto you.

You know that these judges sit around and have the same kind of conversations that we do, except they are discussing how to keep us in their system, while we are discussing how to withdraw from it. Sometimes it helps to look at the chessboard from the other side’s perspective.

You can expect the judge to eventually likely go off on a monolog and a tangent to move you away from that topic.

Let’s talk about shifting the burden. The good thing about the “Notice of Appearance” (or Notice of Visitation) is that it is not to the prosecutor or plaintiff, but to the court. You give them notice that you are going to be making a special appearance as a visitor. Because a visitor according to Websters 1828 is: “2. A superior or person authorized to visit a corporation or any institution, for the purpose of seeing that the laws and regulations are observed, or that the duties and conditions prescribed by the founder or by law, are duly performed and executed.

The king is the visitor of all lay corporations. (

Effective shifting of the burden will require that you inquire from the court if the plaintiff or prosecutor has filed a claim upon which relief can be granted. I am coming in to ask that question before we go any further. And what isn’t going to happen this time is we are not going to hear “We are not here for that” because we ARE HERE FOR THAT.

So you would say: “Your honor, did you get my notice of appearance? Because that’s where I told you what I am here for. Do you have a rebuttal for my notice of appearance? Because I never got one and it seems to me that if I didn’t get a rebuttal to my notice of appearance then that must be what we are here for.”

To be able to explain, and understand (pun intended, lol), and deflect the “we’re not here for that” statement put forth by the judge, you have to know why you are there, and you have to have provided notice to the court as to why you are there as well.

The plaintiff has entered paperwork to the court and that is why he is there. He can’t enter in documents or papers that don’t have to do with why he is there. They can’t see anything outside of what is brought in by either side of the court. So, we do the same thing. We let them know specifically why we are there as well. Like the two sides of the chess board. The game is not able to be played without each side having their pieces on the board. The prosecutors side is only half of the whole story. It is up to us to tell our side so that we figuratively have all of our pieces on the board.

Conversely, once all of the pieces are on the board, there is no bringing in new pieces. In other words, we can only talk about what we brought in. We can only use the pieces on the board. That is exactly what that is if you have ever hear the prosecution say: “Objection, your honor that is outside the scope of the pleadings.” Which means that you didn’t bring it in, you can’t bring it up now. We don’t want to ambush them, an ambush will not work.

So essentially we want to know if the prosecution has stated a claim for which relief can be granted, and if he hasn’t, we need to know. So you ask the judge: “Has the plaintiff/prosecutor filed a complete claim upon which relief can be granted?”

Would the defendant be obliged to respond to anything that is not complete? And guess what the funny part is… they can NEVER file a claim upon which relief can be granted. Checkmate. But what they get you to do is argue back, and then they gotcha and they can skip past that.

So when we go in, it is appropriate to ask that question because we have laid the foundation by giving them notice. This also means that you never have to say anything that might trip you up.

Ask again: “Have they done that?” The judge will say: “no” (or if he says “yes” then he is full of shit) and he relies on a refusal. So that brings us back to “The first refusal is not always proof that the request will not be ultimately granted. “

So if the judge says that the prosecutor HAS filed a claim upon which relief can be granted, that is kind of like they are REFUSING your claim. You need to get them to refuse it three times. Make sure to not get excited about it though. Just run the same request again, twice.

NEVER again accept the first refusal or denial. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. You simply MUST get to three when being refused in court. How many times have you seen one refusal or denial destroy an argument? I have seen it plenty of times, and all they needed to do was ask two more times to be certain. And you know the absolute worst thing about accepting the first refusal is that you are led to believe that you were wrong and it really just simply defeats you. Look at it this way, you will NEVER be right the first time in any court. You have to do it three times to be right.

You need to have conviction. This is a fight, it is a battle. It is not a time to throw everything at the wall just to see what sticks because you heard it on the internet. This gives them a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, the serious and knowledgeable from the weak and fearful.

Intent is truly the spirit of the law when you have said it three times and have come back with conviction and you really intended it. You didn’t say it on accident.

So when the judge says that the prosecution HAS filed a claim upon which relief can be granted, you say: “Well, your honor I have inspected the file, and I don’t see a corpus delicti. Not only that, but no one has come forward with a first-hand claim that they have been injured. Would you happen to have that in YOUR file?”

Where exactly is the corpus delicti? Where is the injured party with a first hand claim of injury? Can you show me that?

And then no matter what he says… yada, yada, yada, lecture, etc.

You Say: ” I want you to say, for and on the record that there is an injured party, that there is in fact a corpus delicti that you know of for a fact and you have taken judicial notice of.”

When he tries to wiggle out of it, you say it again… I want you to tell me “YES” there is in fact, for and on the record that there is an injured party, that there is in fact a corpus delicti that you know of for a fact and you have taken judicial notice of… and when he tries to wiggle out you do it a third and final time for the pattern.

It is also imperative that you reduce the answer to a “yes” or “no” answer so there is nowhere to go. He is unable to evade you. Either there IS or there ISN’T. Period.

Here is a sample of a Notice Of Appearance to get you going and also if they ever happen to actually find an injured party, we will cover that type of situation in an upcoming article when we get to the “Bill of Particulars”. If you have read this far I congratulate you. Just to be able to comprehend what is written here is so valuable. While we are on the topic of value I want you to know that there are people out there who would charge you a thousand bucks for this information, but I have chosen to gift this to you free of any charges. I am working on doing some incredible things in this world, but I need your help. Please visit and if you have the means to be able to purchase a product that I have available there it will go a long ways in showing me that you support what I do and how much my work means to you. We have items priced as low as $0.99 cents so we are also really not asking for much. But on the other hand, we have some big plans and are in need of some investment capital. If you are interested in helping us further our mission and possibly supplying us with some investment capital that would be repaid quickly, we would be extremely grateful. You can use this link to contact us if you are able to support us in this fashion and to learn about what we have planned. We only need about $5K to give us the boost that we need. Thank you so much for your support, and God bless you.

Peace be with you, and please feel free to share this article if you found it helpful.



I was a few miles east of Chiloquin Oregon in the woods getting some rest when I was rudely awakened by gunshots. I got out of there because I didn’t want to hang out. Then I was followed, and you will never guess what happened??? (Wait for it…)

Make sure to visit for books and tools to help you attain your liberty and also (THIS website!) for some great study material.

These videos are from my dual channel dashcam blackbox with GPS available here ( I have traveled thousands of miles up and down the west coast this year without incident and I want to tell you that you can do it too. All it takes is some courage and some patience, they have us all controlled through our on fears. I walk with God though, so I have no fear. Actually, God rides shotgun with me because I am on a mission to help people learn how to attain liberty and happiness, while living their life.


Aggrieved Parties and the general public has been and is being scammed in the following manner through what is undoubtedly a Traffic Racket:

A. Men and women, herein referred as Victims, through propaganda not based on law, are taught they are required to purchase a “driver’s License”/“chauffeur’s License” to ride their non-commercial vehicles on the roadways; failure to purchase the License will cause the Victim engaged in ordinary travel to be arrested/kidnapped by the weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers.

B. The Victim through harassment and coercion from the Weaponized Peace Officers, are forced into buying the “motor vehicle registration” service and display the receipt via a “License Plate”, failure to display such receipt will cause Victim’s vehicle to be taken through force exercised by the weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers.

C. The weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers ensure the Victim appears before an alleged Traffic Referee who through abuse of process extorts Fines and Court Cost from the Victim.

D. This harassment and coercion is supported and upheld by the State’s Lower courts and is further supported by with a blind eye approval from the State’s higher Courts.

E. The basic proceeds are as follows:

a. Licensed and Registration proceeds are shared by the State and The Municipalities that host DMV Offices.
Proceeds from this racket benefits all State Officers, State/Municipal Employees and all State run pension plans.

b. Fine and Penalty proceeds are shared by the Courts, The Municipalities and The State Treasury.
Proceeds from this racket benefits all State Officers, all State run pension plans and Municipalities who use these funds to hire more revenue making highwaymen and Traffic Referees.


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

(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 Shocking Secret About Court Room Flags – It’s A Warning!

The National Flag of the United States, the ‘Stars and Stripes’, is sometimes decorated with gold fringe around the edges.  These yellow fringed ‘Stars and Stripes’ can be found in most State and Federal Courts, Municipal Buildings, and Schools throughout America, but why? militaryflag.gif

The flags displayed in State courts and courts of the United States have gold or yellow fringes. That is your WARNING that you are entering into a foreign jurisdiction, the same as if you are stepping onto foreign soil and you will be under the jurisdiction of THAT flag.  The flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of any court, and is not recognized by any nation on this earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America.

Those of us who believe that the Yellow Fringed Flag is the ‘Law of Admiralty’ Flag will know all about this.   For the rest of us, this will be a shocking new disclosure.  President, Dwight David Eisenhower signed Executive Order No.10834 on August 21, 1959 and had printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to the law, stated that:  “A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides.”

The American people were allowed to believe that it was just a decoration but its not.  When you see a flag that resembles a regular US flag with YELLOW FRINGE border on the edges, it means that you are in a special place.  A place that should not have any jurisdiction over you if you are a normal citizen.  The President of the United States designates this difference from the regular flag, by executive order such as Ike did, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military he makes it so.  The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.

If you walk onto a ship docked in a port located in New York City you are subject to the laws of the city and state of New York as well as the Federal Laws of the United States.  This is as one would expect.  When that ship leaves that harbor, then things change.  Got it now?  Wherever that ship happens to come to rest the law of the land wherever you happen to be has jurisdiction over you.  When out in the high seas past the twelve mile limit you are not under the jurisdiction of any nation’s laws.  You are under the jurisdication of what is known as “Maritime Law”.  You will be subject to the law of the flag of that ship, enforceable by the “master of the ship,” otherwise known as the Captain, by the law of the flag.

If you enter a foreign embassy that happens to be in Washington DC, you are entering a distinct “enclave” with laws that may differ from your “home” state.  You will be subject to the laws of THAT country, not US law, just as if you are boarding a ship.  So, when you enter a courtroom displaying a gold or yellow fringed flag, be aware that you have just entered into a foreign country, and you better have your passport with you.  The judge sitting under a gold or yellow fringe flag becomes the “captain” or “master” of that ship or enclave and he has absolute power to make the rules as he goes.  The gold or yellow fringe flag is your WARNING that you are leaving your Constitutionally protected rights on the floor outside the door of that courtroom.

This is why so many judges are appointed, and not elected by the people.  Federal judges are appointed by the President, the national military commander in chief.  State judges are appointed by the Governors, the state military commanders (head of the State National Guard).  Judges are appointed because the courts are military courts and civilians do not “elect” military officers.

Gold-fringed flags only stand inside military courts that sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians and such courts are governed in part by local rules, but more especially by “The Manual of Courts Martial”.  So, the next time you see this yellow fringed flag you will know what you are looking at and what it really means.  If you travel to Mexico and you see the National Flag of Mexico, you would know that you are under the jurisdiction of Mexico; and that Mexican laws govern you at that time.  That flag is your official notification when you see that flag.  You should understand that the gold fringed flag signifies the same thing.  It is a notification to you that you are under the rules and regulations of the military force that is flying that flag.

Government officials and judges often refuse requests to remove the gold fringed flag and replace it with the official flag of the United States as defined in the constitution – which has NO fringe.  In 1933 President Theodore Roosevelt described that the admiralty, maritime or administration display of the flag is established by the presence of “gold fringe, gold braid, gold eagle, gold spear, or gold ball atop the flag pole.”  In 1979 these standards were set down in Army regulations as part of the War Powers Act.  By submitting a plea to this type of court, you are silently assenting, or agreeing, that this court has jurisdiction over you.  That is how the display of the fringed-flags allows our freedoms to be taken away.  Be advised.

By: J. Mark Soveign