This Game Changer Demolishes Courts Jurisdiction

Vocational Science of Freedom Technology

If you have ever been to court and tried to fight a speeding ticket, or any of the other victimless violations of the traffic code, and you tried to use what you thought was actual law arguments to defend your actions as opposed to a statutory procedural approach and lost, but it was never explained to you why you lost, then you are not alone.  The legal system in America is programmed to keep people in the dark about the real issues at stake. But that’s all about to end, right here and right now.

As it turns out, things are a bit more complicated than anything any of us could have possibly imagined! Least of all that the legal system, which we assume is based on substantive positive law, is actually, for the past several decades, being interpreted in courts as being based on non-positive codes, regulations and statutes which by definition are not enforceable by the state and federal governments as they are not in the enumerated powers of those governments’ constitutions.  What the federal government has done is to create autonomous agencies which are incorporated and for-profit businesses.  What is their business?  The re-venuing of your money into the government’s pockets.  These federal agency corporations then write the necessary rules and regulations and buy access to the states via cooperative agreements with the appropriate state agencies which are also incorporated and operating as for-profit businesses.

The nexus presumed to be in place between the people and the state agency then becomes based in contract law and not positive law. And so to approach these matters in any way other than demonstrating that the state has no authority to pursue the matter becomes a losing proposition.  For the longest time, we have been perplexed in our effort to find the precise reason the state was using in order to gain jurisdiction.  This has not been an easy thing to track down.  Because no one, least of all the legal system itself, was providing us with any clues.

Over the first few years of researching this phenomenon, we have been able to uncover what seemed to be links tracing back to a possible source for the problems people are experiencing with this issue. And while those links were credible as well as illuminating in helping to explain our current circumstance, there was even more to discover of which we were not yet aware. And it has been those additional bits of information, in recent years, that we have been working to uncover. Despite the fact, in the beginning, that a few of our subscribers — who had tried to use the information explained in the publications we have but who, for one misunderstanding or another, failed to realize a favorable outcome — had became skeptical about the principles we were endeavoring to enlighten them about, we knew that what is true is true for all time and not just because some contemporary court said it wasn’t true anymore. However, no matter what the hardships, we never hesitated to keep persevering to learn what was at the bottom of all this.

Over the past eighty-nine years (since 1933) certain American courts have gradually become transformed into what used to be known in fifteenth century England as “Star Chambers.” If you’re not familiar with the term star chamber,  then you need to be made aware of its place in the realm of law and so-called courtroom justice as this institution has devolved to the present day through history. Originally star chambers evolved and thrived in England’s courts between the late fifteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries before they were abolished by Parliament in 1641 after much public outcry against them. 

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, these courts were “made up of judges and privy councillors that grew out of the medieval king’s council as a supplement to the regular justice of the common-law courts. [They] achieved great popularity under Henry VIII for [their] ability to enforce the law when other courts were unable to do so because of corruption and influence, and to provide remedies when others were inadequate. When, however, it was used by Charles I to enforce unpopular political and ecclesiastical policies, it became a symbol of oppression to the parliamentary and Puritan opponents of Charles and Archbishop William Laud.”

Star chambers have been described by others as being “characterized by secrecy and often being irresponsibly arbitrary and oppressive” and “a legal or administrative body with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings.” Do you realize what the word “arbitrary” means? It means “not fixed by rules, but left to one’s judgment or choice; discretionary.” How does that set with you, having been thrown into a traffic court and expecting to be treated straightforwardly, fairly and honestly by an impartial tribunal, when going in you are considered guilty by presumption? Can a court whose magistrate is paid by the plaintiff (the state) bringing an action and legitimately collect fines from a so-called defendant ever consider itself impartial? Are you familiar with the legal concept of conflict of interest?

On top of that, most of the courts in America are not even a public court, as it claims to be, but rather is a common private corporation administering its corporate bylaws (private policies in the form of codes and statutes) not public law against its presumed subjects or employees. This is no different than a McDonald’s hamburger store, somehow empowered by who knows who, that can bring charges against people based on its corporate bylaws! When did we, the people, ever vote to allow that to occur in government? It’s a rhetorical question, but one that you should seriously consider pondering.

Have you been to traffic court lately? If you have, see if the following description of star chambers from Britannica rings a bell.

Finding its support from the king’s prerogative (sovereign power and privileges) and not bound by the common law, Star Chamber’s procedures gave it considerable advantages over the ordinary courts. It was less bound by rigid form; it did not depend upon juries either for indictment or for verdict; it could act upon the petition of an individual complainant or upon information received; it could put an accused person on oath to answer the petitioner’s bill and reply to detailed questions. On the other hand, its methods lacked the safeguards that common-law procedures provided for the liberty of the subject.

Is it any wonder why the people of the late fifteenth through the mid seventeen century Britain were so against these abusive courts. Of particular interest in the above description are the types of petitions used to bring (or haul) a person into court. Notice that the source of the legal action says “upon the petition of an individual complainant or upon information received.” While you may be aware that a complaint, in one of these private administrative courts, is “a pleading setting forth the plaintiff’s case or cause of action; formal charge or accusation,” are you aware of what makes up an information? An information, as it is called, of which a complaint is one form, is “an accusation, under oath, of a criminal offense, not by indictment of a grand jury, but by a public officer, such as a prosecutor.”

Do these two definitions not provide you with a moment for pause and reflection? If not, they should. Your biggest clue to the injustice being allowed to occur here should be: not by indictment of a grand jury, but by a public officer, such as a prosecutor. Think about this in terms of a victimless so-called traffic offense. When was it and where it is mentioned in any constitution (state or federal) that the American people allowed public officers the discretion to define or identify any of the American people as criminal without the approval of a grand jury? Aren’t public officers just fictional characters, actors holding an artificial office subordinate to the people themselves? When did we, the people, ever forget that that was the case? No public actor in this republic or any other republic, including the president of the United States (or the Prime Minister in other countries), stands above in authority of any of the people. If you don’t know or understand that concept, you need to hit the history books and educate yourself.

As a result of these incremental changes in our so-called “public” jurisprudence over the years, the courts in this country have become a sham, a cruel and humorless blight upon the land. This is because the law of the land is no longer being adjudicated in these courts (traffic court in particular) in favor of the law of the sea, which caters to commerce, but that’s another story. A short explanation of why this is can be contemplated by the fact that anything having to do with insurance — virtually anywhere in the world — is being adjudicated in international law (Admiralty/Maritime law) in accordance with precedents set long ago by ancient merchant exporters and shippers in a form of law known then as merchant law (Lex Mercatoria) which uses the law of the sea as its preferred form of dealing with controversy. Without going into detail about why that is, let’s just leave it at that and move on. 

When researchers of law in this country, trying to unravel the mystery surrounding the traffic code, learned about this fact, they naturally began looking into merchant law in order to discover how to use it to find remedy. By the early 1950s merchant law, or as it is known today, commercial law, became codified (both by the federal and state governments) into what has become the known as the Uniform Commercial Code, or the U.C.C. as it is commonly referred to. The problem with merchant law is that there are no remedies to be found in it because it does not deal with men and women. It deals strictly with fictional commercial entities (corporate in nature) under contract law. Therefore law researchers were being sent on a wild goose chase that was bound to lead them nowhere! And yet at the same time, to leave them as confused as before about the true issues having to deal with the traffic code.

People who tried to use the U.C.C. in court to defend their actions in a traffic case usually found that that argument fell on deaf ears. They therefore then had to redouble their efforts to uncover the true issue at stake. Anyone who spent any length of time attempting to discover the true issue to get justice using law and case law (the law of the land that we were all taught should be in play) in these courts soon learned that the courts were not listening to these arguments either. And so the mystery deepened. What, indeed, would these courts acknowledge as binding evidence against their use of presumptive facts? Facts that, in most cases, remained unproven by valid testimony in the court’s own record of a matter, and therefore open to a void judgment challenge?

Then smart observers noticed that whenever anyone agreed to be identified as the defendant in a legal matter, as the ALL CAPS NAME on the complaint, that that was the moment when courts seized jurisdiction in the matter and would not let go unless evidence was brought forth to rebut their presumptions. Was this a clue that we could use in order to find the true issue at stake and hence a remedy? It sure seemed to be. And so researchers began furiously looking into the origin of how the NAME came about and ultimately turned into a legal weapon for use against people. It turns out that in America the state created the current version of the NAME (deemed to be a legal NAME) when it amended the registering of a child’s birth event on a birth certificate beginning in the early nineteen thirties (1930s) following the bankruptcy of the United States (as well as in the bankruptcy of many other developed countries around the world at that time). And so researchers began going down that rabbit hole in the hope of discovering the undisclosed explanation by which the state was gaining jurisdiction.

One American researcher using the handle Zenmaster (Zen hereinafter) and heading up a group calling itself the Vocational Science of Freedom (VSOF for short), who understood that the origins of remedy in law can be found by tracing the particular legal issue back in history, began to look there for an answer.  Since American jurisprudence has English law as it’s fundamental basis of origin, this researcher began to look for remedy there first, in English history, before attempting to connect it with what he was learning about how the American law system was set up. What he found were the roots to a remedy for the return, by the government, of property to English property owners who were displaced from their property after a devistating fire that raged in London and destroyed major parts of the city as well as many of its records (land titles) in the mid-seventeenth century. This remedy had even older roots dating back to a mid-sixteenth century Act of Parliament under the reign of Henry VIII, and was updated one hundred and twenty-six years later in 1666 under the reign of Charles II.
If Zen was correct in his assessment of this remedy, it should be able to be used in present day America as a way to provide court admissible evidence in U.S. government courts that would rebut the court’s presumption of a person’s status, and thus revest people with their inherent unalienable rights to property. It was these very rights that were, in essence, silently suspended (taken away) from the people by a bankrupt American government in the early 1930s during the Great Depression in the first term of president Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. This is all well documented in the Congressional Record and in the actions taken by the newly elected president during his years in office.

What Zen discovered and began to perfect through years of trial and error was a process whereby any individual person could obtain the necessary documentation he needs to provide as evidence to a government court that he is outside the jurisdiction of that court regarding certain legal matters, which documents the courts are compelled to recognize and thereby set certain legal matters aside from going forward in a prosecution.  In other words, once the person is able to provide the court with this admissible evidence which shows the court’s lack of jurisdiction in a matter, the matter is disposed.  It goes away. 

Zenmaster has a list of clients who have successfully learned the material that he has to teach and who have undergone the process he has suggested who have stopped not only traffic tickets, but other legal matters from progressing forward, including civil suits.  The information in this material has been put to the test over and over again in the real world with no reported failures once the person familar with the material and how to assert it. The documentation Zen has developed can also be served on anyone who attempts to administer your estate, including but not limited to judges. 

In this writer’s estimation, this information and process is the gold standard in how a person can recover their natural rights and have those rights unequivocally recognized by government officials. Needless to say, those in government are deathly afraid of this information becoming more widespread among the public, because it puts an end to what many these days are describing as tyranny and outright fraud on the people. 

If you have an interest in directly contacting Zen, you can do so at the web community he has built at the server.  You will need to make a brief application to join the individual and group discussions in order to gain access to all the valuable information that Zen has to share once your application has been approved for your no-cost membership.  If you end up wanting to join the server, mention in your application that you were directed there by, and Zenmaster will pay special attention to your application to process it quickly so that you can get started educating yourself. You can submit your application for membership using the following invite link.

If you are interested in saving some time in investigating this resource before you check out Zen’s web platform which can be tricky to navigate, there is a detailed 24-page report about this remedy and the historical background for its use, which is captured in the form of an Addendum that is found in the publication How To Handle The Five Scenarios.  Included in the report are links to various detailed videos regarding the status change documents needed, which Zen has made available for free along with a link to the Mega server where a large cache of his research documentation can be found and accessed once your application has been processed. For those who are familiar with it, there is a folder in that cache to download the entirety of Dr. Frederick Graves’s Jurisdictionary course. Dr. Graves’ course is based on a statutory approach to Winning In Court using his insights into the rules of procedure for those who may be interested in looking into that approach.  

Stay tuned and check back often if you are not a subscriber to our newsletter as we are currently working on a second report describing an alternative method from the one discussed in this article for assisting people in their quest to leave the corporate slave plantation and along with leaving its jurisdiction. We recognize that the VSOF approach for exiting the plantation may not be for everyone, and in our research we came across a second valid method to remedy this situation. We are currently in the process of testing this approach ourselves. While this second method is not as involved to carry out or as powerful as the VSOF’s process, it does hold promise (eleven years of positive statistics without a single complaint) to be effective in achieving a similar goal.

As soon as we are able to gather and verify all the facts about this alternative method, we will be providing readers with a detailed report, complete with instructions on how to implement this remedy, to be pubished in the Declaration of Truth Notice and Affidavit of Identity ebook available on this webiste. The remedy involves making out a special affidavit and sending it as notice to specific public officials for recognition of your change of status. Yet based upon our personal knowledge and study of law, there are some twists that we have added to this process that make it even stronger than it already is which will assist people in the notification process. So, stay tuned, and we will send notice of this information’s to enrolled newsletter subscribers of its avaliability at the appropriate time.

If you would like to learn more about concepts of law so you can avoid the whole mess without having to “appear” in court, you can download our free ebook Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets and learn about the secrets that the courts and legal profession don’t want you to know.


If you’d like to learn more about the law and how it can serve you, don’t hesitate to check out our Articles on Traffic Law section. Discover some of the secrets of law that you’ve never been taught!

The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.