This month's newsletter tells the account of how I was almost sued, in a case that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I had intended that this month's topic would be "The Meaning of 'Law'." It's not. Although I believe it to be a very important topic, and an article I still intend to write, circumstances have prompted me to write something with (hopefully) a more immediate practical application. We get mail from a lot of folks having trouble, to a lesser or greater degree, with the American court system. We help when we can which, I'm sad to say, isn't as often as I wish. Over the last few months some of my friends have landed in jail, and some are still there. One of those friends is Alfred Adask, editor of AntiShyster Magazine (http://www.antishyster.com). He's cooling his heels in a Missouri jail over an alleged child-support issue. It was after reading an article he recently wrote from jail (posted on TLP at http://lawfulpath.com/ref/adask/adask_2002-1226.shtml), that I decided to write this account of how I was once "almost" a part of a lawsuit. I'm hoping there might be something in this story which will help my friends and you, our readers. DOES THE SUIT FIT? First a little foundation. A few years ago, I sold a parcel of land to some folks (let's call them Smith). For reasons of their own, which are irrelevent to the point of this story, Smith decided to sue me. So they hired an attorney who drafted a complaint against some guy whose name looked a lot like mine, except that it was spelled with all capital letters, instead of my true, proper name. This was right around the same time the California Jural Society had released their Book of the Hundreds (see http://lawfulpath.com/ref/calif_jure.shtml) containing a procedure called a "Non-Statutory Abatement" (N.S.A.) The N.S.A. was intended as a demurrer against court proceedings, and it specifically addressed the "all capital letter name," which it called a nom-de-guerre. I responded to Smith's complaint with an N.S.A. Before I continue, I want to go on record as saying that I can't really recommend the N.S.A. in most cases, and it plays a small part in this story. It has worked for me at least twice, and it has worked for others I've known, but I've also seen it have no effect, and even cause matters to become much worse than they would have otherwise been. Admitedly, this is probably because a lot of people don't understand what an abatement really does. In addition, many States have since passed legislation, probably as a direct result of the N.S.A., which might cause criminal charges to be levied against the user of an N.S.A., if it is done the way the Book of the Hundreds recommends. So if you ever use one, be very careful. All that aside, abatements do have a legitimate place in court proceedings, when they're done right. An abatement says, "your case if flawed in some basic, procedural way, and you must fix it before you can proceed." In order for the abatement to be properly made (in good faith), you must also tell the other party exactly how to fix the flaw. This is because it would be improper for you to deny a damaged or injured party a remedy, otherwise you may be declared "lawless" (more about this in my upcoming "Defining Law" article). Right or wrong, the reasoning behind using the N.S.A., from a "Patriot Paper-Warrior" perspective, is complicated; but in a nutshell is as follows: 1) The "United States" is a different entity than the "United States (plural) of America." Likewise, for example, "State of Kansas" and "Kansas" are two different entities, the former being a corporate subdivision of the United States and the latter being an independent country, and member of a union. 2) The government of the United States wants to have jurisdiction over the people of the United States of America, but doesn't have any unless it is voluntarily given, so 3) The United States creates a legal fiction, probably a trust, with a name like yours except in all capital letters. Since any creator owns and controls that which it creates, the United States can claim jurisdiction over the "nom-de-guerre." Then it tricks the flesh and blood man into being responsible for whatever happens to the nom-de-guerre. So, the reasoning follows, the United States (and its corporate subdivisions) are engaging in trickery and fraud to secure jurisdiction. The N.S.A. directly challenges this scheme. It's important to realize that abatements don't make disputes go away. They simply demand that the form of the complaint be fixed. But under the N.S.A. a complaint in today's courts can't be fixed, because the court hearing the cause has no jurisdiction over the flesh and blood man. This puts a case in a kind of limbo, from which it has sometimes never returned. It doesn't go away, but it never proceeds. Except, of course, when it does anyway. And here's where we get back on track, because that's what Smith's case did, was proceed anyway, although the N.S.A. did manage to stall things for almost a year. CROSSING THE BAR Finally, one day I get word through the grapevine, that the court was going to have a hearing on Smith's "motion to default," since no one from the defendant's side showed up at any of the other hearings. So I decided to go down there and see what all the fuss was about, and that's where this story gets good. I'm very thankful to the One True God that I had gotten a lot smarter during the year the N.S.A had stalled the case. One of the most important things I learned about was a concept called "conflict of law," and how it applies to jurisdiction. I had co-founded "Christ county, Kingdom of God," an ecclesia, and we had our own banner (flag) and our own law forum. I don't think having an ecclesia behind you is absolutely necessary to get the same results I got that day, but it gave me the confidence I needed at that time, to pull it off. I entered the courtroom with some of my friends, and sat in the gallery. When the case was called I kept my seat, waiting for the right moment. The judge called for the plaintiff to say he was present, and was answered by Smith's attorney. Then he called for the defendant. Still, I kept my seat and held my tongue. When no answer came from the defendant (no one was at the defendant's table), the judge turned to Smith's attorney and began the proceedings. That's when I stood up and walked across the bar (through the gate separating the gallery from the front tables), and said "Excuse me, your Honor, may I speak?" Immediately, the judge asked me, "Who are you?" I replied, "I am the man who I think the Plaintiff INTENDED to sue, and I am here in a ministerial capacity to give information to the court so as to prevent a damage being done to people who are not a party to this proceeding." Again, the judge asked, "Who are you?" "I think I'm the man the Plaintiff INTENDED to sue," I said, "but I have never been joined to this proceeding." The judge, obviously intrigued, pointed at the defendant's table, and said "Sit down over there, and I'll hear from you after the Plaintiff has a chance to speak." So I did. The attorney for the Plaintiff was given his chance to state his complaint, and the fact that no defendant had appeared at any prior hearings, and asked that the judge grant his motion for default. Then the judge turned to me and asked, "Do you have anything to say?" I said, "Yes," and he asked me to step to the podium, which I did, and the judge said, "First, tell me your name." In response, I first laid my Bible on the podium, opened it, and removed a folded flag (the Christ county Banner), which I unfolded, and affixed to the "bar" behind me. Then I said, "I am here in a ministerial capacity, under the coverture of the Banner of Christ county, Kingdom of God. The Law of my Domicile is the King James Bible, authorized version 1611. My name is Gregory Allan, and that is spelled capital 'G,' lower-case 'r e g o r y,' capital 'A,' lower-case 'l l a n.' I am not a party to these proceedings, but I have some important information for the court." There was some murmering and laughter from the gallery, and the judge banged his gavel and demanded quiet. "What is your information?" the judge asked me. I said, "I have evidence that there is a substantive flaw in the proceedings in this case, which is very likely to result in a damage being done to someone not joined to this case, and further, that the Plaintiff has had notice of this flaw for months, and has been given many opportunities to correct the error, but has failed to do so." "Where is your evidence?" asked the judge. "Right here, your Honor," I said, and produced a packet of papers. "Hand them to the bailiff," the judge directed, and I did. Now this is an important part. You've probably guessed that I handed him a copy of my N.S.A., or why would I have spent so much time describing what it was, right? It was a full copy of everything, including the Notice of Fault, and Notice of Default, with all the proofs of service. And right on top was my affidavit, certifying that all the copies were true and correct copies of the genuine articles. The affidavit was VERY important, because otherwise the packet would not have complied with the court's rules of evidence. The judge carefully looked over the entire packet, and then he got a little smile on his face. Thanks go to God that I knew what that smile was for, and how to deal with it. He (God) must have put the words directly in my mouth, because I didn't know what I was going to say when I got there. See, there's something I forgot to mention up until now, about the N.S.A. It's the thing that might get you in trouble these days, with that new legislation. The heading of the N.S.A. always read, for example, something like "Hoboken county common law court," which, if I was in the County of Hoboken, is not the same name as that of the court I was in. So the judge says to me, "I don't recognize the name of this court, so I don't recognize this document as being a lawful judgment." I replied, "I didn't ask you to recognize it, your Honor." And he said, "Then why did you give it to me?" I said, "I told you that I had evidence that the Plaintiff had notice of a substantive flaw in their procedure, and had opportunity to correct it, but failed to do so. There's the proof. And I'm here to notify you that if this court proceeds, it may damage a party or parties who have not been joined to this Matter." The judge thought it over for about a half-minute, and then asked, "Do you have anything else to say?" "Yes," I said, "just one more thing." "Go ahead," said the judge. "Well," I continued, "as I said your Honor, I haven't been joined to this Case. But I think I'm the party whom the Plaintiff intended to join, and I believe strongly that they are entitled to an opportunity to seek a remedy. You seem to me like a good, honest man, your Honor, so I am hereby making an offer to join with this Matter, and appoint you as the arbitrator, on the condition that you hear the Matter according to the Law of my Domicile," whereupon I placed my right hand over my Bible, still laying on the podium. The judge's jaw literally dropped to his chest. Time seems to stand still in moments like those, but my best guess is that the courtroom was treated to somewhere close to a full minute of complete silence. Finally, the judge said "Sit down over there!" and pointed to the defendant's table. I did. He started gathering up papers, and shuffling them around. This went on for another thirty or forty seconds, during which I notice his hands were visibly trembling. Then he said, "I'm going to take this under consideration for... about... three weeks. IF ANYONE HAS ANY PAPERS TO FILE IN THIS MATTER THEY'D BETTER DO IT BEFORE THEN!" And so saying, the judge jumped up and fled the room. Everyone in the courtroom (including me) was stunned. The Plaintiffs asked their attorney, "What happened?" and he said "I don't know." I'm sure he had told them that this would be a slam-dunk; a no-brainer. I suspect that more than a few people had thought I was certifiably insane, and were now given cause to reconsider. A little more than three weeks later, an envelope arrived in the mail, addressed to the nom-de-guerre. I opened it "by mistake." It was from a judge three counties away, who wrote that he had been asked to give his opinion in this Matter. He continued, with approximately these words: "It is my opinion that this proceeding lacks proper jurisdiction, and I therefore recommend dismissal, without prejudice." That was the end of the matter. SO, WHAT HAPPENED? Both these judges were old guys; they'd been on the bench a long time. I strongly suspect they knew what they were doing. That means I probably did something VERY RIGHT. But what? I'm not an old judge, so I have to take an educated guess, but I think I know. Having read the story, maybe you'll see some things I've missed, but here's my best explanation: 1) The Banner and the Bible created a conflict of law. This didn't look important, until the zinger at the end. 2) Whatever extra, and possibly unnecessary stuff I threw in, I managed to make it pretty plain that at no time while I was there, or at any other time, did I voluntarily grant jurisdiction. 3) The judge tried to trip me up by getting me to argue the validity of the N.S.A., but I stayed on-point and called it what it was: simple evidence that the Plaintiff knew there was a substantive fault in their process, but they didn't fix it. 4) I alleged that others, not joined, would be damaged if the court proceeded. 5) I proved I was not lawless, by offering a reasonable remedy. This may be the most important part. I believe courts often take jurisdiction through a principle known as "escheat," which they can rightfully do if an accused shows himself to be "lawless" (This point will likely be the subject of an entire future article.). 6) My offer was contingent upon the judge hearing the matter "according to the law of my domicile," which I had already declared (See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17, http://www.wvnb.uscourts.gov/frcp.htm#rule17 ). This rule is usually defeated by judges, easily, and on a routine basis. But the way I presented it was (I think) difficult, if not impossible for him to escape. Remember, my "law" was one of the very first things I declared, before I even gave him my name, so it could not be presumed I had waived it. 7) The dismissal was "without prejudice," which means the Plaintiffs had the right to sue again if they wanted. But they didn't. By this time they'd spent a year's time, and attorney's fees commensurate with that much time. And they didn't really understand why they'd gotten a dismissal, so they probably looked on another try as a big risk. If they'd done it a second time, but sued me under my proper name, would the court have accepted the suit (given the nom-de-guerre theory)? I don't know, because it didn't happen. All I can say on that point is that I've seen a lot of court paperwork, and I've never seen a case where the parties' names were in any other than all capital letters. CONCLUSION Bottom line, I don't think it was the name-issue that won this for me. It was: A. Evidence of flawed procedure (unrebutted); and B. Offer to join, contingent upon terms the judge didn't want to accept. Which brings up some interesting interesting thoughts: How would a judge be treated by his peers, if he agreed to hear a case according to the laws of the Holy Scriptures? I don't know. What would the press do with it, if/when they found out? Plenty, I'll bet. A case in point is the Alabama judge currently being sued because he hangs the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. Could the judge refuse my offer, and still claim jurisdiction over me? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. God willing, some of you folks out there with troubles may see some value in this story. SHAMELESS PLUG FOR MY BOOK Did it ever occur to you that hospitals' and doctors' bills are based on a contract? Did you know that insurance companies seldom, if ever, pay full price for insured services? Why? Because they have a better contract than you do. It's the admission form that obligates you to pay. Are you stuck with the hospital's form? No! Anyone can make a few small changes to that form -- reasonable changes that are very hard for them to refuse, and knock 30% to 70% off their final bill. If you buy health insurance, you probably do it because of the high cost of health care. If you don't buy insurance, it's probably because you either can't afford to, or because you've been told you're uninsurable. In any case, you're paying full price. But what if you could get the same prices as the insurance companies? You can! My book, "Affordable Healthcare Without Insurance" shows you how you can save thousands of dollars on health care expenses, at your own local hospital, and with your own family doctor. And once you learn to use the simple principles in the book, you can apply them to all sorts of other contracts in your life, and save yourself a ton of money and headaches. I publish it as an electronic book, that you can read using a free program called Adobe Acrobat Reader. You've probably heard of it-- you've probably already got it, but if you don't you can download it for free in about ten minutes at adobe.com. When hospitals bill the insurance companies, they bill them full price, and the insurance companies pay their discounted price. You'll need to send them a few letters to secure the lower price. Just copy the letters right out of my book, and paste them into your favorite word processor. What could be easier? Download "Affordable Healthcare Without Insurance" at The Lawful Path for only $29.95. You can pay for it using your credit or debit card via PayPal, and download it within minutes onto your own computer. If you wait until you're already laying on your back in a hospital, it's too late-- you've already signed the contract. Buy now: http://lawfulpath.com/cat/estore/1001/order.shtml And be sure to visit our catalog, we're adding great new stuff all the time. NEW ARTICLES APPEARING AT TLP: * (01/23) Added two new articles regarding Alfred Adask, editor of Antishyster Magazine: - Update 01/09/03 http://lawfulpath.com/ref/adask/adask_2003-0109.shtml Updates us on what's happening with Al's jail stay. - Involuntary Servitude http://lawfulpath.com/ref/adask/adask_2002-1226.shtml A very interesting article by Al, about some aspects of the 13th and 14th Amendments. * (01/22) Added Part Two of "What is the Ecclesia?" to the Reading Room (2nd of 3 parts). http://lawfulpath.com/ref/ecclesia/ecclesia2of3.shtml * (01/06) Added Part One of "What is the Ecclesia?" to the Reading Room (1st of 3 parts). http://lawfulpath.com/ref/ecclesia * (01/03) Added "The Seventeenth Amendment: Should it be Repealed?" to the Reading Room. http://lawfulpath.com/ref/17th-repealed.shtml We hope you enjoyed this edition of The Lawful Path Journal.