How To Enter Sworn Written Testimony (Affidavit) Without A Notary

Date: July 17, 2016

Hello Friends,

One of the things you will learn in studying Law is that there is often more than one way to skin a cat. In other words, there can be more than one way to attain the goal you wish to achieve, whether it be remedy, recourse, or whatever it is that you seek. There are so many of these alternatives that sometimes they can escape one's memory. And yet some of these are so simple and straight forward that they are easily understood by the common man.

Not too long ago I was asked by a subscriber how he could overcome a notary who would not recognize him by his True Name (i.e. First Middle names), rather than by the whole commercial name, which included his Last name. The notary with whom he was dealing had known him for several years but would not notarize his affidavit because she (said) that she didn't know him by his True Name, but rather by First Last. The subscriber didn't want to use his state issued ID in order to obtain her compliance. He was afraid that might compromise his status as a Man, and provide evidence of his agreement to be recognized on the document as an "artificial person" (i.e. legal fiction) simply because it was witnessed by another artificial person (the notary) which somehow (metaphysically?) would render his signature that of an artificial person thus bringing him under the statutory jurisdiction.

But such ridiculous thinking is just another example of how the legal system is set up to confuse and confound rational thought processes. Just because you use a state issued ID in order to identify yourself to a notary, it doesn't mean that issue is being brought into the matter. Someone (like a prosecutor or plaintiff) would need to bring the matter up in oral or written discussion before it can become an issue before the court. And even then, they would need to bring in credible evidence to back up their assertion that the person they have a difference with had agreed (contractually) to be identified as an artificial person, something that they wouldn't be able to do because no such evidence exists! So, do not be afraid to use a state issued ID in order to get a notary to sign your document. 

At the time I was asked this question, I didn't readily recall that there is a third way to create sworn testimony when writing and signing an affidavit or any other document that you wish to be taken as sworn testimony. The initial two ways I quoted to the subscriber were that in common law, all that is needed to witness the signing of a sworn statement in a document is two or three witnesses who know you to be the person you claim to be to supplant the need for a notary signature. In other words, two or three witness who know you can be substituted as witnesses in common law for the signature of a state official witness (i.e. the notary). And, of course, the second way to have your document witnessed is to take out your state issued ID (driver license or identification card) and use that with the notary.

But there is one other way to create a verified (i.e. sworn) affidavit and therefore provide sworn testimony into a matter. And that is to use verbiage which at the end of the affidavit will indicate sworn testimony. (Optionally, your seal – such as a personal biologic identifier in the form of your right thumb print in red ink, the red ink signifying the blood of a living Man or Woman according to custom – could be placed next to the signature.) The form of such verbiage may be in the form of either of the two samples below:

Affiant does solemnly verify, declare and state under penalty of perjury: I am competent to stand to the matters set forth herein; I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein; All the facts stated herein are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and admissible as evidence, and if called upon as a witness, I will testify to their veracity.

I, Thomas Eliot, do certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the Republic of Arizona, without the United States, that the foregoing is true, correct, and complete to the best of my personal knowledge.

Unless you know what you are doing, it would be best not to change any of the wording of either of these two statements, which can be placed at the very end of the affidavit or other document right before your signature. Making a statement subject to the penalty of perjury can be used in place of a properly notarized jurat provided by a notary public witness. Therefore, with such a statement at the end of your document, you preclude the need to have the document notarized.

Yet, even with a notarized document, there would need to be verbiage stated in the jurat itself which indicates that the statement being witnessed was sworn testimony. That verbiage is usually supplied by the words subscribed and sworn. Otherwise the affidavit may not be accepted as sworn testimony if that wording was not included in the jurat. Only sworn testimony (either orally or in written form) can offer verifiable testimony (that is, admissible as evidence beyond mere hearsay) to a matter under discussion. So, you always want to make sure that any written testimony is sworn testimony if you want to be able to use it in court. If it is unsworn testimony, it may be considered hearsay by the court and therefore discounted.

The important words in the statement which indicate that it is sworn testimony include either a certification, a verification, a declaration, or a statement being made under penalty of perjury that something is true. But not only is that something true, it also must be sworn to be correct and complete. If it is only sworn to be true and correct, that leaves the door open to fraud. And you do NOT want your testimony to be tainted with the possibility of fraud.

So, you must use the word “complete” within the triad of adjectives. The word complete indicates that the facts included are everything that is needed for the integrity, perfection, or fulfillment of the facts being stated. Which means that nothing was left out or undisclosed which might taint the statement and prove it to be an inducement to fraud. Only legal fictions sign statements that are “true and correct” because they do not want to disclose other substantive facts that may provide exculpatory evidence for the other party.

What evidence might that be which may exculpate (exonerate) an accused party? Oh, perhaps the fact that there was no contract (or rather a quasi-contract) involved in the matter which may be used to compel performance. (Quasi-contracts are unlawful when being challenged at law. Note that the phrase “at law” is universally known to be in reference to the common law. Use of that designation is one way to make clear that the common law is being invoked in the matter as an appealable issue.) That is the kind of evidence (along with the fact that there is no corpus delicti or “body of a crime”) that the State wants to keep out of such matters as traffic tickets because it destroys their case and exposes it for a fraud.

As always I encourage your feedback, good or bad, as this helps me to assist you in correctly understanding your process at Law.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


Developing Good Study Habits When Studying About Law, Part 1

Date: August 14, 2016

Hello Friends,

The information in today’s two part newsletter can be applied to not only learning about the methods and processes in law as they are applicable to the common law remedy to beat a traffic ticket, but more importantly, to being able to self-educate oneself in actual Law as well as statutory law. That is, in one’s continuing education about Law after the matter they are concerned about has been resolved. No one can say just when that bright lightbulb of recognition will go off in one’s mind, and they suddenly get it. But in order to create the condition for yourself in which that will occur, you need to develop certain good study habits that will assist you in assimilating the mind more easily to the material you are studying and learning.

When going about learning anything new, especially if it involves learning about nuanced details in meaning such as with the study of law, it benefits the student to provide himself with the best tools needed in order to get the job done. If you have the right tools, your journey will be a lot smoother and your comprehension of significant details more complete.

Before I begin — and as a disclaimer of sorts — I must admit up front that I do not own a cell phone or use smart phone technology. And I have no desire to do so now or in the foreseeable future. I have been able to get along for forty years prior to this technology’s development without its use, and I see no reason to change now. Besides, I’m not about to compromise my personal privacy with the government any more than I have already.

So I am unfamiliar with how these devices work, and whether or not you can read and store text files on them. I have heard that they are like little computers that one can carry in their pocket and have instant access to the Internet. While that can be a convenience and a benefit, it doesn’t replace having an actual computer (either laptop or desktop) at one’s disposal (with a full-sized keyboard) in order to accurately file and categorize a storehouse of knowledge that one can use and search through (without having to squint) in order to refresh one’s memory about important facts pertaining to as complicated a subject matter such as the study of law.

Now I realize that many people may look upon my website and the information it contains as an immediate means of resolving an urgent temporary problem. In other words, as a remedy for ridding oneself of a nuisance complaint issued by a government agent for the government’s own profit, as well as to justify its employment of so many agents. And that perhaps many people have little or no intention of continuing their study of law after their immediate annoyance is relieved. After all, they have lives that they want to get back to living, and a subject as dry and boring as the law seems to be is only another distraction keeping them from enjoying the pleasures of life. However, such a viewpoint would be shortsighted in the long run.

Yet, for those people who see a bigger picture in the study of Law — using the occasion of a relatively benign incident such as a traffic citation as a jumping off point for learning about more serious issues involving the law — that it can be a useful knowledge base to develop if they wish to maintain their individual liberty in an era of increasing encroachment on that liberty, then this experience allows them to learn in a real world crucible just how the legal system realistically acts and reacts when someone asserts actual Law into the situation.

The most useful tool you can have if you are someone who falls into the latter category in this continuing study of Law is a computer that will help you to create and categorize (that is, file) text files of valuable information useful in your self-education project on Law. Why do I suggest that you start and keep a separate file folder on Law? Because there are so many exceptions, nuances, and alternative approaches to law that few people can remember them all to be able to recall them on demand. And having created a knowledge base provides the student with a quickly searchable database of information to find answers (and to recollect alternative approaches) about whatever situtation that one is confronting.

There have been occasions in my own education where I recalled having read about something (some an alternative concept which could provide remedy or some obscure detail) which contradicted the statutory jurisdiction issue I was then studying and wanted to revisit that information in order to clarify and corroborate my understanding of it, but could not recall where I saw the information or whether I had saved it in a text file. By taking the time to categorize this information, in multiple files and file folders, I have streamlined the process required to retrieve that information (using a keyword search) in timely manner so that it could be recalled and considered.

It is one thing to be taught about a legal process that will help one to accomplish the goal he has in mind to provide a remedy to a legal situation. But it is quite another to establish the clarity of thought necessary regarding the reasoning behind the remedy which allows it to be effective. Which is what learning about Law is all about. Or to stay on top of all the practical mistakes one can make that might compromise the position one has taken. The more you read and think about how law is applied, the more you learn about how to go about successfully applying it in a realistic setting.

One of the things I do when studying a difficult subject in digital format is to open a text file and select and copy all the important statements that jump out at me as I’m reading which pertain to the issues I’m concerned about. This provides me with a relatively concise and composite text file of information that can be easily searched that I can return to time and time again to refresh my memory about specific ideas on which to maintain my focus when considering a complicated subject. It is often always good, if you are copying from a PDF or other digital file where pages are indicated, to provide a page reference so that you can go back to find and read the original passage in context if it has been taken out of context.

This habit of keeping a text file of important information (a checksheet of sorts) can be especially helpful if you have exchanged emails with me about your situation. For everyone who emails me with questions or concerns, I open a text file and copy each email either of us send to one another into that file so that I can have a quick and easy reference for each person’s correspondence and to refresh my memory about the issues we have discussed. I recommend that others do this too.

All kinds of people are emailing me all the time, and if I don’t do this I can easily become confused about what information was exchanged with whom and when. This allows me (as well as those who follow this lead) to be able to review our written conversations without having to go online to find all the emails. I also include the time and date stamp information at the top of the email so that I can see the chronological progression of how the conversation took place with regard to the ideas exchanged.

In Part Two of this newsletter, we will examine how to use the Law Resource page on the Common Law Remedy website in our study of Law as well as a way to help readers utilize this information in a way that will help them to identify and find significant information in a moment’s notice. This latter is a reference to a way to code and highlight text (meaning ideas about Law) that you want to keep at the forefront of your thinking as you are pondering a method of resolving a legal matter.

As always I encourage your feedback, if you have a question or a comment, pro or con, as this helps me to assist you in correctly understanding your process at Law.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


Developing Good Study Habits When Studying About Law, Part 2

Date: August 17, 2016

Hello Friends,

As mentioned in Part One of this newsletter edition, developing good study habits when studying Law can go a long way toward helping one begin to develop and strengthen their mental muscle capacity when considering issues that pertain to handling a legal matter. Mentally, one needs to be light on their feet and focused on the issues that are really relevant to the matter. And developing good habits of study can serve to help you recall relevant details in reasoning of which you may have momentarily lost sight.

Without the ability to recognize what the actual relevant facts are in a matter and to be able to apply that to your conviction that you have done nothing wrong (and therefore the matter before the court needs to be disposed), you may end up focusing on trying to argue against your opposition’s complaint, thereby CONSENTING to enter the legal controversy as A PARTY to the matter, and in doing so shooting yourself in the foot! At all times you, as the alleged accused, must maintain mental alertness and focus with regard to how a matter is proceeding if you wish to successfully extricate yourself from the situation. Which means being able to recall key points with regard to the facts of the matter so that you don’t become distracted from being able to present those points.

One very easy way to help you accomplish this in your study is to use color coding and underscores of relevant passages in texts that you are copying and saving to a file in order to highlight information for study that you do not want to forget as you are thinking about a matter. The following is an example of how you might do that when coming across passages in material the substance of which you wish to recall and use. On the website (which is linked to from the Law Resource Link page on our Common Law Remedy website) there is a PDF entitled “challenging-jurisdiction.pdf.” In that PDF, it mentions the following key points:

Challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make, because if you use the right argument it is almost impossible for you to lose!

If they attempt to tell you that you can’t question their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court rulings!

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.”  Melo v. US, 505 F2d

The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.”  Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”  Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.

“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.”  Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

Notice the use of red text to highlight VERY IMPORTANT ideas expressed in these case holdings. In my mind, Red is associated with HOT, meaning “this idea is REALLY important to remember” and of primary significance. The red text points this out to me instantly whenever I return to review the material; in other words, I don’t have to hunt down the important passage — it’s right there highlighted in front of me to refresh my memory.

The Green highlighted passages are of secondary importance, and yet they, too, are important to keep in mind, which is why they are also highlighted (that is, to bring their contrasting importance to my attention when I am reading). You, of course, are free to develop whatever color coding scheme works best for you. Each color can refer to a different level of importance or as a contrast of ideas, both of which may be of equal or reciprocal importance and both of which one wants to maintain cognizance. This explanation is only provided as an example for readers to think about and to perhaps incorporate into their own study habits. 

What this dual color coding method does is to allow you to identify, in a moment’s glance at the text, which ideas you need to maintain your focus upon. Not only must you maintain your focus upon these ideas, but you must do so within the context of the circumstance in which you are involved (i.e., for example, while in a courtroom). With regard to that context, if you really know what you are doing, you will not be caught unnecessarily (i.e. voluntarily) entering an administrative courtroom to test out the premises of these case holdings. Because to do so would give the magistrate an opportunity to orally contract you into his jurisdiction. And if you weren’t aware of the tricks that magistrates can play, you might be tempted to inadvertently agree to be a party to the matter, thereby abandoning your jurisdictional challenge of the plaintiff.

Entering one of these administrative courtrooms to address a matter can be a very slippery experience in terms of the position you have taken with your refusal for cause, and the position of which you may at any given moment abandon. This is why I endeavor to keep people from having to attend to matters by visiting a courtroom, as you really must know what you are doing in order to acquit yourself of the matter once you enter one of these Star Chambers. Otherwise, you may end up regretting your decision to be heard in court. These courts count on your wanting to have your day in court to prove your point. That is how they earn their bread and butter.

But always your point is better made in your paperwork without having to attend a court hearing, which in the case of a properly executed refusal for cause merely informs the court of your return of process to the complainant (plaintiff) for correction. At that point, having provided the court with Notice of your challenge and non-response to the complaint, there is no need to enter a courtroom until the plaintiff has cured his mistake in process. And if he never cures his mistake, there is no matter or action before the court of which the court may take cognizance. Unless you inadvertently open your mouth in court about the matter, thereby abandoning your position by doing so. All it takes is one quick little mistaken recognition of their process (the complaint or citation), and you’ve just shot yourself in the foot by waiving the errors in their process that you have objected to!

In addition to various pieces of information on the website, there are some valuable resources listed on the Law Resource Link page which if properly utilized can provide further clarity to your legal education. You are encouraged to take advantage of this resource and to download and read as many of these documents as needed in order to provide yourself with the necessary background material to be able better to understand how the legal system views these matters as well as what rights you are asserting and not waiving.

The SEDM PDFs are well written and researched even if they take a different approach than the one asserted on the Common Law Remedy website. These PDFs will provide you with a wealth of legal background and information of which you may not have been aware before. If nothing else, you should at the very least (if you value your liberty) read both the PDF on Consent along with the one on Presumption. Those are the first two documents listed on that webpage.

Additionally you are strongly urged to take notes (digital notes, that is) as you read through these by transcribing over passages from these PDFs that you find to be of importance to your understanding. Don’t be put off because these PDFs are SECURED documents and won’t allow a Select and Copy of the material. I at first found that feature annoying. But then I began to notice that by being forced to transcribe the material I wanted to highlight, that I was thinking about the material more critically, allowing it to settle in the mind more thoroughly.

While it can be a time intensive activity to transcribe passages from, for instance, the Consent PDF, it will repay you more in the final analysis in what you may end up realizing about the material. This is because you are forcing yourself to pay closer attention to the words and ideas being expressed rather than just glossing past them in a casual reading and having nothing more to do with them. These PDFs are written in such a way that the same lesson or point is repeated several different times in different ways within each document. This ultimately culminates in pounding home to the reader whatever point is being made, and if you make it to the end of the document you may find that you have a new and profound appreciation and understanding of the subject matter being explained.  

For example, my Consent notes.rtf text file is 574 KB in size. That means I spent a great deal of time transcribing information from that PDF into a text file in order to highlight material that I deemed important to keep in mind. I also made note of page references in those transcribed passages so that I could return to the PDF to read material in context that I left untranscribed. Sometimes you record something in your text file, but it is taken out of context. This way I can easily go back to the PDF to find the context of the passage I transcribed in order to clarify any question in my mind as I am reviewing the material.

Everything that I have just explained is something that YOU have to do for yourself if you wish to increase your knowledge and understanding of how this system works. I cannot do it for you. No one can. So, begin now to take responsibility for your own comprehension of the material and how to use it ... or forever be at the mercy of the statutory system. The choice is yours, and yours alone.

As always I encourage your feedback, if you have a question or a comment, pro or con, as this helps me to assist you in correctly understanding your process at Law.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


A Pitfall To Avoid When Doing Legal Research

Date: September 18, 2016

Hello Friends,

One of the pitfalls of which to become aware when doing law and legal research on the Internet entails validating the particular wording in a case cite that you may come across. Don’t just accept that the author of the material that you are reading has provided a valid quotation from the case and quoted it correctly (i.e. word for word), or even provided a correct paraphrase of the quotation from the case. Unless you know the quotation from previous studies (having looked it up before or it is being quoted by a trusted source), it is always best to double check the actual source of any quotation you are seeking to use in making a point in order to verify that it is a valid quote and one that you can use either to learn from or to use in a document that you are preparing.

There have been several times when I have come across a quotation — that ultimately fell flat — which seemed to back up a premise I was supporting, only to later learn that the person providing the quotation had not quoted it correctly. If you do enough legal research using the Internet you will no doubt come across this phenomenon all the time, as when one person posts an invalid quote, others pick it up without checking it out and quote it on their websites, thereby spreading a false quote!

This is a pitfall peculiar to the Internet of which we need to be wary. Although it is easily discoverable if we take the time to track down the quotation source in order to verify its accuracy. Simply find the case using a search engine to locate a website which quotes the case holding, then do a word phrase search on three or four consecutive words from the suspected quotation to see if it shows up in the search. On your browser, click on "Edit" in the browser tool bar at the top, then from the pull down menu click on "Find" to be able to enter your search phrase.

I bring this up because it was pointed out to me by a knowledgeable reader after sending out a recent newsletter that a legal quotation embedded in a quotation that I took from someone else’s work was an incorrect quotation from the actual case holding. In the August 17th edition of the newsletter (which can be found on page three of the Newsletter Archive on the CLR website), the following quotation was taken from a PDF publication on the website 

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.”  Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533.

The reader pointed out that not only was the case cite wrong, but the quotation quoted in the Freedom-School PDF “challenging-jurisdiction.pdf” was unsubstantiated by the actual case holding. In other words, there was no such quote in the case holding! Not only that, the case cite itself was incorrect. The case cite should have been titled “415 U.S. 528” not “533.” This reader went on to point out:

Hagan v. Lavine has many issues as per your presentment. First, the correct cite should be 415 US 528, not 533. But more importantly, it does not support the quotation, especially as a direct quote nor even close on paraphrase. But do not discount the decision as it does contain this gem:

“We think the admonition of Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678 (1946), should be followed here: ‘Jurisdiction . . . is not defeated as respondents seem to contend, by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover. For it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. If the court does later exercise its jurisdiction to determine that the allegations in the complaint do not state a ground for relief, then dismissal of the case would be on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction.’ Id., at 682 (citations omitted).”

Also, Hagan imposes a great view of the court's thoughts on 42 USC 1983, a so important case to know if you want to have a grip on the handling of bureaucrats.

There are important clues that an alert and observant reader can pick up from case holding quotes like the one above. The sentences I found most interesting in the quotation that the reader provided from that case are the following:

Jurisdiction . . . is not defeated as respondents seem to contend, by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover. For it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.”

Why do I find these sentences interesting in terms of finding a remedy? Well, look at what it says and, more importantly, in what it presumes. If you kill that presumption off at the very beginning of the process (the presumption of personam jurisdiction), this case doesn’t even come into their court’s jurisdiction in order for shenanigans to take place! This is why I say: If you don’t know what you are doing, don’t enter their court! Find a way to rebut their presumption. Maintain your stance as a man or woman and don't acquiesce to being characterized as a legal fiction subject to their written law. Because, unless you know how to defeat their law, you are likely to lose!

“Jurisdiction . . . is not defeated as respondents seem to contend...” The statement talks about “respondents,” which means that you can only become involved with a case as a party to it (i.e. grant jurisdiction) in which you respond in some way to the matter being asserted. This once again demonstrates that defeating jurisdiction occurs before the court can assume jurisdiction. Which means you have control over whether the court is allowed to assume jurisdiction over your person depending upon the actions you take. This is a matter of Law and choice of Law — and not the merits or facts of a case — which must be sorted out at the very beginning of a pending matter before a court. Objections to the choice of Law are always handled at the beginning of a matter, not in the middle of the matter once jurisdiction has been granted.

In the above mention case quotation, the people bringing the case into a federal court were agreeing to allow that court to have jurisdiction over the matter. When they tried to use a Law argument in a statutory court setting, it fell flat! Once you agree to the statutory setting, you have to follow the rules and the law for that setting. They were arguing that jurisdiction was never attained because there was no matter before the court upon which relief could be granted. While that argument may be effective in a court of Law, it does not work in a statutory court! Why? Because the rules of court are different.

However, the federal court held (and rightly so) that defeat of the defendant’s cause would have to be premised upon the idea of a judgment on the merits and not on dismissal for want of jurisdiction, jurisdiction already having been granted to the court by both sides, which also corresponded with the statutes which provided the court with jurisdiction over such matters. So, within the context of the court (i.e. the type of law that the court was ruling on), the ruling made in that federal court was correct.

To return to the point of this newsletter, just be careful when using the Internet to do legal research, especially when you are checking out websites that are not on your “Trusted” meter. That is, where you know that whatever is being quoted is something from the actual case file and not something that was dreamed up by some Internet hack! A little extra effort spent verifying a point that you might like to use as a quote can be well worth the extra expenditure of time to verify.

As always I encourage your feedback, if you have a question or a comment, pro or con, as this helps me to assist you in correctly understanding your process at Law.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


If you would like to learn more about these concepts so you can avoid the whole mess without having to “appear” in court at all, 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.