The Procedure Of Honor And
Dishonor In Dealing With Government
Whenever the present commercial government entity sends you mail or
presents you with
a notification, it is making either an offer or a demand that
you
conduct yourself in a certain way. These days, all our dealings with
government, whether at the state or federal level, are done either in
the interest of commerce or law. In some instances, there is not much
difference between the two as many times there are overlapping
interests in these two areas, and the lines of distinction between
commerce and law can become blurred. This is because government has
incorporated itself in order to act more expediently toward the wishes
of the political majority interests of the public.
Yet, this tradeoff in favor of expediency can become a stumbling block
and a detriment for someone wishing to maintain his unalienable rights
in order to perfect a just, moral, and/or ethical outcome in matters
dealing with the differences between the public and the
private.
Therefore, you must become aware of these differences and their nuances
in order to obtain the outcome that you envision when dealing with
government agencies.
As mentioned above, notices we receive from government fall into two
categories: those of an offer or those of a demand. Under our form of
social compact, we have an unlimited ability to contract with our
fellow man in any way that we choose. While our choices may seem to
be dependent only upon our circumstances, this is not wholly
true. Rather, we are able to use our knowledge, will, and creative
intelligence in order to obtain the outcomes we desire. Knowing and
understanding the use of a few simple concepts about law will help us
to achieve our desired goal.
One thing of which we all need to become more aware in our lives is
that whether in commerce or law or life, whenever someone demands
something from us, it is an offer to contract. This is
nowhere
more true than when a government agency notifies us of a demand or
offer. What many of us have not been taught, however, is that there are
five ways in which we can respond to an offer to contract. They are as
follows:
1. We can accept the offer or demand (honoring it, known as
accord and satisfaction or acceptance).
2. We can conditionally accept the offer or demand (honoring
it, known as a conditional acceptance).
3. We can reject the offer or demand or refuse for cause the
matter without dishonor as long as it is an erroneous claim and there
is no liability in evidence.
4. We can argue or contest the offer or demand (dishonoring
it,
in which case we refuse to agree with the demand or offer).
5. Or we can remain silent or ignore the offer or demand
(dishonoring it, in which case law views this as acquiescence to the
demand or offer).
Whether we are dealing with a commercial entity, such as the company
that provides us our electricity, or a government agency, these same
five ways of handling an offer to contract holds
true.
Because of this we have an obligation to answer any offer or demand
that is made of us. If we contest, refuse to respond through silence,
or ignore the offer altogether, we may be putting ourselves in jeopardy
of running
afoul of the law and thereby exposing ourselves to a penalty of some
kind.
In everyday commerce, the penalty can be that the other party cuts us
off from service until their bill (demand) is paid. In the commerce of
government, if we receive a demand from a government agency (e.g. that
we pay a fine on a speeding ticket), the penalty can be the suspension
of a driving license until the matter is taken care of. The
point
being that we need to reply in one manner or another if we wish to
avoid misunderstanding or confrontation with the other party while
seeking a positive outcome for ourselves. The process of replying which
allows us to reply without
responding
legally to a matter is known in law as
“honor and dishonor.”
To “Honor” or to “Dishonor” is
a process in
commerce and law. This is the most important aspect of the law, because
it is what is done in answer to a presentment (that is, an offer to
contract or a demand). During the course of this process, if you want
to achieve a specific outcome, you must endeavor to stay in honor
throughout the entire process. This applies to everything you do in the
legal process. To act with dishonor toward the other person is the
highest form of offense or transgression in any system of law.
In matters dealing with the government, if you are seeking a beneficial
outcome to a matter, you must be mindful to stay in honor in all your
processes. You can think of the court process (for example, involving a
traffic ticket) as a formal series of presentments. Each time a
presentment is made (i.e., a court paper is filed), the replying
party has an opportunity to honor or dishonor the presentment. Your
objective is to never dishonor the other party’s presentment.
If
one of the parties is in dishonor, then the court must look with favor
upon the person who is in honor. For example, if the other party
persists in argument or silence, you can stay in honor by refusing his
arguments for cause, and giving him an opportunity to cure the defects.
If your opponent refuses to stop arguing or cannot cure the defects in
the presentment, you stay in honor as he continues in dishonor, which
means that the court must find in your favor.
Now, to the question which may be in the minds of some: is it possible
to use this process of law with any effectiveness when dealing with
government agencies, like a county Sheriff's department or municipal
police force in such mundane matters as a traffic matter where a
victimless citation has been issued? The answer to this
question
should be obvious by now. If there is a presentment involved (an offer
or
demand), then of course this process can be used with great effect. You
just need to become aware of how to use it effectively in order to
achieve your intended outcome.
The basic flaw or defect in present-day government presentments such as
a victimless traffic ticket can be found in a warning given in a case
holding by the U.S. Supreme Court back in 1947. The case involved a
farmer who thought he had signed up for a federal program for crop
insurance in the event that his crop should fail. When his crop did
fail due to drought, he sought to collect the insurance he thought he
had purchased. Without going into the details of the case, the holding
itself presents us with a warning that we should all heed under the
proper circumstances. The following is a quotation from the
holding:
“Whatever the
form in which the Government functions, anyone
entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of
having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the
Government stays within the bounds of his authority.... And this is so
even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the
limitations upon his authority.” Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947).
What this quotation points toward, as it may relate to a traffic ticket
matter, is the requirement that an agent representing government not
act outside the boundaries of his designated authority. One example of
this might be, if an officer is making a legal determination about a
matter without having been trained as an attorney, he is acting outside
the bounds of his authority. When the officer assumes that a person who
allegedly violates a traffic code is within his jurisdiction to pursue,
but cannot conclusively prove such from the
prima facie
evidence with
which he is presented (such as a license and registration), he is
making a legal determination that is beyond his training to make. Such
a circumstance can amount to a reversible error in law, invalidating
the traffic ticket through an invalidation of the subject
matter jurisdiction alleged by the plaintiff.
Yet again, if you, as an individual, understand that traffic tickets
given for victimless violations are only validly given when they
involve someone who is in contract with government to obey the code
(i.e., someone operating in commerce or who is in contract with
government) then you are within your rights to avoid that jurisdiction
if you are
not
operating in commerce or in contract with government. This
would be an instance where you could return the presentment (the
traffic citation) to its issuer refused for cause and thus
turn
the tables on him, making him prove his presumption on the record. When
it turns out that he is unable to prove his presumption of
jurisdiction, he loses and you win! This can all happen outside a
courtroom situation.
If you would like to learn more about this process of “honor
and
dishonor” as it can be applied to a traffic issue and thus
avoid
having to “appear” in court altogether, you can
download
our free book
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!
Ubi factum nullum ibi sortia
nulla. Where there is no deed committed, there
can be no
consequence.