If You Don’t Know What You Are Doing In Court You Will Lose!

Date: April 30, 2019

Special Note: The following newsletter entry was initially contemplated being sent to the mailing list sometime in August of 2017, but, for various reasons, was never sent out. It was meant to be a WAKE UP call to people contemplating using the process outlined in the Common Law Remedy report AFTER the fact. That is, after not having had the opportunity to deploy the R4C process properly in a timely manner, and therefore attempting to enter into discussion with the court without that fact [their timely R4C back to the issuer] on their side of the record. Since the time this newletter was written, I have learned quite a bit more (through bitter experience) about how these courts work, and will be sharing much of that knowledge with my readers in subsequent issues of the newsletter. But this doesn't take away from the lesson being taught in this newsletter. Never go into one of their courts unprepared! Period. Especially if you don't have adequate assistance of counsel.

I am issuing this newsletter today because, in reading back over it, I know it has made some valuable points that people need to seriously take under consideration before they go off the rails and think they know what they are doing. One is much better off picking their battles with these courts when they have a winning issue on their side of the record, than when they go in unprepared.

Due to a series of legal matters that arose in my own life surrounding the issue of travelling without a driver license, I have had to suspend the issuance of the Newsletter for a period of time. Those who have communicated with me during this time and stuck with me know, from first-hand reports, of my dedication to finding a solution to this issue of victimless traffic tickets.

The problem I’ve been running into is that there is not enough legitimate real-world information being spread about on the Internet to allow someone to simply research their way through to a remedy that these courts will recognize. If readers will stick with me, I intend to provide, in subsequent newsletters, real-world feedback commentary and opinion about several sources of information on the issue of contending frivolous traffic tickets and how the court has responded (or not responded). So I would humbly ask that you stay tuned. You won’t want to miss what I have to share. Because you’ll be hard pressed to find it anywhere else on the Internet but here. What I can promise is that this will be eye-opening revelations about how our legal system really works (or doesn’t work, as the case may be).

Hello Friends,

Today’s newsletter contains one of the most important lessons that you will ever learn about asserting law in traffic court. And if you don’t learn it, you can be guaranteed of losing!

Although the common law process I share is meant to prevent one from having to attend a hearing in traffic court in the first place, some people become informed of the process after the fact of the most propitious time to use it, and therefore end up having to attend a hearing. In other words, they become aware of the process after they should have timely employed it, and therefore after they have already acquiesced to personam jurisdiction. They correspond with me in desperation asking me, “What do I do?” They expect me to act as their legal counsel. But that is not what I am here to do.

If you are going to challenge the form of law the court is using to adjudicate a matter, it is your responsibility to be able to competently assert, in a timely manner, the principles and concepts behind this line of reasoning. My only role is to educate you about what those principles and concepts are according to your choice of law in the issue (meaning the common law). While a “refusal for cause” can be performed after the initial 72-hour statutory time limit for employing it, if you’re going to do that, you best be prepared beforehand for an uphill battle with the court.  

We all might agree that the statutory system coming at us from government has the perceived superiority of being able to take advantage of strategies of psychological intimidation, throwing doubt into everything we do to find a remedy to our situation. As soon as you become doubtful of the process you are using, you naturally become nervous. And nervousness then leads to fear about everything you are doing because it isn’t being recognized by the court.

Of course there is a simple reason for your common law process not being recognized. You are not in a court of law where it can be recognized, rather you are in an administrative court disguised as a court of law. That fact in itself should be enough to cause you outrage.

And you were given the impression that the court had to recognize your process, or face recriminations. That would be true if you were in a judicial court of law. But the magistrates in traffic court are NOT judicial judges. And neither is their court. It is an inferior legislative administrative court practicing private so-called law. These judges cannot issue a judicial judgment that cannot be overturned by a higher court, in essence voiding the lower court’s decision.

Becoming aware of this is all part of the process of learning what you set out to learn in the first place. It is all part of the process of undergoing what I call the “baptism of fire.” What did you think I underwent when I was faced with the circumstances given in the Fifth Scenario which I outlined in the Common Law Remedy free report? Did you ever stop and think: What would I do if I were put in that situation? I mean, really! Did anyone ever stop to really think about that? What I learned from that experience was that if you give up your position too soon, you may find that you just shot yourself in the foot by testifying against your “person” and not realizing that that is what just happened!

Today’s newsletter will go a long way toward separating the men from the boys on this mailing list. By that what I mean is that if you are not interested in learning about Law (actual Law, that is), but rather are only interested in finding a silver bullet you can use to get you out of a legal jam, then you will be sadly disappointed with this newsletter and with what can be learned from the Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets. Because, as I have been saying all along, there are no silver bullets. There is only competency in Law, and knowing how to maintain the position you took up against a court based in fictional “color of law” process.

Why do I say this? Because if you do not know the concepts behind how this common law process works, you will make a mistake in attempting to hold onto your stand which will likely cause you to abandon your position, resulting in a loss in the matter as far as the court opposing you is concerned. This has already happened in a few cases with a few subscribers, who then turned around and blamed me for providing them with wrong information! When in reality it was their own reckless pursuit of a remedy without being properly prepared to hold onto a remedy they already may have had if they had set up the proper condition for it to succeed.

The losses I’m speaking about occurred while the subscribers attended a court hearing. Believe it or not, there are some people who believe that they are so well-informed and knowlegeable enough about the law and its application to this process that they can face down a professional in his own courtroom and win. They think that just because they have been shown that they have the Law on their side that these judges are just going to lay down and give up because they’ve been out argued. More than one of these people is now cursing the day that they ever ran into the Common Law Remedy. And why? Because of their own arrogance and ignorance, thinking that they knew enough after three or four days to face down a judge after they’ve already handed over personam jurisdiction in the matter.

Folks, this is why I try to keep people from going to a court hearing, because you are no match for a trained professional liar in his place of business. If you can manage to perform the process as it should be performed from the very beginning (returning the citation timely to its issuer and informing — filing notice with — the court of that return), and you don’t compromise it at any point along the way, then you stand a chance of pulling off a win (or at least what seems to be a win) by avoiding going to court which, in some instances, may look like a loss if you believe what you read on the county’s website about the “case” afterwards when they sometimes convict the legal fiction NAME without your having ever set foot in the courtroom. This has happened to me twice!

One subscriber was so deluded as to think that I could teach her how to beat several traffic tickets that she had gathered in about a two month period after she had purposefully entered a plea of “not guilty” and requested “to go to trial,” and she had waited until five days before the trial to contact me with questions about the common law process I had shared with her. Five days was not enough time to learn what she needed to learn if she was going to prevail. Especially under the circumstances that were facing her.

I told her that if she wanted to fight this, she might want to seriously rethink the time discrepency involved and ask for a continuance to move the trial date back, giving her more time to prepare. I asked her to do that twice, but she refused. Even though I had some ideas that might help her, I knew that five days was too short a time period for her to learn how to use those ideas and to prepare her for what she was about to face. And this was an academically intelligent woman who had graduated college magna cum laude.

As you might imagine, she got pounded in the courtroom by a lady judge because in the heat of the courtroom discussion she forgot to assert everything I told her to do, became distracted from the goal by the judge, and was handed a court order to pay $390 in fines. That’s what intimidation does to a person when they are under psychological and emotional stress. You don’t think straight and you allow the judge to control everything, and therefore you miss your opportunity to effect a remedy. If you are not on your toes in court, you lose. There’s just no getting around it. Only a fool will enter one of these courts unprepared.

This is why I try to keep people out of court if at all possible so that they can have more time to learn about what they need to know before they take on a judge, if they ever take on a judge. After that defeat this person sent me an incomplete description of what occurred in court, then broke off communication with me, further slitting her own throat, because I was prepared to help her understand what she did wrong during the trial while making some suggestions as to how she might want to handle the court order she was given. That court had no authority to compel her to perform on that order, but she didn’t hang around long enough to learn about that. She made up her mind that I must be a fraud, and she cut off further communication.

I can tell you from experience, you do not want to enter one of their courts without being fully prepared regarding what you are going to do there. Otherwise you are just setting yourself up for a fall! It has taken me years of study, research, and actual experience going up against the statutory system in its own courtrooms to learn what I have learned. No one can teach that in five days! Especially to someone who is head strong and who won’t listen to reason. Best to just let them learn the hard way. Then maybe they will be willing to listen the next time to what someone with experience has to impart.

To be fair, there was no way that this person could have avoided going to court. She had ignorantly returned (without evidence of objection on the record to the lack of due process) the citations to the court as the court instructed when she opted to take the matters to trial. She had relinquished personam jurisdiction at the very beginning, allowing herself to be arraigned, and in the process had testified that she was a party to the matter. In the court’s view, she was guilty until she proved herself not guilty. In other words, she had surrendered her “right of avoidance” by not returning the faulty complaints back to their issuers “refused for cause” (R4C) to thereby put the burden of proof (of proving injury or damage in actual Law) back on the issuer (plaintiff).

Folks, this is a simple concept to learn. Yet the ignorance that some people display in not being able to grasp it is astounding.

In all honesty, there may be other ways that she might have used to provide the remedy she was seeking which would have entailed entering the court and successfully defending herself within that jurisdiction. I even tried to explain one of them to her, giving her links to a video which demonstrated how this might be done. However, it did take some patience, concentration, and recognition of the concepts being explained in the video in order to understand fully the method being used there. Abilities of patience, concentration and recognition which she obviously did not have in order to understand the points she needed to get across, because she erroneously thought she was in a judicial court and became easily distracted by the judge, entering into argument with the court, when the judge did not rule in her favor.

In my research, I have come across accounts of people entering these administrative courts and being able to prevail. Or at least they’ve been able to prevent the court from having its way with them. But you have to know what you are doing before you attempt that. You can’t expect to learn everything you need to know when facing a courtroom in a quick one day talk session (which was all the time she spent in prepration). There are just too many variables involved that people have to learn how to handle when they arise. And that is not going to happen in one or two talk sessions before an impending court hearing. I don’t care how smart you think you are.

My point is: while some people may be set up to perform the refusal for cause process from the beginning and are able to perform it correctly and not experience any problems, other students of law who have gone past that opportunity should not expect anyone be able to help them correct their errant mistakes without providing that person with the requisite amount of time it may take for them to explain what the student needs to understand in order to succeed. It isn’t fair to the student, and it certainly isn’t fair to the person attempting to teach them.

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

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


Resurrection: The Reason For My Silence

Date: June 16, 2019

Note:  For new subscribers, the following series of newsletters titled “The Ordeal” (beginning with this present edition) is being offered as real-world feedback to subscribers who are woefully lacking in such accounts regarding what to expect from the legal system should they find themselves being forced into an administrative court on a frivolous traffic violation. The author would ask that readers suspend their evaluation of any of the information they have received from the author until he is able to present this accounting in its entirety. The accounting itself is intended to provide an eye-opening education regarding the outrageous treatment that innocent people can expect to endure at the hands of the "color of law" State, with really no reasonable justification for such treatment. Therefore, a premature “rush to judgment” about any aspect of remedy may not be in the reader’s best interest.

Also, this accounting should serve as a valuable “wake up call” for everyone who is rightly concerned about the direction in which the legal system in this country has been tending. There are some who have the opinion that a second violent revolution is called for in this country. And while I might agree with the revolution part of such sentiment, I would just as vehemently disagree with the violent part. What needs to occur is a reacquaintance with and readoption of the principles of actual law as opposed to the constructive color of law position that the courts have taken. Due process and rights protected by constitutions need to be honored once again. The only way this might occur is through education in which a majority of the population demands it. If people cannot be united in what they can agree upon is injustice, then the powers which seek to divide the people will continue to prevail just as they have for thousands of years.

“The Ordeal, Part One, The Preliminary Facts” follows this newsletter on this Archive page, so scroll down to find it. Subsequent editions in the series of The Ordeal follow in order. There are presently only Seven Parts. Click on the Newsletter Archive sidebar to the right at the top of each Newsletter Archive page to access the next page in the series.

Hello Friends,

Anyone who has been a long time subscriber to this newsletter knows that in recent months (like the last year and a half — November 2017 to May 2019) I haven’t put out any newsletters or written any new articles. There has been a reason for this suspension of activity, and it began on December 28th of 2017 when I was kidnapped from my home and held captive for ransom by the local sheriff’s Department (not Office) on a nearly five-year-old FTA (failure to appear) warrant.

From there, I was forced into a court, without prior access to counsel (a due process violation), to respond to an unverified complaint involving a fictitious complainant regarding an infraction of a vehicle code which had little or nothing to do with me. And yet it [the code] was being imposed (coerced) upon me without any proof of such authority being shown on the record, as though I were a member of the legal society which created it. The perpetrators of this act used deceit, coercion, and presumption as their main weapons to impose this fraud upon me.  

Yet before I explain what happened, I need to clarify the manner in which I became involved with the issue of victimless traffic violations in conjunction with setting up a website. It’s really quite simple. I was educated during a time when United States Civics was taught in our government-run high schools. Not that the Civics classes were all that informative; they were meant to condition and control one’s thinking rather than to inform it. Yet the exposure to these ideas on politics and the history of our country did open up questions in my mind about which I later did personal historical research.

What occurred between the founding of the Great American Experiment in 1776 and the current day such that the people of this country were being duped into abandoning their constitutionally protected rights in favor of handing them over to a state which had total and seemingly complete dictatorial power over their actions? What happened to the ideal in this country that all were “equal before the law?” And that, as expressed by Chief Justice John Jay in the case Chisholm v. Georgia, “[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Where did all the idealism go, and why was it no longer operative in our beloved county? Or better yet, was all that idealism just an illusion being fed to the People in order to better keep them under control? These were the serious questions running through my mind as I witnessed, over many years, the erosion of our once great republic into what appeared to be a third world dictatorship.
It wasn’t until much later in my self-education that I learned that all legitimate law is based on first causes. And that the faculty of reason, above all else, is held in highest esteem in all true courts of law. It was then that I realized that these concepts were very important. For it is on the basis of these concepts that all claims for personal liberty can be asserted. I learned these concepts by studying various versions of the maxims of law from which all statutory law (American civil law) has its foundation. There is a maxim which epitomizes this concept which states: Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. “What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law.”

When I put up the website beattraffictickets.org in December of 2013 I did so with the intention of sharing with others a process in law (common law) that, in what seemed at the time, had been effective for me on three separate occasions. In other words, I was basing it on my own personal experience and not on some else’s intimation of experience. I did my homework before I decided to use the process. I also, before having to implement the process, made sure that I notified the appropriate parties (the state DOT and county Sheriff) of my intentions to travel without a “driver license,” asking them to rebut my reasoned and sworn declaration of such in a responding affidavit within twenty days of notification. Of course, neither agency [has ever] bothered to respond to my affidavit.

At the time I set up the website, my experience in having to address matters in court was somewhat limited as was my knowledge of the procedures and law being used in these courts. In the past I had been to court about half a dozen times on relatively minor issues; and each time I learned a little more about how they worked. When I soon learned that others who were attempting to use the process I was sharing were having difficulties getting the court to recognize their position, I began to do more research on court procedure using the Internet and my knowledge of law as best as I undertood it. And I did so with the forethought of possibly having to use the information that I was coming across for myself. In other words, I would have been willing to use that information myself in my own defense without any hesitation because it made reasoned sense. Court procedure was always the weakest area of my knowledge base, because I didn’t have the advantage of a wide ranging practical experience (whether of myself or others) in an actual court.

There is a disclaimer — in each publication that I offer for other’s education — which states that what is contained in the publication is NOT to be taken as “legal advice.” At no time did I ever claim any knowledge of the legal procedure these courts use, much less to reasonably guarantee any court outcome through using the process. The information about the process was being offered as information only, predicated on the presumption that anyone who wanted seriously to use it would do the responsible and requisite research in law themselves in order to properly prepare for having to defend it in court.

What I also realized during this time was that many readers were oblivious to the mistakes they could make while using and undergoing the process. And so I set out to help correct that lack of knowledge by sharing what I knew of the tricks the courts were using in order to obtain personam jurisdiction over the people. I spent countless hours answering questions posed to me by email, without additional compensation, hours that were cutting into my time to do further research in order to refine and improve the process, if such was even possible.

By January of 2016 I realized that I needed to address these “court tricks” in a separate publication, and I began to work on producing a supplemental addendum to the How To Handle The Five Scenarios ebook. This new ebook (Case Study Answers) would be based on actual case histories of questions taken from my email answers to the many inquiries from subscribers that had been sent to me over the years. It was meant to help teach people how to discern when the court or authorities were playing a trick and how to correctly respond without relinquishing their position from the common law side of the matter.

At the time, the best way I was aware of to handle these matters was to avoid the court’s presumption of jurisdiction in the matter. Yet it stood to reason that there must be other ways to do this using statutory law. But no one that I was aware of from my research was teaching this with any consistency of success. The majority of people I was coming across who were claiming success were teaching a common law approach. So it made sense to me to stay on the common law side of the matter, and to describe that strategy to others. It was difficult enough to understand that strategy rather than having to retool one’s thinking and learn another entirely different approach using a statutory process. Aside from that, I knew that attempting to mix legal processes in a single matter can be dangerous, leading to failure.
By the Winter of 2017 (and actually quite a bit before that time) what I was becoming fast aware of is that there are so many aspects of law that one has to take into consideration when dealing with any legal matter that sometimes it can become confusing or one can become forgetful of what to assert and when to assert it. What I’ve come to learn, through the experience I’ve just been through, is that the system of law in the courts in the U.S. (and elsewhere for that matter) is set up to be confusing and confounding on purpose. So much so that the courts have become deceitful and illegitimate, and not serving at all of the needs or to benefit the people.

Returning to the need I expressed above in the third paragraph — regarding the manner in which I became involved with the issue of victimless traffic violations — it occurred to me that people, worldwide and in general, were allowing the media to focus their attention on the wrong issues. If any progress was to be made toward correcting the injustices that were being meted out to the people on a daily basis by the encroaching government usurpation of people’s rights, it meant we needed to educate ourselves and to study the roots from which our law arose so that we might take back the authority that government (or quasi-government, in this case) was presuming to be its own.

The idea I had was to use the traffic ticket issue — a relatively benign event for most people who were being ticketed for victimless violations of the traffic code — as a vehicle (no pun intended) to begin reacquainting people with actual law in order to begin holding their public servants accountable for what has become a multitude of sins committed in the name of “justice.” The people of the system that is supposed to be protecting Us (the People) from violations of our rights and from criminals, have themselves become the problem and criminal in their actions. Some of these public servants know that what they are doing is wrong, and they need to be rooted out first. But there are many more of them who do not know and who have fallen victim to the government’s narrative of propaganda. In other words, they’ve been lied to, too, and they don't know any better. Yet we should observe that the oft quoted phrase — “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” — cuts both ways.

Now, I’m still in the middle of figuring out how to address my own legal matters, all of which have been resolved as far as the State is currently concerned. In other words, they got what they perceived to be their “pound of flesh” out of me. What they aren’t expecting yet is my going on the offense against them. But before I do so, I need to make sure I’ve got all my ducks lined up in a row. Legally speaking, that is. This will translate into a lot of time and energy spent on my part because I’ve never done this before, and my opponent can be more slippery than a slimy eel. Not to mention that he knows the legal system better than I do.
As a result of my current circumstance, it would be awfully kind of you subscribers if you would be patient with me as I endeavor to resurrect the Newsletter while at the same time having to deal with creating a criminal complaint and accompanying litigation to hold my persecutors accountable. Newsletter issues may likely come out haphazardly at best; at least until I can get this legal process under control. I don’t expect to have much help on the litigation side of this equation either; no local attorney is going to be willing to go up against the people who provide him with his daily meal ticket in order to squeeze a pint or two of blood (money, that is, the only lifeblood they know) out of the legal system’s indemnity policy, i.e., the municipal county administration’s bonding insurance, which is the only thing the county bean counters care about preserving outside of their cushy jobs. 

Truth be told, I’m not really all that interested in any financial settlement as I am in holding public servants criminally accountable for the actions they have taken. This isn’t about the money; it’s about shining a light on the unlawful actions of a local government gone out of control. Money is not going to correct all the wrongs that have been done. The only thing that might begin to correct the wrongs is for other public servants to see what could happen to them (possible jail time and loss of job) should they decide to continue pursuing “business as usual.” That is, breaking the law against otherwise perfectly law abiding people.

I’m still in the process of deciding how best to describe the events that took place during my ordeal such that readers can gain a heads up about what to expect from the legal system should they become involved up to their hips in the muck and the mire of standing up for their rights in a “color of law” court. One thing is for sure: you’re going to find out about the many “remedies” and approaches I came across in research during this ordeal that are being promoted on the Internet, and how each one of them, frustratingly, failed in court. And this despite the fact that the information, on its face, gave the impression of a reasonable approach. It’s easy to spot fake information because it doesn’t stand up to the “reason” smell test. But information that sounds reasonable, now that’s a different story. You need to know the telltale signs of what to look for when you come across information like that of which you should be skeptical. And I will be naming names of people’s information and approaches to look out for and to avoid buying into.

Before I sign off, I’ll leave you with one of the tidbits of information I learned during my experience. This holds true for Arizona, where I live, but I’m not sure in how many other states and municipalities it also holds true. Although you may not go wrong from presuming it’s true in your state, you may wish to check into the local statutes in order to confirm the presumption should the need arise. There is a statute of limitation on what the municipal city can count on when its court issues a bench warrant. It is five years in Arizona in the city municipality before the warrant is no longer effective. However, there is no such limitation as far as county issued (sheriff and highway patrol) citations are concerned; they can continue to be in force without sunset. An interesting tidbit to keep in mind if it holds true where you live.

Even so, if an FTA warrant was issued and time expired, quashing the warrant, yet the court has already adjudicated the case in the defendant’s absence and judgment was awarded to the plaintiff in the form of a fine, the state DMV will still hold payment of that judgment over the head of the defendant whose license has been suspended before the agency consents to allow that person to reinstate their driver license. That bit of interesting information comes from personal experience. More details to come about that in a subsequent newsletter.

As mentioned in the previous newsletter, if you would like some real world war-story feedback about what to expect should you be dragged into court like I was, be patient and stay tuned. What I have to share you won't hear about from any attorney. All the dirty grimy facts outlining the prejudicial way in which I was treated will be laid out for all to see. From the moment my face was pushed into the living room carpet by an over-
aggressive goon with a gun for nothing more non-criminal than “driving without a license,” without any provocation from me, to the judge's order for a psych review of the “defendant,” and how I was able to avoid that order being carried out.

As always I encourage your feedback, if you have a question or a comment, pro or con. They are welcome as this helps me to assist you in correctly understanding your process at law. Just be patient with me this time as with all that is on my plate right now, it may take some time for me to reply.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


The Ordeal: Part One, The Preliminary Facts

Date: June 23, 2019

Hello Friends,

The Ordeal I went through is no different than what countless others have had to put up with in attempting to defend their natural rights up against an all-powerful government machine bent on not recognizing anyone’s rights at all. Half a dozen or more of my subscribers could competently put together their own account of personal experience which may equal or surpass my own. It’s really not important whose experience we examine, but rather the similarities of the legal abuse of process which took place in order to communicate the unquestioned level of criminality — dishonesty, misrepresentation, fraud, malfeasance, breach of trust, and in a word, the corruption of the concept of law itself — inherent in the present legal system in America.

The incident that precipitated the ordeal that I eventually chose to endure took place on January 7th, 2013 as I was attempting to return home from having run an errand. A Sheriff’s deputy pulled up behind me at a stop light and noticed the expired license tag on the license plate. The tag had expired five years prior to the stop, and I had been researching how to handle this eventuality for as long if not longer. I live outside the city that is the county seat in this area, and do not travel all that often, maybe once or twice a week on average. So in that way I was able to avoid detection of the expired tag for quite some time.

During this time I was still trying to figure out just how the state was claiming jurisdiction over the regulation of non-commercial property. From everything I was reading in my research, it seemed to have something to do with the presumption of a contract being in place, that contract being associated with either the driver license or the registration of the property or both together. Having spent considerable time researching the power that an unrebutted affidavit has, I set out to create my own Affidavit of Administrative Notice in order to get out in front of the inevitable controversy created by state actors once it was discovered that I was, of all the dastardly criminal deeds that one can commit, “driving” without a license.

As mentioned in the previous newsletter, I served this affidavit of Notice on both the Director of the state department of transportation (DOT) and the county Sheriff back in May of 2009, both of whom declined to rebut the affidavit within the requisite twenty days time. After that, as far as I was concerned at the time, any issue regarding the regulation of my private property or the need to have a driver license outside of commercial application was now moot. How could a court rule any differently (if indeed a court had any authority to rule on the matter, which I submit it did not by reason of lack of jurisdiction)? I provided Notice of my intention, notice was received by the opposing party and that party was given ample time to rebut or disprove the assertions made in the affidavit, which that party declined to do.

In hindsight, the only thing I might have done differently would have been to have a notary public (i.e., a disinterested third party witness) serve the Notice on the two agencies and then, when the agencies refused to respond, send a Notice of Default and Three Day Notice to Cure. When the agencies declined to address that second mailing, the notary would then send a Final Notice of Default, ending the matter once and for all. That would have been the customary lawful way to adequately address a possible future controversy. Yet, after the treatment I have experienced by a county justice court, I’m not even sure that process would have been honored or acknowledged. (In fact, I’m positive that it would not have been.)

As I explained in the free report, an unrebutted affidavit in commercial law is [supposedly] non-judicial, meaning that, when the correct circumstances are invoked, it supersedes any judicial settings and cannot be overruled by the courts or the statutes of any government, period. That made perfect sense to me, and it was what I was counting on as a remedy for any action being brought to court concerning traffic regulation violations. And if we were living in an honest political society, that might have been the end of it.

I had also created a license plate sized Notice (Private Property / Not for Hire / Sui Juris / All Rights Reserved) that I had placed at reading level in the rear window of my property just above the licence plate with the expired tag. So it was not for lack of effort that I was plainly giving Notice to anyone who might question the surrounding circumstances regarding non-commerical travel. Pay particular notice to the timeline and sequence of events as I go through this description. It is important in lawful process to establish precedence (timeliness) of events when providing Notice to anyone regarding any possible disagreement over a particular matter. Of course, all of this preparation was ignored by the deputy, who by this time had called for a supervisor, because I was not behaving like a proper citizen sheeple.

At the stop itself, the deputy took digital photos of a copy of that Affidavit that I carried in my car, had no response to that notice or the window notice, wrote out a ticket, on which I wrote a conditional autograph (i.e., signing “without prejudice” above my autograph) and not a promise to appear, impounded my property, and released me, watching as I began a four mile late afternoon (4 PM) walk home. I had just ten days before this stop (Dec. 27, 2012) returned the Certificate of Title to the property as cancelled as of the last day of active registration (Nov. 30, 2008) back to the Arizona DOT along with a cover letter explaining what I was doing, and, in my mind at least, removed the presumption of a contract by way of registration. I told the deputy that I would be sending him a copy of that notification of cancelled Title document in order to prove my legal process. I sent him the refused for cause citation along with the cancellation documentation the very next day.

Three days later, Jan. 11, 2013 at 8:30 AM, the deputy showed up at my home to tell me they were releasing my property, and I could pick it up at the impound yard. I asked him if he had seen the R4C’d citation and rest of the documents I sent him, he said no, he had not. So I assumed that someone at the Sheriff’s Department had seen it and relented, and the deputy was being kept in the dark from these proceedings. At any rate, I assumed that the matter had been dropped (since they were returning my property before I sued them for theft), and that there was no need to do anything more. Because I had limited experience with these kinds of things, I was interested to see how the system was going to handle this. I can tell you now, though, to never assume anything about these courts, other than that they will be relentless in their prosecution of these “cases.” They are in business to screw you as vigorously and as often as they can. And it doesn’t seem to matter to them if they’re breaking the law (i.e., committing fraud) or not.

It wasn’t until over a couple of years later, while discussing on the phone a similar situation that one of my subscribers was in, that I decided I needed to notify the court of the refusal for cause. So I obtained a certified copy of the original certificate of mailing (CoM) documenting the fact of the original R4C citation back to its issuer (I wanted to retain the original CoM just in case this escalated to a court issue), and made out a cover letter to send along with the copy of the R4C’d citation back to the court, including a copy of the documentation of the cancelled Certificate of Title. That was in September of 2015.

What gave me some confidence in what I was doing at the time was the fact that no one was being sent out to where I lived in order to carry out any warrant that might be outstanding on the “person.” Previous to the stop in January of 2013 I had been pulled over (in July 2012) by a city cop near the edge of the city-annexed border between the city and the county area where I lived. There is rarely a city policy enforcer roaming that area, but that morning there was. A portion of that incident was documented in the Fifth Scenario example mentioned in the free report, wherein I was forced to enter the courtroom in order to present the R4C’d notice to the court, and to all appearances, I had supposedly relinquished personam jurisdiction.

In that incident, when the municipal judge made his offer to me in the form of three orders of the court ordering a trial and contact with a court appointed attorney, I refused each order for cause and returned them to the court, according to the information I was reading at the time, which proposed that each time the judge interacts with someone in his commercial court that he was making an offer that could either be fully accepted or conditionally accepted if one wanted to remain in honor. A refusal for cause without dishonor is a conditional acceptance. The only problem with this is: in their court everyone who enters it, whether honorable or not, is presumed guilty unless and until that person proves their innocence. This is how military courts work, not civilian courts. Which means that the court will dishonor your lawful process, because it is a court of no record, a nisi prius court. (There’s a clue for you: look up and find out what a nisi prius court is and how it operates. Hint: you can find that information on Bill Thornton’s website 1215.org.)

The trial for that July 2012 stop was held in November of 2012 with the defendant in absentia. Every time the appointed attorney attempted to contact the "defendant" by mail, I returned unopened his correspondence, stating on the envelope that he was not now nor ever was my attorney, and therefore, according to the theory, not appearing in the matter. I also declined to identify myself whenever anyone called on the phone. Nevermind all that, the court went full steam ahead anyway, held a trial, and convicted the absent defendant, issuing a fine and a bench warrant. I didn’t know this at the time, but the bench warrant was only good for five years in Arizona. That five years ran out on December 18th, 2017, just ten days before I was arrested on the county warrant issued in April of 2013 on the January 2013 citation.

The event that caused my arrest on December 28, 2017 happened on a fluke occurrence. I have a dial-up connection to the Internet. It was late in the afternoon and I was attempting to check my email that day when the dial-up software wasn’t performing properly. I went to check the phone to see if anything was getting through, and it was blank. No dial tone or any sound at all. I had had this happen before, and it usually entailed the phone company sending out a technician to troubleshoot the outside connection. In the course of doing this I tried dialing some numbers and dialed 911. It didn’t seem to make any connection as I heard nothing from the other end. I hung up the phone and proceeded to go out for a run, thinking that I would borrow a neighbor’s phone when I returned from the run to contact the phone company.

Well, as luck would have it, as I rounded the corner of the street I live on, I could see two Sheriff’s trucks parked near my home. Apparently, the phone had been alive and actually did connect the 911 call. As I attempted to catch my breath from the run, I explained to the deputies that my phone had gone dead and that there was no emergency. I didn’t know that the phone was still sending out-bound calls. I let my guard down in trying to appease the interest of the deputies, fearful they might charge me with calling in a false alarm.

I don’t think it would have mattered much how I handled that situation; they had a person in front of them who had a warrant out on his name, and they were not going to be deterred in making the arrest. I must say, the deputy in charge handled the situation with poise and professionalism as he slowly talked and walked toward me from the deck and down the steps to put handcuffs on. Of course, there was no point in attempting to run. We talked for a bit, and they allowed me (handcuffed) to lead them to a safety deposit box I had in my bedroom to retrieve $150.00 for bail.   

So, now you have the facts surrounding how I was kidnapped from my home (on a warrant that should have been quashed for all intents and purposes, from my point of view) and was held for a ransom of $500.00 bail. This was a Thursday late in the afternoon. A hearing before a magistrate was scheduled for the next day at 1PM. If you’ve never been booked into a county detention center before, believe me, it’s an experience you won’t soon forget. Because, once you get inside with the rest of the population, it will open your eyes to just how corrupt our legal system really is when you observe the surroundings and start talking to the other people being held there.

This is the point where I usually ask for your feedback, if you have a question or a comment. But this time I would ask that you hold any questions for a bit while I take the opportunity to lay out the whole story with as much detail as possible. There is so much more to tell, and it will be well worth your time to go slowly through this whole series of newsletters with a fine toothcomb and to absorb all the issues that it brings to the surface.

Because, what is happening is: this case is being published on the Internet, whether or not it ever gets published in the legal world. You’ve heard of the First Article of Amendment to the original Constitution, haven’t you? “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” Well, this is a First Amendment secured Right. We either use it or we lose it — the latter generally, out of ignorance.

So stay tuned for the next installment. There is sure to be various interesting points of law interposing their presence within this series of narratives.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


CLR; The Ordeal: Part Two, Pre-Court Preparation

Date: July 14, 2019

Hello Friends,

When I was doing my due diligence research in the years before I was kidnapped, I had the fortune to come across a piece written by a former practicing attorney and law professor Melvin Stamper, JD. A few of you may be familiar with it. Most probably are not. The piece was ostensibly copyrighted in 1997, and therefore was fairly recent. It was titled, “Comments From The Professor On Traffic Citations And Introduction To Abatement.” I found this piece on the freedom-school.com website, which website is linked to from my website.

(Stamper’s article can be accessed at the following links; the first link you have to stop the page from loading once it displays, before it gets redirected to another page, so that you can read it.)


It is unfortunate that more subscribers do not use the freedom-school.com link on my website in order to research law, as that website is chalk full of interesting and thought provoking PDFs and other information concerning Texas law in particular, but also law in general. While I may not always agree with the validity or practicality of each piece published on the site, it can serve as a reasonable introduction to the study of law that is accessible to the public at large. And as such it can serve as a resource for beginning to educate oneself about law.

What drew my attention in the piece was professor Stamper’s insights into how a war powers court works. Because the description of how a war powers court operates coincided with my experience of the court I as being forced to enter. Now keep in mind, this was coming presumably from a former attorney and law professor, someone who ought to know. By this time in my self-education about American law, I was aware that the courts in this country were no longer courts of law but rather administrative in their essential nature. What Stamper’s piece helped me begin to understand was just how this historical change in our court system legal procedures came about, based on the banking crisis in the 1930s and actions taken by then President Franklin Roosevelt in declaring a banking emergency holiday and Emergency Powers in 1933.

[For an expanded treatment of this subject matter, see an excerpt from “A Lawsuit Is An Act Of War” by Melvin Stamper, J.D.  http://beattraffictickets.org/War20%Powers20%Act20%of20%1933.pdf ]

What Stamper had to describe made perfect sense based on the historical evidence he presented. Whether or not any or all of this has changed since the publication of his piece is uncertain. However the description of how these courts act was born out by my experience, and therefore helped to create a conceptual template for me to consider.

I was especially interested to learn about the court’s procedures, particularly from someone with first hand experience and with the requisite supporting academic and real-world knowledge. Starting from the second paragraph, the article provided valuable clues regarding the make-up of these administrative courts and what to expect.

Special appearances fail when a judge knows what he is doing. Under martial rule, judges do whatever they want, whenever they want so long as they do not alarm the public or disturb the peace. Jurisdiction is always granted to try jurisdictional questions, even if one goes to higher courts. Defendant grants jurisdiction without knowing it, because they never challenge the process that creates the jurisdiction in the first place. (see: FRCP §2.4 (2)(4)).

That last sentence contained an important clue to being able to navigate one’s way through a legal matter in today’s court. But knowing about this clue did little to inform me about the practical aspects of how I was to present myself before a court. Stamper’s main thesis was that a war powers court process was overcome by a procedure known as abatement. So I began looking into and studying the concept of abatements. But the information I was coming across was contradictory even though the process of abatement in these courts seemed to be a legitimate approach. One seemingly reputable law source declared that the process of abatement had long since been abolished in the procedures of the modern courts, which gave the impression that it could not be used. Whereas there were people I was coming across in law forums who were claiming some measure of success using some form or other of an abatement process. As usual, one is faced with the question: Who should I believe? The fact that a judge’s discretion could play a role, however, should serve to explain why some people were having success using the process while others were not. Could this really depend upon the flip of a coin in a judge’s mind? If so, it wasn’t anything that could be dependably relied upon to succeed unequivocally in all circumstances.

Nevertheless, it is important, if one wishes to prevail in any legal matter, to understand the nature of the law being used by one’s opponent. The fact that the courts were acting under Emergency Powers, though, was important to acknowledge, because it tells us about the level and source of powers these courts utilize. The single most assertive feature of any emergency powers government is unlawful civil authority. There was evidence of this from our American history as this was evident in the American South after the War Between the States in the mid-1860s, when during the so-called Reconstruction Era, where the southern States were administered under the Lieber Code as promulgated on April 24, 1863 and instituted as Executive Order Number 100 from the Office of the Commander in Chief, Abraham Lincoln. (Readers are encouraged to research the historical evidence regarding the Lieber Code in order to satisfy their own curiosity about the historical context and purported justification of its use.)

In other words, lawful civil courts cease to exist during that time (and likely into the unforeseeable future once the emergency was never declared over) in American history and were replaced by courts with an appearance of legitimacy, but without the substance. The Lieber Code was used to bring the Southern States into line with the international banking financier supported Northern victors in an undeclared war and an undeclared peace. According to some sources I’ve read, this marked the end (seemingly) of government and governing under the republic as established by the so-called founding fathers. At the very least, it acted as a watershed moment in people’s minds and perception with regard to the continuing existence of a republican form of government, whether or not it was actually possible to end the republic in such a manner (a view that I personally reject).

Under the Law of Necessity, an emergency powers court processes and procedures use a mixture of rules from both lawful courts and military courts. Traffic courts become courts of summary court martial using military rules as applied to civilians. If you’ve ever been in attendance of one of these traffic courts and watched the proceedings, you can pretty much verify the truth of this description firsthand. Although it may be questionable whether or not the court officers (the judge and prosecuting attorney) view their role in this same manner. (And only because they are presumably so terribly misinformed themselves about the actual history and characteristics of what has taken place.) One of the main features of these courts is that the type of law used in them is essentially of the same nature as military law which uses municipal law. Municipal law is based on the man-made or legislative law of a democracy (or mob rule of a simple majority of the public through legislative representatives) and not the law of a republic where the majority cannot extend rule over the minority.

In a legitimate court of law, since all are presumed to be equal under the law, no man or artificial organization (i.e., state) has the authority (lacking a bona fide agreement between the parties) to impose his own views of law or order upon any other man. This concept was recognized as self-evident in the Declaration of Independence. As far as the description of a democracy and republic goes, I subscribe to the definition of these terms below, as provided on Bill Thornton’s website 1215.org.


A republic is that form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or indirectly through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In a republic the democratic group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy. [This latter conception brings in the idea of jury nullification. If the people think the law being used is unfair or unwarranted, they can nullify its effect through non-conviction, even though the "law" stays on the books.]
A democracy is that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. (NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.)

Therefore, in the instance of a victimless traffic infraction, a jurisdictional or venue challenge via abatement would seem to be the most reasonable approach. That is: as long as the court was bound by law to have to recognize it. One of the problems with this approach is that one needs to have enough time to implement the process (twenty days minimum). And be willing to take it to an appeal in a higher court if necessary. If the person is being detained (i.e., in jail) and has no access to be able to implement the abatement process, that fact alone imposes an unfair advantage for the accusing party. In actuality, this is what happened to me when I was arrested and detained with no access to my research materials. So I had to think outside the box (come up with an alternative approach since I was being unfairly denied the opportunity lawfully to abate the matter) in order to figure out how I was going to address this injustice.

Stamper’s description of how the court used to work (before the changes were implemented) was helpful in informing me how lawful process was intended to play out. If elements of fairness were lost in the administrative court procedure, then perhaps I could use that fact in challenging an adverse outcome after the matter was adjudicated in the inferior court. A proper summons, in law, has to have the signature of the judge and the court seal. I was shown no such documentation with either of these elements on it.

A citation issued by the roadside has neither a judge’s signature nor a court seal. Can that be a legitimate summons in law? It can be if you recognize that it is an executive function tied to the executive branch of government (i.e., the state governor or national president) and therefore functions outside of constitutional law (that is, in private and not public law) within the political environment of emergency powers. In essence, it is similar to a form of private contract which can either be accepted or declined by the offeree. If there is no injured or damaged party or no actual law has been violated (vehicle codes are not law, however law enforcement actors will never admit that, presumably because they themselves are ignorant of this fact; and yet ignorance of the law is no excuse; that concept works both ways) then the concept of “offer and acceptance” in a commercial offer may come into play if the entity handing you the citation represents a private corporation posing as government and acting in its private capacity. What is not being disclosed (and this is but an educated guess on my part, based on the presumed fact that the court is acting as a war powers court) is that the citation is being issued under emergency powers (i.e., martial rule!).

But back to Stamper’s description of court procedure. In an action at law (that is, under the common law applicable to the people) the “nature and cause” of the action needs to be revealed to the accused before the accused can be expected to provide an informed response to the action at an arraignment. If the accused asks for the nature and cause of the action and the prosecutor or the court refuses to provide that information, that is grounds for a breach of due process at law and disqualification of the action in whole. As Stamper explained:

The state Legislature cannot vest a “court” with authority that has not been delegated to it by the People via the constitution of the State. They cannot create a new “nature of action” out of thin air. Later on, when the constitutions of the several States were amended to recognize and administrate corporations, a separate court was established, and the action was in the nature of administrative.

Live people could not be brought into administrative courts, as the only matter at issue was a breach of corporate charter by an artificial person. Somewhere along the line, the announcement in the Complaint of the nature of the action was lost.

The attorneys all got together and decided that it would be much “simpler” (for them) if there were only one form of action. So today, there is no disclosure of the nature of the action, unless one demands to know the nature and cause of the accusation by using a demand for a bill of particulars.
The sad fact is that none of these courts will ever require the prosecutor to provide an accused with a bill of particulars with regard to the action of a citation for a traffic violation. Yet, making the demand and getting it on the record as a reversible error by the court may be used later on in a collateral attack on the inferior court’s inherent lack of jurisdiction. So, it is worth establishing that fact on the record and using the record in a post litigatory challenge in a higher court. Something to keep in mind.

Stamper continues:

I have been quite successful with this procedure, even in states that have decided that a demand for bill of particulars is a discretionary motion before the court. For example, in Pennsylvania, the demand for bill of particulars used to be before arraignment so that one had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against the elements of personal jurisdiction and “venue” (to include territorial jurisdiction as well as the “nature of the action” that used to be a part of subject matter jurisdiction).

Within the past couple decades, they moved it [the demand for the nature of the action] into “discovery”, which is AFTER arraignment, so the ability of one to challenge the jurisdiction and venue of the court was lost. This is because entering a plea ACCEPTS the jurisdiction. In this way, only subject matter jurisdiction was challengeable. [My comment: The challenge to jurisdiction is never entirely lost, as subject matter jurisdiction is ALWAYS challengeable at any time, before, during and after a trial.]

Under law, an accused has a right to receive what is called “notice and opportunity to inquire” generally prior to any arraignment hearing. The inquiry is about the need to have the nature and cause of the action explained before you assent to go any further into the alleged matter. To state anything other than that demand before these courts is to accept the “benefit of discussion” which is prejudicially viewed by the court as an abandonment of the demand for the nature and cause of action. Something worthy of taking note and remembering.

In other words, if you make a single statement other than that demand — “The sky is blue” is a statement — then you will have been viewed as having been offered a right to inquire and having taken a decision NOT to inquire. Of course, any such procedure practiced by a court is inherently unfair, but this, I have learned, is how these courts operate. Even if you should not make any other statement other than a demand to be made aware of the nature and cause of the action, it has been my experience that the court (i.e., judge) will likely scold you and threaten a contempt of court charge if you continue to ignore and not respond to its questions. Yes, everything about these courts of martial rule is patently unfair and dishonorable. It is amazing to see this actually play out in court and in the same instance, frustrating and unbelieveable that it could occur in the present, presumably enlightened, society. This is the unforgivable degree to which emergency powers courts consciously mock the Truth!

Navigating one’s way through a hearing in one of these administrative courts is quite tricky, if it can be done at all, and nothing to take lightly. Court administrators and judges, in order to find ways to overcome the many methods that people have used successfully to object to such proceedings, gather together in committees at legal conferences to brainstorm and devise plausible approaches to overcome virtually all of these objections. And then they pass that information on to the workers in the field (their fellow jurors and justices) to use in court. Or so I have read (and it is quite believable). So, you see, we are up against a concerted effort by the courts to divest us of any vestige of remedy at the hands of the color of law system in place.

This, of course, flies in the face of the maxim of law principle that “all men are equal before the law.” It's just that some, like the federal government and the States, are more equal than others, like the People from whom government derives its authority. It is high time we take a serious look at the present situation and seek ways to bring it back in line with fairness and equity rather than the tyranny and oppression that our forefathers fought against and we in the present experience on a daily basis.

So stay alert for the next installment. There is sure to be various interesting points of law for you to take note of interposing their presence within this series of narratives.

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.