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. “ (https://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/represent)

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.“ (https://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/refusal) 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.” (https://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/understand)

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. (https://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/visitor)

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 http://shop.freedomfromgovernment.org 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.

Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel

Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel

Author Unknown

Right to travel, Kent v, Dulles 357 US 116 125 1958.
Right to travel, Kent v, Dulles 357 US 116 125 1958.

The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of “driving without a license.” It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a “win” in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants. The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver’s license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver’s license.

_______________________
Time to get your hands on your BRAND NEW tags that NEVER EXPIRE! Click here!
_______________________

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this “BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION,” stating as follows:

ARGUMENT

If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.”

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

RIGHTS

The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”

16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

and further …

“Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”

Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777

right-to-travel
Know your Right-to-travel! (click image to enlarge)

Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the “most sacred of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. Continue reading “Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel”