A page from Adask

Can governments lawfully restrict, register, or otherwise encumber our free right to travel? Should they? Discussions on Right to Travel.
Post Reply
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

A page from Adask

Post by editor » Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:53 pm

One of our readers pointed me to this article. I think it needs to be here, and will hopefully spur some discussion. The original URL is here: http://adask.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/emergency-lights/

Emergency Lights
09 Nov (2013)



A friend of mine is a student of traffic law. He sent me an email complaining that the Constitution and common law seem to be suspended in the context of a traffic stop. He was especially concerned by the fact that the police can stop drivers along the roads and highways and essentially arrest us without a warrant.

I replied with a notion that I’ve never researched and which could be completely mistaken–but which has been rattling around in the back of my brain for most of a decade:

The usual traffic stop starts with the flashing of emergency lights.

I suspect the traffic ticket and possible arrest are based on the alleged existence of an “emergency“.

If the existence of an “emergency” were effectively denied, could there be a lawful traffic stop or traffic ticket?

Under the pretext of “emergency,” the laws are suspended and the occifer may be thereby empowered to do whatever he likes. For example, it might be illegal to drive more than 15 MPH on a one way street in a school zone. But if someone is shooting at you and creating an “emergency,” you have the right to drive at 50 MPH in reverse, going the wrong way on the one-way street in order to avoid being shot or killed. In the context of an emergency, normal laws are suspended and the only principle that I know of is “survival”.

The Constitution of The State of Texas requires that all proposed laws be read aloud on three separate days in the state legislature before they can be voted on. The legislature escapes that constitutional mandate by declaring there’s an “emergency” so they can vote on the law as soon as it’s been mentioned just one time. This procedure illustrates that the state legislature routinely violates the terms of the State constitution by simply declaring an “emergency”. There is no actual emergency, but under the pretext of an “emergency,” the state legislators can “legally” commit unconstitutional acts. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that some similar suspension of the laws could take place whenever the traffic cop turns on the emergency lights or emergency siren.

Similarly, when an “emergency vehicle” (ambulance or fire truck) is flashing its “emergency lights,” that vehicle is exempt from normal traffic laws and can speed, run traffic lights and stop signs or drive the wrong way up one-way streets. Again, a “state of emergency” can excuse people from obeying ordinary laws. So a “state of emergency” can effectively suspend ordinary laws.

Therefore, it seems possible that arrests (or at least detentions) are lawful without warrants within the context of an alleged “emergency“.

It’s not impossible that the flashing “emergency” lights on a cop car mark a small, special venue within which the constitution, common law, etc. are presumed to be suspended.

It may be that once the occifer turns on his emergency lights and you don’t object, you are presumed to have consented and agreed that you and the occifer are in a “state of emergency”.

It’s even conceivable that under the “The State vs this state” hypothesis, “this state” may ultimately be presumed to be a “state of emergency”.

Perhaps the best approach is to ask the occifer when he approaches you, “What’s the emergency?” If/when the occifer answers, expressly deny the existence of an emergency–other than the fraudulent emergency the occifer himself created by flashing his emergency lights, pulling you over on the side of the road and increasing the odds that you’ll both be hit by another car. You might even find a phrase to include over your signature on the traffic ticket that denies the existence of emergency or, in the alternative, declares the “state of affairs” to be one of “peace”.

I wouldn’t bet on it, but it’s conceivable that by pasting a “flag of peace” decal, hanging in the vertical position on the back of your car, you might create evidence that you are driving “without” a “state of emergency”.

It might be possible to argue that the occifer did not “observe” a state of emergency that was created by the driver of the car he stopped. Instead, it may be that the occifer “created” the alleged “state of emergency” by flashing his lights and placing both driver and the occifer in danger of being hit by passing traffic. It might be argued that the occifer “created” the “state of emergency” as a fraudulent pretext for the sake of suspending the constitution and common law and thereby depriving you of their protections–and then extorting a traffic fine from the driver “under the color of law”. That would be one helluvan argument, if it could be sustained.

I’ve never really studied the concept of “emergency”. But if research showed that the traffic stop is ultimately based on an alleged “emergency,” then the key question may be whether a genuine emergency was caused by the driver being ticketed and actually existed before the cop turned on his emergency light, or if the occifer himself created a false/fraudulent emergency by turning on his flashers, suspending the constitution and common law, and causing the driver to stop in a dangerous condition along the side of the road in order to be subjected to a fraudulent fine.

I have a hunch that if we found the definition of “emergency” in the traffic code, we could learn how to effectively refute the existence of an alleged but fraudulent “emergency”. If there’s no emergency, they’d have no basis to flash their lights. If they can’t flash their lights, they can’t stop us from continuing to drive and there’d be no traffic stops.

Or, you could travel with a box of glazed, jelly-filled donuts and offer to give one to the occifer if he let’s you go.

So, anyone have any insight into the concept of “emergency”? Is an “emergency” critical to the presumed “legality” of traffic stops?
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: A page from Adask

Post by editor » Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:55 pm

The following is a response to the above article given by someone who calls himself "Lance". It appears to be taken from a speech given by Winston Shrout. The response was given on Adask's page, and I include it here for discussion:

Can we still get a remedy in equity? Can we still get a remedy in admiralty? The answer is yes you can. So what they did was they combined the procedures for these law forms in what became known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So it’s this set of rules right here that governs all of these various law forms. So the question is, can I still get a remedy under the Federal Rules and Civil Procedure in any of these things? The answer is yes you can; it’s right inside Civil Procedure in any of these things? The answer is yes you can; it’s right inside there.

In any event I think all of you are pretty much aware that all of our present governments are corporate in nature. You know different that the original ‘de jure’ governments wherein the people, now this is interesting, the people under the ‘de jure’ government were the sole shareholders of the corporation. But then to facilitate the monetary systems and different things that were being brought in into use, they further incorporated. And so they took the value of the corporation out of the hands of the people and put it into private individuals and enterprises or special interest groups, as we’ll demonstrate here in a minute. So basically these new corporations have moved in and elbowed out the real government. And these new corporations are just simply stripping all the money that they can out of the suspecting, unsuspecting population.

I mean if that guy who is sitting there thinking the judge for only charging him two hundred bucks realized that the guy sitting up front was getting thirty percent of that two hundred bucks into his private retirement fund, he might’ve thought different about it.

Okay, so you have a corporation here and the corporation has founders. And so the founders then are the priority stick holders of the corporation. Now in order to raise capital for the corporation, what do the founders do? They offer, sign up right over here. So then down from the founders, we have the common stock holders. Now when the corporation wants to raise money for the corporation, what do they do? They tax. They tax the common stock holders. Do they tax the priority stock holders? No. They’re the owners, why would they tax themselves? So they put a tax on the common stock holders for the enfranchisement or for the benefit privilege of being a shareholder, a common stockholder in their corporation.

So how do you get to be a common stock holder? With your signature. Now all you’ve got to do is within the jurisdiction of corporation, all you have to do is sign up for some benefit privilege and bang, there you go. You’re a common stock holder. So let’s say, I mean uh you know, if you move into the area, if you sign up for utilities, if you I don’t know, join the PTA or if you sign voter registrations or whatever you do, if you put your name to a document with a corporation now all of a sudden you’re a common stock holder. And you can be taxed, you can be fined and all these kind of things to raise capital for the corporation because they need money. Or if they didn’t need money they wouldn’t be doing it right? Now, another thing that you don’t realize is that if you’re in the jurisdiction of that corporation, they will assume that you’re a common stock holder in that corporation unless you demonstrate otherwise.

So how do you demonstrate, you know, that you’re not a common stock holder in that corporation – actually either you’re a private man or you’re a member of another corporation over here see?

So as you’ll look at this, in many instances it’s easy to visualize this corporate structure and this entity and so forth if you look at it from a trust perspective. Now is it a corporation a trust? The answer is yes, it is.

When the outcome is uncertain then you’re involved in a trust. And so all these corporate things that we’ll be talking about here, if you’ll look at it from this perspective that we’re also involved in a trust situation and so some of you have been studying on these trust things and have a pretty good concept of that.

First time that you signed on as common stockholder in the United States was the Social Security form SS-5. You ask for a benefit privilege, and so now you became a franchisee of the corporation. So your right in the middle of that.

But one of the concepts that’s so important as a result of signing the SS-5 form with an unqualified signature, then you put yourself into the position as an assumed trustee of the Social Security trust.

In equity, when a party has possession of a thing to which they have no legal right, then they are construed to be the trustee of the thing.

So if you’ve got you know ten dollars in your pocket, if you’ve got you know a hundred dollars in your bank account and so forth, you have no legal right to that, you gave it away. But you are construed to be the trustee of it.

A traffic stop is simply this, you know, the big corporation is needing money and so they go to the common stock holders to get it. Because that’s the only party they can tax on the thing.

A lot of people don’t realize that a traffic stop is court, you see?

I had a deputy sheriff stop me one time and I got to talking to him and I said, “I see you’ve got a gun there, is it loaded?” He said, “Yes it is.” I said, “Well if you’ll look in my pickup truck here you’ll see that I don’t have a gun so we’re on unequal status here. And on that basis I might do what you say.” You see what I mean? He was putting me under threatened duress, you see? So well I don’t recommend you doing that.

The roadside stop itself is in fact an administrative court. And as we go into it here to some of the things that could be said at a roadside stop, I’m just trying to demonstrate that the officer who made the stop is acting in the capacity of an administrative judge at the roadside and in that capacity he can in fact give a summary judgement. Or he might not depending on what you do. So we’re going to show you some techniques and things you can say and so forth so you won’t get an administrative judgement against you along the roadside, you see.

Everybody drives around on the highways in a corporate vehicle. Now why do I call it a corporate vehicle? Because it doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to the corporation. Now when you go out in our day and age, when you go out and purchase a new vehicle, many people don’t understand that you are in fact entitled to manufacturer’s statement of origin for that. Now that is the paramount title to that vehicle at the point.

If in fact you can go and purchase a new vehicle without having to finance it, when you’re entitled to the manufacturer’s statement of origin or what we call the MSO. Now, if you have that in your possession, that is proof positive to go straight into the DMV, Department of Motor Vehicles. And they’re going to be the owner of the vehicle. And what they’re going to give you in exchange is a lien holders on that particular piece of property. But make no mistakes about it, the vehicle. If you’re driving around in a corporate vehicle, what does that mean? You’re a common stock holder. And can you be taxed for the use of that corporate vehicle? And the answer is yes you can be.

Well I got a friend of mine, he cleared the title on it and he re-titled the vehicle into a foreign foundation.

Okay now remember, this process of turning over the MSO to the DMV is strictly voluntary. Now a lot of times if you do go and purchase a new vehicle, even if you pay cash for it, the dealership will try to coerce you into allowing them to send the MSO to the DMV.

I talked to a highway patrol man, actually he was a retired highway patrol out of Arizona some years ago. And he said, we were instructed that if we pulled over a vehicle and the driver of the, what they call the driver of the vehicle produced the MSO on that vehicle, he said, we would totally leave them alone. Because that demonstrated that the vehicle was private property.

One here from a court case out of the Tennessee appeals court in 1966. It says, automobile purchases for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was consumer goods, as defined in UCC 9-109. So under UCC 9-109 the vehicle was known as consumer goods. It was decided in 1978 apparently out of Maryland. “The provisions of UCc 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods.”

Where it called an automobile which was involved in a probate will and so forth, it called them household goods. Here’s one it says, a yacht and six automobiles were personal belongings and household effects. And again this is out of a probate court.

Now I’ll give you an example, demonstrating that what you’re thinking is a government or a court or something like that and nothing more than a corporation. And whether or not you want to be a part of that corporation or not, that’s up to you.

Well if it’s a corporation operating over here in Utah, let’s just see if they are chartered. So I went to the secretary of state website and did some research to see if I could find this corporation, to see if it was chartered in the state of Utah, and guess what? It wasn’t. So what did that indicate to me? That it’s a private corporation. It has to be a private corporation because it’s not chartered with the secretary of state. And so, and I was going to do more research to find out if this corporation here was paying taxes on their profit.

So what does it say about this enterprise that’s going on here? Its a private enterprise. Now is it government? Well of course it’s not government. They’ve simply taken over the government.

It’s these entities here that have taken over the state. And now they’re running it, they’re running the courts and everything and the proceeds that come from this enterprise right here, does it go back to support the community? No, it’s private. They’re taking it out of public and they’re taking it into private.

And so there’s all kinds of ways that you could put a restricted, let me emphasize this, I’m going to shout at you here with my capital letters, A RESTRICTED SIGNATURE on something. This is an unrestricted signature. That means they can do anything they want to with it because you haven’t indentured it. Remember I said that all this stuff is a trust? And so you have to indenture it, you have to create the law of the trust; you have to create the law of the signature.

People like to use ‘AR’, which means authorized representative, or they might put you know UCC 3-402, 401- B2, you can look it up. Or they might put UCC 1-308, look these things up so you’ll understand what it is. They might put out, ‘with reservation of rights’ or they might put ‘without recourse’, we like that one. But anyway one, you know UCC 3-419, now that’s an interesting one.

They can make money on it. And do you want them to make money on it? Well I don’t think I do, because they’re private corporations.

Now again, let me reiterate that when a police officer pulls a vehicle over on the highway, folks that is an arrest.

First off when he pulls you over, he has reason to believe that you’re a common stock holder, because you’re driving around in a corporate car obviously, because the thing has license plates on it. You know they might way State of Oregon or California or whatever. So it’s obvious that whoever is behind the wheel of that vehicle, that they’re in the state vehicle. And because they’re in a state vehicle, the policeman automatically assumes that they must be a common stock holder in the corporation. So he says, ooh great, the CEO over here of this corporation told me I need to go out and collect some taxes from the common stock holder, so there goes one there, I’m going to get some money out of that guy, see? So they stop you and say, hey we need money. Now they’re not going to say it just that way, I mean we got a dog and pony show going on out here on the highways and in the courtroom and so forth.

So you know, you get pulled over and they get to talk to you and get into a controversy and the administrative judge in the form of a police officer executes summary judgement right by the roadside and gives you a payment coupon so you know who to send the money to. That’s all that it is.

Now just remember, just remember this is key; if you do decide to go into court, you have to understand that you already have summary judgement going against you. You already got summary judgement when the police officer already judged the matter along the roadside. So you’re already into summary judgement. So if you’ve been listening to our analysis of civil procedures and so forth then you know that the remedy for a summary judgement is a counter claim.

So you have to understand all this traffic stuff is totally all involved in the civil law or what we call quasi-criminal – which it’s all just civil law.

So you have to understand all this traffic stuff is totally all involved in the civil law or what we call quasi-criminal – which it’s all just civil law.

But I did want to remind you that everything that goes on in these situations, these administrative courts, is all ruled by the double entry bookkeeping technique.

Everything in the public involves itself with double entry bookkeeping technique. And again so if you’ll look at, you know, the double entry procedure, that’s what I was saying, a counter claim would apply here because over here you got a traffic ticket. That’s a claim. That’s a claim for money. And so how do you balance out a claim? Well with a counter claim, because at the end of the business day we have to arrive at that zero balance down there. So however you arrange your counter position to overcome the claim here is for the purpose of reducing the accounting in this particular matter down to zero. That’s what you’re trying to get at. It’s always the same thing; it always is.

So let’s talk about some of the things that you can say, or some of the things that you can do at a roadside stop that might be helpful to you. First off, don’t get ignorant with them folks. Like I said, they’re carrying a gun. So it’s not a real smart thing to do, you know and listen – that’s a dangerous job. And I wouldn’t want that job, and why these guys do it, I don’t know.

I’m sorry, you know I didn’t realize that I was breaking the law, I didn’t intend to do that, can you forgive me.

If the policeman at the roadside stop is an administrative officer or administrative judge capable of finding you guilty, is he also capable of dismissing the case? And the answer is, yes he is.

The root of your problem was, was that he was driving around in a vehicle that was still owned by DMV. If he’s doing all these other things here, especially if you’re running some kind of private plates on those things, make sure that you go and unregister the vehicle from DMV before you attempt to do some of these things. Otherwise you’re creating an injury on the corporation, you see. Because there’s a certain amount of liability that’s incurred against the corporation when you’re actually operating one of their vehicles. So if you want to do private plates or some of these other things, I think we’ve spoke about some technology in this regard at the recent Gardener’s seminar down in Portland, and so I can’t, I don’t have time to go back over all of that.

And so I objected to them in court on the basis, show me your chain of evidence, where did these pictures come from? You know who had possession of them before you got them? You see what I mean?

It makes good sense to stop to find out what’s wanted. Anytime an emergency vehicle throws on it’s lights, whether it’s a policeman, a fire truck, an ambulance or whatever, I mean it just makes good sense. I mean you don’t know what the emergency might be. I mean let’s say for instance you’re driving down the highway, a highway patrolman pulls up behind you and throws his lights on; you don’t know if there’s been an emergency at home, I mean maybe something happened at home. The wife called the highway patrol, said he’s up here on route such and such, see if you can find him, his cell phone is not working and tell him there’s an emergency at home.

For a long time I have taught people that their first appearance is on the side of the road. We don’t make statements, we ask questions.

I claim you as my witness and claim Christian law.

God speed be with you, peace officer, how can I assist you, peace officer?

See he’s calling the guy that stops him a peace officer. Peace, peace officer, see?

God speed to you, peace officer, how can I assist you peace officer.

“I do not consent to do business with the police and waive any assumed [key is here assumed] benefit privileges, how can I assist a peace officer?” He says, “they definitely do not like this and sometimes go back to the car and get on the radio for a bit before continuing with the attempted harvest. Sometimes they will come back with a, “…but you were speeding!” To which we respond, “Was I really? Forgive me. How can I assist a peace officer?”

So here’s a real good approach. Again it’s non-confrontational; you’re simply saying “how can I help a peace officer?” See, so and then some of these other things that were used to avoid demonstrating enfranchisement, you know that they’re relying upon to tax the common stock holder.

So anyway, and one of our favorite things is, point of order! And you know one of the most other important things in Robert’s Rules is that a motion to dismiss has to be heard, so go look at your Robert’s Rules of Order and you might find some interesting little tidbits there that you could use in some of these proceedings and so forth.

Now there’s none item here that you ought to have on the tip of your tongue every time you go down to a court, and that is objection! Facts not in evidence.

And so my effort in the matter was putting together the footing and foundation. And the footing that I used a commercial lien. And the foundation I used was a state UCC filing. So those are the things I think told these parties, you got to put a foundation up.

Objection for facts not in evidence!

Trinsey vs. Pagliaro; one of the key statements in that decision was that statement of council in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgement.

I mean they’re making accusations, talking about this and talking about that over there and they have no right to do so. Because again, the attorney is trying to introduce testimony from the floor of the court which is uncertified or unsubstantial testimony. And so again, we come in, well objection, the attorney is trying to introduce facts into this case that are not in evidence. If it’s not in evidence you can’t talk about it, and that’s why we always say that any kind of comment by an attorney in a courtroom is all hearsay, because they don’t have any firsthand knowledge. If they don’t have firsthand knowledge, then they can’t you know represent that it is. And so this concept of facts not in evidence is really an important key and not only for traffic court, but for any kind of court you’re involved in and so that’s why I constantly am getting phone calls or having consultations with people when they say, well we’re in this court case here and here’s what’s happening and there’s what’s happening and I keep going back to the same think, have you introduced any evidence into this case? If you haven’t, then you’re going to get what you deserve. You have to put the evidence in. Because if you don’t put any evidence into the thing then the whole thing is all hearsay on their part and your part so the judge gets to act in equity and choose which one he likes the best. But if you put evidence in, the proper way, and you can look at the evidence rules in your court. But it’s basically all the same thing across the board, but if you put evidence in, now all of a sudden you have the footing and you have a foundation upon which you can build your structure. So don’t act like the attorneys you know, build your evidence.

Or you might say: objection, the attorney’s trying to testify. If he wants to testify, let him get up there on the witness stand and swear in like everybody else. And then there’s a lot of times where you’ll have the judges, they’ll start to testify from the bench, well objection, objection you can’t be testifying from up there. I mean if you want to say something in this matter then get off that bench and you take the witness stand, but you’re not going to give testimony form up there on the bench.

Now you have to understand right up front, that a traffic court is not a court of record.

I try to look pretty but it’s a waste of time. Anyway when we start talking about courts of record, you have to understand, especially a traffic or magistrate court is not a court of record, and we’ve had to deal with that in the past when we’ve done certain things that I will describe to you here in a minute.

Diesel Therapy.

And so eventually he just stood up and told the judge, he said, “Can I say something?” And the judge said, “okay go ahead”,you know. So he threw his right hand to the square and he said, “For and on the record”, and then he told all kinds of things on the record. He was giving testimony from the floor of the court. Now when they left out of there, that newfangled attorney they brought in, he asked that attorney, “Is everything I said in there part of the record?” And the attorney said, “Yeah.” He said, “Can I sue you them based on what I said?” The attorney said, “You sure can.” See? So again if you get into a situation where you’re uncertain, throw that right hand up to the square and start testifying for and on the records.

But he put another word in there where he says “for and on the public record”, you understand the courts are private, so now he’s going to put the thing into the public. In other words he’s going to shine some sunlight onto the vampire, and he said it’s been very successful when you put it onto the public record.

But one of the things, if you’re in a court of record, don’t say anything until you’re sure that what you’re saying is being recorded. And you can ask the judge, is this being recorded? You know, is there a court reporter here? Is it being videotaped? Because you don’t want to say anything and then have it you know not show up on the record, if you think what you’re saying is important for the record.

Now you have to understand, that if you do get into a court of record that that court reporter’s certified transcript can be introduced into evidence into a court of record. So he was making evidence, that’s what he was doing with that court reporter. Now you know you may not get into something that difficult; you may not think you need a court report, but one of the things you can do is that you can memorialize the conversation that was had in that court. Now what I mean by memorialize is as the court goes along, you can take notes and after you get done taking the notes then you can create an affidavit. That’s what we call memorializing a conversation. And so you can create an affidavit stating that this is a memorialization of the conversation that was had in traffic court on certain date, certain time, blah…

For instance on this first time I got in front of this traffic judge you know they read you your rights. Because again, traffic court is quasi-criminal. So they’re reading rights, they’re Miranda-izing the defendants that come into this traffic court. That shows you how ridiculous it is. So anyways, this is a traffic judge, he reads a Miranda and then he says, “Do you understand these rights that have been read to you?” And I said, “No.” they looked at me and said, “You don’t?” He said, “Well, what part of it don’t you understand?” I said, “Any of it.” Because what he was actually asking me was, do you stand under these charges. And I was not going to certify those charges, because if you say yes that you understand them, then you have certified the charges against you.

And so I said, “Well, do I have constitutional rights?” And I knew that I didn’t, I never signed the constitution. How do I get rights out of the constitution? But I asked him, I said, “But do I have constitutional rights?” He said, “Oh, yes you do.” And I said, “Well, I don’t waive any of that either.”

A court cannot profit on the disability.

“I’m confused.” the judge says – so you say, “I’m confused, can I ask a question?” You see. And they’ll always let you ask a question, now they might not answer it. But the judge might say, “We’ll what’s your question?” So you might say, “Well it appears that the court is wanting to contract with me, and any valid contract must be with full disclosure, so my question is about the plaintiff. Who or what is the state?” See all these cases come in, in the name of the STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, whatever. So my question is about the plaintiff, who or what is the STATE OF OREGON? Okay okay, but that doesn’t tell me very much. So I’m objecting to this proceeding for failure of ratification of commencement. Now this is something new that’s kind of hit the community which is rule 17 federal rules, civil procedure or it’ll be codified in your state rules of civil procedure. Anyway it has to do with the ratification of commencement.

If you’ll look at the rules you’ll find that a case can only be prosecuted in the name of a real party in interest. Now this is key, this is important, because you can have all kinds of fun with this. So for the most case, all these court cases come in, especially in traffic it’d be the STATE OF OREGON or the CITY OF PORTLAND or something like that, so let’s just say that It’s the STATE OF OREGON as the plaintiff in the name of a real party in interest, is this a real party in interest? No it’s not, it’s a fiction obviously to a proceeding on the basis of failure for ratification of commencement because it has not been revealed who the real party in interest is. In other words, who’s going to get the money? So we’re really concerned here with the real party in interest and the STATE OF OREGON is not the real party in interest obviously because it’s not a man or it’s not a woman, it’s a corporate fiction. So we’re objecting until the prosecutor will reveal who the real party in interest is because we may in fact want to sue the real party in interest for any kind of injuries they might have done with this. So like I said, it’s a catch – 22 because STATE OF OREGON again like we shoed a while ago on that business we were doing with you know Dun and Bradstreet and all that and the Secretary of the State and so forth, this is a private corporation acting like it’s a public court, but it’s not. See it’s a private one. So do you think that anybody in this courtroom in their right mind is going to reveal who the real party in interest is in this matter?

They’re not about to tell you who the real party in interest is. So again, if you can’t discover that then your objection is going to hold on the ratification of commencement. So let’s go back over it again. “Your honor I’m confused, can I ask a question?” “What’s your question?” “It appears you know, that the court’s wanting to contract with me, any valid contract must be with full disclosure, so my question is about the plaintiff. Who’s the plaintiff?” “Well it’s the STATE OF OREGON.” “Well you know, thank you for your answer, but that doesn’t tell me a whole lot. What I’m really going for here is to find out who the real party in interest is so I’m making an objection to this case moving forward under rule 17, ratification of commencement, until the prosecutor will reveal who the real party in interest is.” See we’re piercing the corporate veil, you understand that, you should understand that by now.

Who has standing to sue? And if you don’t have standing to sue, and this is an important concept, if you don’t have standing to sue then you can’t, it’s just that simple. Alright so one of the little approaches you might use here…

So eventually the prosecutor is going to rest his case. So now you get a chance to talk from the defendant position, see. So we’ve gotten to that point now where I get a chance to put on my case.

Did you file a valid cause of action against me?” And the officer is going to say, “Yes.” So then you ask him, “How many elements are in a valid claim of action?” See, and you don’t care. First off you know he don’t know, if he’d been to law school even he don’t know. So the prosecutor is going to say, “Objection! Your honor, that calls for a legal conclusion from Officer Smith and the witness is not competent to testify.” Thank you, thank you, thank you.” “Your honor, I agree with the prosecutor. Officer Smith is not competent to testify.” Now what did you just do to Officer Smith’s testimony? See? He doesn’t have any. So does a prosecutor have a witness against you? Well of course not, see. Now I did this once in a quasi-criminal situation; it was a juvenile matter with one of my kids.

They’d ask me if I wanted to cross examine and I’d say, no I don’t want to cross examine but I want to hold that witness as my witness. And so what I would do to that witness, well I would destroy the witness. And the way I would do that, would be that I would ask him, I said, “Can you identify the defendant in the room today?” “Yeah,” he said, “that kid right there.” And I say, “Okay can you identify the plaintiff in the room today?” Remember, see? Remember who the plaintiff was, it was the STATE OF UTAH. And so the prosecutor jumped up and said, “ Objection your honor, he can’t ask that question.” Well I could, under rule 17, I could ask that question. I said, “Okay I withdraw that question.” I said, “But here’s my next question.” To the witness I said, “Do you have firsthand knowledge that the defendant injured the plaintiff?” And they said “No.” So I impeached their testimony in doing that and removed them as a valid witness in the case.

“You know, he can’t answer that question, he’s not competent to answer a legal question.” Thank you! The prosecutor just made your case for you.
You might request the court to dismiss the charges on their own motion. Now see you can do this. It has to do with subject matter jurisdiction and certainly standing is a part of subject matter jurisdiction. And so what we do is that we don’t ask the court to do anything for us, because it’s the duty of the judge in any case if the subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, that the judge has to dismiss the case on the court’s own motion. So we would say something like, well your honor there’s obviously nothing here to talk about, no subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and so forth, so I’m requesting that the court dismiss the case on its own motion. See so now they’re going to take the liability, not you. So anyway that’s another little tactic you could use there.

Again because we’re involved in traffic court and the whole thing is actually admiralty procedures and so forth. And so you know admiralty court involves itself with the insurance. Everything is an insurance claim and so the word claim is an important word to use in this particular situation here and so we’ve used that. Now you realize that because we’re over here in admiralty that what is being sued is a thing, it’s an interim proceeding, which means they’re suing a thing. They’re not suing somebody, see.

With traffic things, that you’re involved in admiralty proceeding and they’re suing a thing.

It might go something like this, you know the judge might say, “Well, this is case number 123, STATE OF UTAH versus JOHN DOE, is Mr. Doe here?” Now there’ve been a lot of people who’ve gone in arguing the thing, I’m not you know JOHN DOE or whatever and they really don’t get too much purchase unless you want to do an abatement.

Unless you’re going to do an abatement, there’s no reason to argue about it.

I recommend that you never say your name in the court, because I know exactly what they’re going to do with it.

“Well for the purposes of this meeting, you can assume that I’m JOHN DOE.”

Remember what we talked about how Gordon had outlined for you, you know, at the traffic stop itself where you tell the officer, I am claiming you as my witness? I’m claiming you as my witness, see. Okay so, “Objection your honor, Officer Smith is my witness.” And the judge is going to say, “Overruled.” And you can say, “I take exception.” You know you watch all these lawyer shows on television, you know how to do all that. I take exception. So the judge will say, “Noted.”

“Well, I wish to reserve my right to cross examine this witness but I want to hold this witness over as my witness.” And so then the prosecutor will say, “Okay, well the state rests.” now this is key, and this is cool. Let me write this on the board so you’ll have it in your mind. The state rests, which means they’ve done all the talking they want to do about this.

So the judge would say, “Okay Mr. Doe you can call your first witness.” I say, “Okay I call Officer Smith.” Officer Smith gets back on the stand, you know and the judge is going to remind him you’re under oath you know and blah… and state your name for the record and all that gibberish. And so the first question you would want to ask Officer Smith is, “Officer Smith, do you have a claim against me?” Now you notice I didn’t ask Officer Smith if he had a claim against JOHN DOE. I said, “Officer Smith, do you have a claim against me?” And Officer Smith is going to say no. So then you would ask him, “Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?” And let’s say Officer Smith says “No.” So then you talk to the judge, you say, “Your honor, release the order of the court to the defendant.” Release the order of the court to the defendant. And what that means is he’s going to give judgement in favor of the defendant, you see.

“Officer Smith do you have a claim against me?” No. “Officer Smith, do you know anyone who has a claim against me?” Now what if he says yes? See? Okay so Officer Smith says, “Yes.” Okay, so you ask Officer Smith, “So you’re saying under oath that you have firsthand knowledge that someone has a claim against me?” Now he’s looking right straight down a charge for perjury. That’s what he’s looking at right there, because he’s only making an assumption. Because see there has been no certified charges brought to this case. And so if he says “yes I have firsthand knowledge”, that means he has to have firsthand knowledge that certified charges have been brought to this case by a real party in interest.

Officer Smith. “Say, Officer Smith, do you know anybody who has a claim against me?”
“No.” So the prosecutor is going to jump up and day, “Your honor, the STATE OF OREGON has a claim against JOHN DOE over here.”

“Objection your honor, the prosecutor already rested his case, and I object to him introducing any new witnesses into this case.”

Don’t be acting like an attorney.

Alright here’s another little strategy you might want to try. Again it has to do with the reluctance of the court to reveal the real party in interest. Okay so we got the same scenario, all the preliminaries and so you get a chance to question Officer Smith and so you ask, “Officer Smith, I am confused about your conduct here today. Your testimony seems to be irrelevant. Are you employed by the STATE OF OREGON? See. You’re setting him up. “Are you employed by the state of Oregon?” And he’s going to go, “Well yeah, sure I am.” “Well okay, just to make sure that you’re really employed by the STATE OF OREGON, can you here today produce a paystub from the STATE OF OREGON or any kind of tax information that identifies you of being an employee of the STATE OF OREGON?” Because see remember, who is the plaintiff? The plaintiff is the STATE OF OREGON, and so this officer here who’s given out this ticket is claiming to be an employee of the STATE OF OREGON when probably he’s really an employed by some other corporation. And so the prosecutor is going to jump up and say, “Well your honor, I object to this line of questioning.” And so you might say something like, “Well judge, this is going to be an easy thing to settle, it just so happens that I have here a copy of an IRS W9 form.”

I have here a copy of an IRS W9 form that we can have Officer Smith here fill out just so we can clarify this matter.” Now don’t that seem fair? You what a W9 is, it’s a proof of identification to put them into it.

And that is none of these people in the court want to identify themselves on a W9 because it’s going to show a conflict of interest, it’s going to demonstrate that they have been involved in crimes. And if they fill out that W9 then we’re going to report them to the IRS and the IRS is going to come get them, see.

Again you know the strategy here has to do with standing, you know the real party interest, the corporate fiction coming in here and trying to make money off of all these things we’ve talked about so far.

No a bill of particulars goes right back to common law more than anything else. But again I showed to you that you can use common law for a remedy even in the court system that we have it today.

Now just like the word says, it’s a bill. A bill for particulars and bill of particulars.

Now a demand for a written bill of particulars has certain elements in it, and again this goes back to the common law jurisdiction. This is a lawful demand for a written bill of particulars. “All parties take notice of the above named demandant is herewith submitting this timely lawful demand for written bill of particulars to the above named defendant, Bill Brown, bar number such and such who is the county attorney. Demandant is here and requiring that this bill of particulars be fully answered to the above named defendant, Bill Brown, bar number such and such who is the county attorney. Demandant is here and requiring that this bill of particulars be fully answered, responded to and presented to the demandant in a timely manner specified below so that the demandant may ascertain the particular nature and cause of the accusations being made against the defendant.”

We were just trying to determine the nature and cause of the charges.

All criminal cases of course start with a bill. It’s called a true bill.

So an indictment starts with a true bill and so we’re saying, okay send us the bill.

It would take you know, ten sticks of dynamite to pry out a true bill out of a prosecutor. They won’t give it up. They know better than to because they know they’re operating in fiction; they take the true bill and they go over into fiction with it, see.

Again you now we’re asking for the real party in interest, you know the name and mailing location of the injured party, a name and mailing location for the agent for the real party, and so forth and so on. And then we’re asking, in this case, what is JOHN DOE? In this case, what is the STATE OF UTAH? Is the STATE OF UTAH a legal fiction.

So that’s why we set it up this way, knowing that it’s a catch – 22. We know they can’t answer it. And when they don’t answer it, then we go into a default on them. Because again you know a lot of times we go into court, certainly we’re pressing the issue. We’re pressing the issue when we say, we’re requesting that the prosecutor read and certify the charges for the record knowing they can’t do it, knowing they won’t do it even if they could. So this is a set up, see we’re building that footing, we’re talking about the parties involved in this, then we’re asking questions about the venue, we’re asking things like what’s the meets and bounds of the STATE OF UTAH knowing that the STATE OF UTAH doesn’t have any meets and bounds, see?

So anyway, the next area; the jurisdiction, right action, cause of action and so forth. Then the procedure, you know we’re asking about the procedure, did they do this right and so forth and so on, and then we have a conclusion down here. Failure by defendant to timely and completely respond to this man would be construed as an unlawful act to willfully withhold full disclosure, see. So again we’re not playing like attorneys. We’re acting like men. So as man to man we’re requesting certain information here, which if they don’t provide, they have no standing. You can’t sue without standing, so certainly if they default on this, they have no standing.

It has to do with plea and abatement. Now our favorite plea and abatement has to do with either misspelling or misnomer. Now on any document, if there is a mistake on the document, we can always request a correction on the document until we deal with it. So a plea and abatement basically is saying you know, we’re not arguing about the contents of the document, but what we’re talking about here is the correction of the document, kind of like in the nature of a dated integrity board hearing. Some of you all studied on dated integrity board here and I think that’s title five of the US code 552 or 522, somewhere in that area.

Abatement says that okay we got this situation here, and the paperwork is not right, and so we’re going to stand over here until you get your paperwork straightened out, you see how that works? And so if you will straighten out your paperwork, we’ll come back. Now you know that a fiction court can’t straighten out any kind of paperwork.

Okay so you might say, “Your honor have you received my request for a plea and abatement?” And judge is going to say, “Yeah I have it right here.” “Okay, are you prepared to abate this matter at this time?” “No.” “Are you a judge of oath of office or are you a magistrate?” “I’m a magistrate.” “Well, will your bond cover the injury that you’re fixing to incur with me because of your refusal to abate this matter?” Now this is key, the magistrate bond down in Las Vegas that we researched, was only twenty five thousand dollars. And so when we start talking to the magistrate in a traffic court you know, will your bond, is your bond big enough to cover the injury that you’re fixing to do for refusing to abate this matter? Now what do you think they’re going to do with it? They’re going to send it on over to the district court, or to the higher court up there because they have a higher bond up there, let them deal with it. So once you get into that court over there, now you’re into court of record – now you can start pressing some of these issues.

I’ve been informed when being pulled over you should always ask questions and never answer with statements. What’s your view on this?” I think we went over how to handle a traffic stop. When he says pull over and the officer asks you to step out of the vehicle, should refrain from doing so? I personally wouldn’t. I mean I’d step out and lock the vehicle.

Rather than registering whatever vehicle you’re using with the DMV, that you would register it with the Department of Transportation. And so the regulations regarding vehicles with DOT are different than DMV.

There’s a fellow here, years ago in Portland, and he was a practical kind of guy. And so he got a ticket for a parking meter, and so he went out and created a subpoena, a summons and a subpoena for the parking meter, went out and wrapped it around, I mean taped it around the parking meter, went out and wrapped it around, I mean taped it around the parking meter, took the parking meter off the pole and took it into court and put it in the witness stand. So what do you want to do? How about subpoenaing the camera? See what I mean? You can have all kinds of fun with this junk if you get past the point that you believe the BS that they’re telling you. So let’s say, we got a picture of you and your car down here and here’s all this kind of stuff and you did this violation and you need to send us money. Really? Okay. How about we go down here and we subpoena the traffic camera, so bring it on in here so I can cross examine it! See what I mean? Or again you could start talking about things like chain of evidence and standing and all these other things we’ve talked about.

And if you get a certified copy of the MSO, what are you going to do with it? Accept if for value and put it on a UCC-1. Does that demonstrate that you have superior claim to the vehicle?

I’m going to take this vehicle out of the country and I need a certified copy of the MSO. But certainly if you do get a certified copy of the MSo, then go unregister the vehicle.

Now what’s key here, especially when you start talking about going back to common law and what not, is to you know, if you go through a used car dealer or from a private party or something like that, get a bill of sale. Now you have to understand, that in the law a bill of sale is paramount title. Paramount title. And so if you got that bill of sale as a paramount title and you get a certified copy of the MSO, you accept all that stuff, you put it on a UCC financing statement, I mean you know, and send notices around to all the highway patrols and the sheriffs and the policemen and all that kind of stuff that hey I’m sitting on paramount title on this thing, if you pull me over I’m going to sue your socks off.

“Is the car registration process the transfer of the MSO to DMV? Yes that’s what it is. And you do it voluntarily.

You do it voluntarily just because you don’t know better.

If you can’t defend your position, then don’t take the position, because you’re going to have all kinds of trouble. So get it squared up and you know, once you do understand what you position is and can defend it, why not just go and notify everybody that’s what you’re doing?

I mean you know, send a letter and so forth down to the sheriff and down to the highway patrol and whoever you’re dealing with out in the area where you’re at. It only makes good sense, I mean why wait to get stopped you know by a policeman or something like that, get it going before that happen.

Winston Shrout, Traffic Tickets Revealed.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: A page from Adask

Post by notmartha » Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:54 pm

This has everything to do with planes of jurisdiction, and the presumptions that you and your car are within the jurisdiction of the defacto "officer" in "this state". I'm really surprised Alfred doesn't mention this. You validate that presumption by consentually pulling over. Unless you say otherwise. It isn't so much about there being an emergency (they've all been acting under the emergency since '33) as it is your consent and/or assent (by not saying "no" you say "yes"). But they do what they do out of expediency and force, and will presume you into "this state" with or without your consent.

Alfred said:
Under the pretext of “emergency,” the laws are suspended and the occifer may be thereby empowered to do whatever he likes. For example, it might be illegal to drive more than 15 MPH on a one way street in a school zone. But if someone is shooting at you and creating an “emergency,” you have the right to drive at 50 MPH in reverse, going the wrong way on the one-way street in order to avoid being shot or killed. In the context of an emergency, normal laws are suspended and the only principle that I know of is “survival”.
Even under their purported "law" they can't do whatever they want in the name of an emergency:
(3) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may do any of the following:

(b) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.

(c) Exceed the prima facie speed limits so long as he or she does not endanger life or property.
I think Alfred is in Texas. For what it's worth, the only codes I can find regarding "emergency detention" without warrants are if you are perceived to be chemically dependent (TEX HS. CODE ANN. § 462.041 ), mentally ill (TEX HS. CODE ANN. § 573.001) or violent (TEX CR. CODE ANN. § 17.291).
scar
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:49 am

Re: A page from Adask

Post by scar » Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:22 am

while i read the first post, i didn't read the second. this analysis of a state of emergency seems overly complicated and moot to me. for it doesn't matter what emergency police or other public servant declares, it cannot possibly override nor suspend the supreme common law of the land.

"I suspect the traffic ticket and possible arrest are based on the alleged existence of an “emergency“."

no it is based on alleged violation of your contract with the state, a contract in which you most likely gave up your rights under common law, e.g. your fourth amendment rights, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. if you have no contract, the statutory laws don't apply and your rights are preserved. if you reserve your rights under the common law, there can be no arrest, for no crime was committed.

"If the existence of an “emergency” were effectively denied, could there be a lawful traffic stop or traffic ticket?"

the existence of an emergency is one created by the public servant because they believe a crime has been committed--i.e. you violated your obligations under your contract with the state. denying the existence of an emergency might be a good thing to say, but it should be complimented with one asserting and reserving their rights under the common law. if there is no damage to property or person, then no crime under common law has been committed, therefore there is no emergency.

of course if you have a contract with the state (i.e. driver's license), then you can make no such assertion. however, i have heard of some people signing their contract, i.e. signing their driver's license with "without prejudice UCC 1-308" before their signature which is a way to reserve your common law rights even under contract with the state. in this case, how to correctly argue which laws apply when in a traffic stop is something i don't fully understand yet...
scar
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:49 am

Re: A page from Adask

Post by scar » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:50 am

just saw this in one of the videos i was watching,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ#t=2424

16 Am. Jur. 2d section 98 - Effect of Public Emergency

"While an emergency cannot create power, and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution, or a State Constitution, public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers and it has been declared that because of national exigency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construe the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construe the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution."

not sure if i quoted that right, it's kind of hard to read. but i think the most important part is the beginning... it clearly says an emergency cannot create power nor justify violations of the constitution
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: A page from Adask

Post by editor » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:33 am

Emergency cannot create right, but raw power, unrestrained, trumps rights every time.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Wizlawz
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:28 am

Re: A page from Adask

Post by Wizlawz » Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:16 am

The only thing I somewhat remember about emergency is that we have been under a state of emergency since; and that is where I forget but I want to say since WW1 ?

Or whenever we were declared an enemy of the government, and I forget when that was as well

It will always be an issue when you are solo without anyone with you in a group of 3 or more, if I remember correctly
If you have witnesses with you it is a little easier if they also have the same knowledge.
Dumpster
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:03 pm

Re: A page from Adask

Post by Dumpster » Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:58 pm

I wonder how much this Op has to do with the Emergency War Powers Act that was instituted way way back and was never repealed. I guess that's why they keep declaring war on something or another.

http://web.archive.org/web/200810101716 ... wep002.htm
Wizlawz
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:28 am

Re: A page from Adask

Post by Wizlawz » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:59 pm

Thank You for that link, i was way off :oops:
Dumpster
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:03 pm

Re: A page from Adask

Post by Dumpster » Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:37 am

Wizlawz wrote:
Thank You for that link, i was way off :oops:
It's all good. And just to put this out there; I'm not a teacher....I'm a student.
Post Reply