The Ordeal: Part Six, Courts Denial of Claim And The Second Arrest

Date: October 20, 2019

Hello Friends,

Readers will recall that at the date of the status hearing on March 16, 2018, I had filed a Declaration, Claim, And Prayer For Relief document with the court, partially in an effort to have the “defendant” appear before the court that day, but also to enter a kind of counterclaim into the matter. Yet, being without competent legal counsel who was willing to work with me (in essence, being denied any legitimate legal counsel at all) I was unsure of the correct procedure for doing this, and therefore at a severe disadvantage for lack of knowledge of how best to go about doing this within the statutory legal system. I was fairly certain about the legal concepts I was attempting to address within the context of the instance matter, but without competent advice about the correct procedure to follow within what I considered to be a foreign jurisdiction. Therefore I was having to rely upon the only procedure I knew about, a common law procedure, that I had learned (and perhaps imperfectly understood the application of within a statutory court) from my studies.

(I should interject here that prior to the Psych Eval status hearing on February 14, 2018, I had done research into finding a competent local defense attorney to perhaps assist me, and had narrowed my search down to two or three persons. When, at a meeting with the appointed lady attorney who helped me get past the Psych Eval order, I asked her opinon about the attorneys on my list, she confirmed the abilities of the one who was highest on that list. I really didn’t need her confirmation, I just wanted to see what she was going to say with regard to the attorneys on the list.

(I ended up setting up a meeting with that defense attorney on Feburary 12th to feel him out and see if he might be able to assist or help me with the case. He was at least honest enough with me to confirm many of my suspicions about the legal system, but in the end he declined to take my case. He could see that I would likely pose a problem with any strategy he might suggest other than the objections I had already raised about the matter. At this point, I was just seeking out any clues from anyone in the legal community regarding how I might handle the matter, and he was very guarded in his responses to my questions.

(If this attorney, who was highly respected in the local legal community, after hearing my side of the matter was not willing to accept any offer I might make to assist me, then I figured it would be fruitless to waste any further time trying to seek out anyone else in that community to assist me. By this time, it became obvious that I was unlikely to obtain competent legal assistance, and that I was on my own in an arena of which I was at a disadvantage, because no professional was willing to assist me with the position I intended to take in this matter. Effectively, I was being denied competent legal counsel from the get go. In case you don’t know, denial of effective counsel is a due process violation of the Sixth Amendment right to have the assistance of counsel for one’s defense. More about that in the next installment.)

A few days (on March 26, 2018) before I was arrested for the second time, I received in the mail notice of a court filing by the county’s attorney entitled, “STATE’S RESPONSE AND MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION, CLAIM, AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF FILED BY AGENT/ADMINISTRATOR ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT.” This filing had been made with the court on March 23, 2018. My notification of this motion’s filing was three days after it was filed with the court, not allowing me the opportunity to respond to the county attorney’s motion before the court ruled on it on March 27th. Does that sound fair to you?

The court order denying and striking the Declaration, Claim, And Prayer For Relief document was dated, signed and filed in the court by the magistrate on March 27, 2018. A copy of that order was certified as having been mailed to the defendant on March 28, 2018. Allowing for the customary three days for delivery, that meant that I didn’t receive notice of the order until, at the earliest, March 31, 2018, two days AFTER the second arrest had taken place and eight days after the motion had been filed in court without my being able to timely respond to it by March 27th when the magistrate signed the order denying and striking the Declaration, Claim and Prayer document.

The reasoning for the motion to strike given by the county attorney was summarized in the opening paragraph, which reads:

The State of Arizona, through the Office of the Yuma County Attorney, respectfully moves this Court to deny the Declaration, Claim, and Prayer for Relief filed by Thomas Eliot, agent/administrator of the defendant Thomas Eliot Smith, and to strike the same on the ground that it was apparently authored by and filed neither by the defendant nor any competent counsel authorized to practice law in the State of Arizona. This response is supported by the attached memorandum of points and authorities.

Within the body of the attached memorandum it was alleged that “the defendant, Thomas Eliot Smith, signed a written promise to appear.” As mentioned in a previous installment, within their legal society, anyone who does not honor a written promise can be arrested and brought before the court on what is considered to be a process crime. I never had an opportunity to object to that allegation. As far as my study of law was concerned, it was my impression that anyone who conditionally signs a document cannot be held as having signed that document without that condition being recognized. The phrase “without prejudice” written above the given name autograph on the ticket was just such a condition. Be that as it may, the players involved, of course, refused to recognize or honor that conditional fact.

In reading back over the county attorney’s Motion To Strike, it occurred to me that the motion had the dual purpose of not only disqualifying the Declaration and Claim document I filed, but also to remove that document from the record. That’s what “striking” means. This way if the matter were ever appealed within the same court system (meaning that such an appeal would surely be destined to fail), the Declaration document would not be considered part of the record. In the “Argument” section of the Motion the last three sentences revealingly read: “Thomas Eliot presents himself not as the defendant, but as an ‘agent’ or ‘administrator’ acting on behalf of the defendant. Thomas Eliot has presented no attorney bar number or given any indication that he is authorized to practice law in the State of Arizona. If he is not the defendant or a ‘qualified member of the Bar,’ Thomas Eliot lacks authority to take action in this case and his filing should be struck from the record.”

Yet, while they may have been able to dispose of my document, it still doesn’t explain why the court exonerated the bond on the 16th of March if the court, eleven days later on the 27th of March, was inclined to agree with the county attorney’s motion. Perhaps it was because the county attorney (who was a different person from the one who wrote the motion to strike) who attended the private March 16th hearing that wasn’t recorded failed to object to the Declaration document that day in open court, thereby allowing it to be entered without objection. But if that were the case, allowing the county attorney to later, after the fact of having not objected timely to the document, to then later enter an objection, would that not be evidence of unfairness in the process? In addition to not allowing the defendant’s chosen representative to respond to the Motion to Strike, if that was even necessary AFTER the fact that the time to object had already passed?

These are all minute (mi-noot) details that readers need to be able to recognize and consider when reading this account. You are playing a very complicated game of chess when you enter a court like I did and attempt to get the court to dishonor itself during the process of its procedure. Talk about procedural crimes being commited and sanctioned by the court against the alleged defendant. There was no question by this time in my mind that all fairness had gone out of the proceedings being conducted against a presumed defendant.

As you are reading through this account, you must keep in mind that these courts are bound by their written rules of procedure, which are susceptible to change on a yearly basis. In other words, you cannot rely upon the rules of procedure staying the same from year to year within the state court system. What this means is that once the government discovers people using a successful process that effectively provides a remedy to circumvent the effect of the state’s legal process, the people in charge of the state court system change the rules of procedure so that process can no longer be used to successfully disqualify the state’s complaint in the same way in the future! If the rules are changing every year, how does an innocent party ever prevail against a moving target that is constantly moving to incapacitate or make ineffective your choice of remedy?

An example of how this can work is illustrated from my own experience. In October of 2009 I was pulled over by a highway patrolman who wanted to issue me a warning about passing his car on the side of the road and not moving over to the other lane as I did so. The officer was in his car when I passed him and so was not in any danger, and I did move over to the center line when I passed him but not into the other lane. Anyway, once stopped he noticed that the license tag was not current and then found out that I did not have a current driver license. So he issued a ticket, no valid driver license, no current registration.

This was the first opportunity that I had to test the “refusal for cause” process.  I returned by mail the ticket R4C’d back to the officer the next day and then entered as notice a photocopy of the R4C’d ticket along with the original certificate of mailing into the justice court. When I attended the court hearing, a whole bunch of other people involved in traffic issues showed up along with the issuing officers involved in those matters. At that time, apparently, the officers were required to be present at the hearing in order to personally press the charge. However, the officer involved in my traffic issue was a no-show, which was what I was expecting to occur. The officers during that time period were not prepared by the state’s legal department to explain to the court the reason they had not responded to the R4C. This gave the magistrate a perfect excuse for dismissing the ticket without having to publicly disclose the real reason for the dismissal, which is just what the magistrate did that day. Officer didn’t show up for the hearing, ticket case dismissed. I didn’t have to say a word.

Fast forward a few years later to July of 2012 when I was ticketed by a municipal policy enforcer for essentially the same thing. I followed the same procedure from the last time,  returning the R4C’d ticket back to the officer the next day. But when I went down to the municipal court to enter the photocopy of the R4C’d ticket along with the original certificate of mailing, the clerk at the desk would not accept it. She told me that the “judge” had instructed her to tell people that they needed personally to hand those papers directly to the judge at the hearing. During my ongoing research, I was aware of what this possibly meant. It meant that the magistrate wanted to have an opportunity to trick the “defendant” into losing personam jurisdiction over the matter by getting him to respond as the defendant.

This put me into a headspin because it brought into question what I could and could not say and how to conduct myself in the face of a verbal battle of wits with a trained professional. Despite all the suggestions I was coming across in my research for handling such a situation, the truth of the matter is: you are not going to win in any oral discussion with a trained professional hitman. The professional makes his living in being able to outmaneuver people’s verbal arguments. If nothing else is working, he is free to use fear and intimidation in order to obtain your submission.

By this time (just three years later) another thing had changed in their courtroom procedure. The officer responsible for writing the ticket was now not required to show up at the initial hearing in order to press the charge in person. When I attended the hearing for that matter, there were no enforcement officers present. People were no longer being allowed to face their accuser at a preliminary hearing! So, the rules of procedure for the court, in three years if not sooner, had changed in order to benefit the state in the prosecution of its administrative law procedure. The change in court rules of procedure meant that courts were paying attention to the way that people were obtaining remedy in frivolous matters, and they (the courts) were slowly closing the door on people’s use of those procedural remedies. Age old procedures of common law were being eroded right before our eyes by the administrative law state!

As a result of these occurrences, the question remains: How is one to properly defend one’s person if the rules of procedure can be changed on a whim by one’s opponent in order to benefit the opponent (in this case the state) at every turn? This sets up an unfair atmosphere which favors the state in the erosion of age old legal custom. In other words, a thumb is being unfairly applied to the scales of justice! Therefore what is being purported to be rock-solid and unchanging law itself is being exploited through prejudicial procedures in order to indulge an expedient and favorable outcome for the state. 

Yet on the positive side of changes in the rules of procedure, if something is not written down in the rules of procedure, then a court cannot break out of those binding procedures to establish a different policy (the unilateral amendment of a previously authorized procedure) without being accused of acting without authority! Or at least, that is the way I understand how these administrative courts work. There is quite a bit that I am learning through my research into the administrative court system in this country and how it is being run. I’ll have more to share with you regarding administrative law in a separate article in the future. Yet, for the time being, I want to keep things simple by not confusing readers with a whole list of adjacent facts I’m learning about so that I can keep the focus on a few key areas of relevant issues.

Now it is important to recall the reason given for the issuance of the arrest warrant that got me arrested at my home for the second time on March 29, 2018. Ostensibly it was because the defendant failed to appear for the hearing on March 16, 2018. However, the court’s very actions prove differently. Pause for a moment to consider the following details. Instead of forfeiting the $500 bond to the state for the non-appearance of the defendant which the court should have done if the defendant actually did not appear that day, the court exonerated that bond — presumably because somehow the defendant was able to appear in one sense (through paperwork entered that day stating such), and yet not in another sense (meaning physically or through counsel). Yet the fact remains that an appearance was made at the hearing by the alleged defendant. Would it then not be reasonable to assume that any subsequent claim of non-appearance was pure fiction and a lie?

And let’s not forget the fact that the defendant NAMED in the complaint could NEVER appear physically because that defendant was a fiction of law, a separate entity from a real man, a separate individual which did not and never could exist! Combine this with the fact that the only appointed representation for the defendant (the attorney appointed by the court) had withdrawn from the matter before that hearing took place. Therefore the fictional defendant made an appearance based on the written declaration entered on its behalf by the administrator for the estate of that individual. And what the court did not want to recognize, but which it was enticed to recognize through its actions (exoneration of the appearance bond), was the fact that the estate administrator did enter an appearance for the defendant at the appointed day and time.   

Looking strictly at the facts, if an appearance has been made and the court acknowledges it by exonerating the appearance bond, then an appearance has been made, period. For the court then to turn around and falsely claim that the defendant did not appear only to grant a bench warrant for failure to appear doesn’t make any rational sense! Does it to you? And yet that is exactly what occurred. In law such an occurrence appears to generally be a false statement or claim with the intent, in this instance, to issue an invalid or wrongful warrant.

But not only that, the record for the supposed hearing that day had been manipulated by the court! Do you recall from Part B of the last installment I wrote that at the beginning of the March 16th hearing, the bailiff had quietly asked the administrator for the defendant (myself) to please step out into the hallway and to wait for her to come retrieve him later. This followed the failed effort of the bailiff to get the administrator to admit to being the defendant. That whole exchange between the bailiff and the estate administrator is on the court video of the hearing that day. So, the court can now claim that as evidence that the defendant did not appear that day. Yet if the defendant did not appear that day, that still does not explain why the court exonerated the defendant’s bail that day, as is recorded on the docket for that day! I have an official copy (uncertified) of the docket for that case which I obtained from the court clerk’s computer system.

The question remains: how can the court do this and get away with it? Because it never recorded the whole set of cases that were heard that day. The recording that I paid for and received of that day did not have recorded on it approximately twenty-eight minutes or so of when the bailiff came out to retrieve the estate administrator (me) to bring him before the court for what turned out to be a private hearing, off the offical record (so it seems) and away from the public and out of sight. While there still may be footage of that private hearing in the court’s possession, I was not given that footage on the compact disc that was handed to me when I paid to receive a copy of the March 16, 2018 day’s hearing! And sadly, I have no impartial witness to back up my account of the fact that that private hearing took place.

It is obvious to me that the footage of the private hearing was purposely left off that recording. Why? Possibly because it might be damaging evidence of the court’s behavior. Yet, evidence of the court’s questionable behavior still exists from the fact that the appearance bond was exonerated. Had the Declaration, Complaint and Prayer for Relief document not been worded in the way it was, the court may have had reason to expropriate the bond and issue a new warrant for the defendant. But that is not what the record shows.

I was working at my computer doing research, when at approximately 9:40 AM Thursday March 29, 2018, a sheriff’s truck pulled up and parked in front of my next door neighbor’s property. As I was focused on working at the computer, I didn’t notice that the truck had pulled up, even though it was visible through my front window in the living room of the mobile home in which I live. There is gravel in the driveway to the property, and it was crunching on this gravel that alerted me to the fact that I had visitors. I looked out the window to see two sheriff’s deputies entering my property.

The mobile home sits above the ground and there is a deck leading to an arcadia door and to a door on a utility room off to the side that many people mistake for a front door. Uncertain about what to expect, I pulled the curtain on the arcadia door and pulled the door shut, locking it. At first I was going to play like there was no one home. But then I began to worry that someone might smash through the arcadia door to enter the home.

After having watched atrocious behavior by law enforcement be excused on national television news, it was difficult to imagine that reasonable behavior by these two goons was going to be observed. There was nowhere to run, not that I was contemplating running anywhere; there’s a back door, but they would have heard that had I attempted to exit it. As one might imagine, thoughts were furiously racing through my mind. So, rather than risk any damage to my home, I opened the arcadia door but left the screen door between me and the outside closed. I live alone, and so there was no one there to witness my side of what happened next.

At the time, I was not real clear about the circumstances under which a code enforcer can enter one’s home. I assumed they had to get me to step outside before they could acquire custody. But that’s not true if a warrant is involved. If there is no warrant, they are prohibited from entering your home uninvited. While not admitting to be the defendant they were seeking, when I asked to see the warrant, the deputy said he didn’t have it with him, but that he would get it later. Without being able to actually see the warrant (what I wanted to see was the affidavit of complaint signed by a complainant and the actual warrant issued with a magistrate’s signature) it was my understanding at the time that I was within my right not to step out of the home. The deputy says he’s got a warrant, but then refuses to hand it over to me. What would you think and what would you do? I’m thinking, no warrant means I have no obligation to believe anything they are alleging.

A conversation ensued during which the deputy tried to get me to step through the doorway, but I refused without the production of a warrant. Just saying that you have a warrant doesn’t mean you actually have one, until you can actually produce one. I made the mistake of opening the screen door so I could talk face to face, and that’s when the deputy moved in to block my ability to close the screen door. He didn’t rush in, but I was getting nowhere telling him that “I do not consent to your entering this home.” I had tried to close the screen door, but he was about fifty pounds heavier than I, stronger, and I couldn’t overpower the hold he had on the screen door. 

I turned away, not wanting to make an aggressive move that they could construe to be battery, and walked back over to the chair at the computer where I was working and sat down. The deputy moved through the doorway and sat, ready to pounce, at the end of a couch that was near the arcadia doorway. I stood up and told him, “I do not consent to your being here. Get out, now!” Knowing full well that both deputies would lie on the stand if this event were ever brought up at a trial. Without being able to see the alleged warrant, I thought I was within my right to protest to his entering my home without showing me proper cause. And I was not going to make any aggressive moves. If anyone was going to start a row (a squabble or brawl) it was going to have to be him. I was testing his patience. 

After telling him to get out, I sat back down at the computer and attempted to resume where I had left off. I was bound and determined to have the deputy be viewed as the aggressor in the matter. Within four seconds after I sat down, the deputy was over at the chair, with his hands underneath my arms trying to physically lift me out of the chair. I clung to the chair for as long as I was able until he lifted both myself and the chair into the air and slammed me down onto the carpet, toppling the chair over beside me. From that point on, of course, it would have been fruitless to resist, which I did not. He had my arms pinned behind me with his knee against my back and with his hand pushed my face into the carpet so that I was unable to look up and was barely able to speak. All this over a traffic ticket!

“Alright, alright, I give up. Let me up.” But the deputy wouldn’t let me up. After a moment, the other deputy entered the room and radioed for a supervisor, a large heavy-set deputy sergeant, who arrived about six minutes later. After the supervisor arrived and spoke to the two deputies, the one who had me down finally let me stand up. He immediately handcuffed me. I asked to have my reading glasses, which had flown into the air when I was picked up and slammed to the carpet, placed back on me, and they were. I was going to need those glasses once I got to the detention center. 

Luckily for me, the sergeant turned out to be more accommodating than the two deputies. When I asked him to put my computer into hibernation, he did so after I instructed him how to do it. I asked about bail; they said bail was $1500. I had to think fast. They allowed me to direct them to the bedroom where I had a safety deposit box from which I directed them to extract $1500 in cash. I hated having to do that, but there was simply no other way for me to make sure I had access to that money without disclosing its location to people whom I already didn’t trust.

One of the deputies, the one who had manhandled me, said I would need to provide an ID in order to have the cash bail accepted and processed by the court. Think for a minute about what that implies. (It implies providing a form of consent to their process, because they are prohibited from dealing with men and women who are not government employees or considered to be public officers with government issued IDs.) I asked about the homemade notarized picture ID that I had made and obtained in October of 2008 which I have been using when people ask me for ID. It has a state officer’s (notary public) signature on it certifying that everything on the document is true and correct “to the best of the best of his [the swearer’s]  knowledge.” So in that sense, that ID document IS certified by a government official. It just does not verify the affiant as being a government-connected entity (officer, official, or employee) in any way. And therein lies the rub and the reason for the coercion. They need you to identify yourself as a government entity.

That same deputy said that he didn’t think my homemade ID would be acceptable, and I asked why not. But he could not provide me with a reasonable answer. So rather than risk not being able to be released that day on the $1500 in cash that I was putting up for the alleged defendant, I was forced (and I emphasize the word forced) to use a government issued ID (my passport) which I have in order to be able to get affidavits notarized.

Now there are some who will say that because I backed down and provided the “evidence” that they required in order to process the bail that I consented to their process. And in one sense, they would be correct. These skeptics would point out that had I maintained my stance as a man and not backed down, that the authorities only had 48 or 72 hours in which they could hold me before they would have to let me go without charging me with a crime. But to that I say, bull pucky! I had already spent six straight days in jail in late December and the following January after not being properly identified — except by government computerized records, which is all the prima facie evidence they need in order to justify their actions — and I had no doubt that that same justification would be used against me again, despite my efforts to set the record straight, i.e., that I am not a government connected entity within their jurisdiction. 

So now you know a few other approaches that are unlikely to be acknowledged. No matter what evidence you produce to the contrary, their PRESUMPTION that you are under their jurisdiction will likely prevail and be used to justify their actions.
Stay tuned for the next installment. If you are keeping up with this account, — and now it seems that not many are, judging from the lack of response on my website from the few readers who clicked to read Part B of the last installment — you are not going to want to miss what comes next.  

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy

CLR; The Ordeal: Part Seven, The Undisclosed Trust Issue

Date: March 19, 2020

Note: I apologize to readers who have been looking forward to reading this next entry in the series The Ordeal for the delay in its publication. But I had no other choice than to take the time to carefully consider how best to tell this story. After receiving a deluge of comments following the last edition sent in October of last year and the time it took me to respond to those, and due to a series of distractions, interruptions, and additional research on my part, I was unable to complete this edition within the time period originally planned. There were technical aspects of the account that I was finding difficult to describe in concise terms, and therefore had to simply battle through until I could find a way to move forward.

Serious students of this account of The Ordeal I underwent are encouraged to spend the time to click on and read the links provided in this edition in order to benefit from a more complete understanding of the concepts and ideas discussed in this newsletter issue. As with many issues in law, this is not easy material to comprehend given the amount of mental elbow grease necessary in order to keep up with all the nuances to be found in the material.

After undergoing this first case in the trio of cases my [corporate] “person” had to respond to, one of the persistent questions in my mind was: How are they (the prosecutor and court) gaining personam jurisdiction in these matters beyond the simplistic explanation of being forced [threatened with incarceration] to show up in their court? There had to be a simple issue that could be brought up that would preclude their assumption of jurisdiction. But without enough knowledge regarding the real issues in question, it becomes a virtual crapshoot to figure out what presumption they’re using to justify gaining jurisdiction over your person.

But thanks to my persistence in researching and vetting this issue, there may be some light at the end of this tunnel wherein we are able to force the State’s hand to back off. See if you can find any clues in the following account. But be warned, it may take some effort on your part to uncover. 

Hello Friends,

The last installment in The Ordeal ended with my being taken into custody for a second time from my home using (what appeared to me to be) a trumped up excuse for doing so. And while I maintain that that was a false arrest, even by the state’s own standards, I’m sure the state actors have — with a rather large helping of sophistry to their argument which has little to do with the actual facts — a relatively sophisticated explanation (or justification) for having taken that action. The defendant, by the court’s own admission (i.e., the exoneration of the appearance bond at the March 16th 2018 hearing), definitely did not fail to appear at that previous hearing.

It may be that the person they were forcing to play the role of defendant in their apparently private hearing — which hearing was held after the public hearing and therefore out of sight and off the public record (it was left off the video recording I bought of that day’s hearing) — failed to consent to playing that role, and therefore a (false?) warrant was issued. But that is just speculation on my part in an effort to make some sense of what took place. If anything, from my understanding, it was the court’s own violation of law that was at issue. Falsifying a failure to appear warrant. Yet I am certain that the court doesn’t see it that way.

Or — was that a warrant issued by a private executive branch court acting in Admiralty law (as one explanation for these proceedings alleges) without disclosing that fact to the alleged accused? At one of the hearings, I questioned the court about the “nature and the cause of the action” which had not been disclosed to me, but the court refused to answer my inquiry. Anytime a public official fails to clarify a legitimate issue, isn’t that a breach of their duty as well as of trust in their authority to fairly and impartially preside over a matter of controversy? Think about that. That was certainly my understanding. How can that be fair? The answer: It is not. Yet it seems that they can get away with that in their court; but not, we are led to believe, in a valid court of record. The point of my asking the court about the nature and cause of the action and of objecting when I wasn’t provided with a satisfactory answer was to get that issue on the record for later review by a higher court.

(With regard to the court not answering my question about the nature and cause of the action, I have subsequently been reminded that when a party or an officer of the court works to conceal material evidence from another party, that this creates an estoppel. What I didn’t do at that hearing — because I didn’t think I needed to — was voice the fact that a concealment of information creates an estoppel, and try to end the matter at that point. Estoppel means a bar preventing one from making an allegation or a denial that contradicts what one has previously stated as the truth, either by words, silence or conduct. The fact that the court didn’t see fit to dismiss the matter right then and there sua sponte (meaning, “of it’s own accord” or “on it’s own motion,” describing an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party) once again demonstrates how dishonorable this court was. Although, in retrospect, I’m almost certain the court would not have acted honorably had I brought up that issue!

(By the way, it is interesting to note that the justice court magistrates seem to have and use discretion over when they use or don’t use the court seal on documents in order to add a semblance of authentication to documents. Each time I was released from custody, a court ORDER TO APPEAR AT THE LEGAL DEFENDERS OFFICE AND PAY ATTORNEY FEES was handed to me, each of which documents had a stamped signature of the magistrate along with a rubber stamp of the court seal. And when the court sent by mail a Notice To Appear at a status hearing or trial on a specified day and time, it too contained a rubber stamped magistrate signature and court seal. As an aside and for your information, the appointed lady attorney told me in one of our meetings that the rubber stamp of a magistrate’s signature is treated as though it were a wet ink signature and therefore was a binding signature on any document.

(Yet, when the March 16, 2018 ARREST WARRANT was issued, it contained an untitled — i.e., no Pro-Tem designation of the county “Justice Court” magistrate — signature of the person acting as a magistrate and without a rubber stamped court seal! It was almost as if to advertise (or sanitize) that this document was not an official public document of the county justice court. Then that begs the question: In whose court was it an official document? And yet to all the government officials involved — the court clerk, the sheriff’s deputy, the bailiff et al. — if asked, they would have said [perhaps ignorantly] that it was an official document of the justice court because that is what they had been conditioned to think. The thought that it may have originated from a private court acting under something other than public law would never have even crossed their minds.

(From the public’s perspective, the differences between a judicial court and an administrative law court seemed to be lost and dissolved into unrecognizability, if not into utter and complete ambiguity. Being forced to stand as an accused in one of these administrative courts, one has no idea what kind of court one is attending such that one might forumlate a proper answer, defense to any allegation, or denial of the court’s jurisdiction. Without such disclosure, one has no idea that they may wish to object to the proceedings based on that lack of disclosure of the nature and cause of the action. Again, a matter of the lack of fairness and due process in these courtrooms!)
At the time all this was happening, I was, admittedly, not complete clear about how all of this could be characterized as a matter involving two parties in a Trust relationship or what evidence needed to be produced to prove who the real parties in interest actually were and their legal relationship or obligation to one another. My research had taken me into an entirely obscure direction in an effort to discover a reasonable remedy that the court would be obliged to acknowledge. That direction involved a hidden fact that was being presumed in evidence without it being mentioned to either of the parties (most especially to the alleged defendant) which, if not timely denied or explained, would allow the court to assume personam jurisdiction over the physical party (the man or woman) presumed to be the defendant.

The direction that the information — which I had come across and was testing — was leading in had to do with the presumed fact that what was being dealt with regarding the matter were the parties of a constructive trust wherein the court could deal with fictitious entities (parties) purported to be corporate in nature. It was made clear to me, on more than one occasion, that the court could not hear men or women unless they were represented by counsel or they agreed to represent themselves as a legal fiction — i.e., pro se, essentially being forced (whether through ignorance or otherwise) to acquiesce to the court’s personam jurisdiction before having an opportunity to either knowingly affirm or deny the underlying foundation allowing the joinder [of the man or woman] to personam jurisdiction in a court where only corporate entities were heard.

It wasn’t until over a year and a half later (the latter part of 2019) that I began coming across a more credible explanation for the basis for the Trust issue information — incomplete as it was that I had come across in the past — and was testing and relying upon in the “Declaration, Complaint and Prayer for Relief” document that I had filed with the court in March of 2018. This take concerning the Trust issue had to do with what seemed to me to be a credible explanation of the law (purporting itself not to be a mere theory of the law) regarding the Social Security Administration (hereinafter SSA) trust initiated through the creation of a stylized NAME and number printed on a card issued by the SSA and managed by the party (usually a man or woman with a similar name) that lends consciousness and physical capacity to the cardholder entity, the cardholder entity being an agency of the U.S. government (meaning the Social Security Administration itself). Since most states ask for (or perhaps now, require) the divulging of a social security number on their driver license applications, this approach made some rational sense.

Although my understanding, at the time, of these relationships was not as fully formed as it is today with regard to what is explained here: Corp U.S. Myth 10, it was still close enough to perhaps gain some corroboration (no matter how errant it may have been on my part) regarding the real material issue in play which was being withheld by the court. That issue had to do with the person lending consciousness and physical capacity to the cardholder and subsequently unwittingly acting in the capacity of a General Partner with the Trust cardholder, the SSA. It took me a while to figure out what the author of this information had in mind because the way it was initially explained was never clear cut. Hints were provided to readers, but a clear cut example, which would have clarified things, was never supplied in a way that could be verified. At least not on the public side of this scource’s website. 

If readers want a better understanding of how this Trust relationship between the person lending consciousness and physical capacity to the CARDHOLDER NAME (similar to their own) possibly came about, they are highly encouraged to read the explanation given in the link above to Myth 10 from the Team Law website and come to their own conclusions. Otherwise, it may be difficult to understand the explanation of my experience that follows. (As of the present, I have not had an opportunity to test this specific approach out in court, therefore I cannot report to you the precise process to follow or how effective it might be.)

(At this point, as I have stated in the past, my testing of various theories found on the Internet was being done in an effort to discover just what these courts were obligated to acknowledge in terms of a remedy, which attorneys (and the courts) were loath to admit to people in an effort to maintain their power and control over the people. In other words, one is not going to find out what is effective if one cannot test it on the field of battle — i.e., in the courtroom. The courtroom is the crucible where the rubber meets the road. Everything else is just unproven theory. I was looking for an approach that would beat them at their own game, and having a difficult time finding and confirming that approach.

(In hindsight and in light of all the approaches I’ve looked at and considered up to the present moment, the approach that makes the most sense from the standpoint of first causes and the historical facts of the matter is the one found on the Team Law websites and forum. Granted, the explanation described in the “Contracts, Trusts & the Corporation Sole 101” article is a subtle and nuanced approach — that is, not one that everyone will readily be able to comprehend and work with — based upon a person’s understanding of how trust law works and how trusts are set up. Nevertheless it is an approach that has had success — if only in the recent past — when people finally figure out how to use the information effectively. Readers are encouraged to thoroughly read and comprehend the information given in Myth 22 in the link to the Patriot Mythology page and to NOT skip reading through the Prerequisite Knowledge links in that Myth’s explanation.

(Briefly and without going into too much detail, my understanding is that the entity listed on the Social Security card by NAME and a unique identification number is a distinct and separate legal entity — estate, if you will — from any man or woman who has a similar or the same name. The cardholder, and therefore owner of any property in that NAME, is the Social Secuity Administration, which acts as a government agency. The man — or woman — only  lends consciousness and physical capacity to the cardholder entity. In other words, there is no legal joinder between the NAME on the card and a man’s similar name, and therefore no personam jurisdiction can be claimed against the man, that is unless he acts as a General Partner of the estate trust. But one needs to be able to articulate this distinction in court in a way — according to what is called a Standard of Review — that the court will recognize and acknowledge, which was something I was unprepared to do at the time I was undergoing this Ordeal.)

Congruent with one form of the incomplete explanation of the trust issue being advanced on the Internet is that the true parties at issue are based upon a constructive trust. Unfortunately, I was relying upon that incomplete information (and explanation) at the time. That information made clear that whomever was designated as the trustee in the issue was the one obligated to settle the matter. A trustee is the trust participant who deals with making good on the obligations of a trust, which includes settling its incurred debts (in this case, a fine). That is why I designated my capacity in the paperwork I entered at the March 16th hearing as being the Administrator for the trust and not its trustee, which, according to the information I was relying upon, was represented as being the booby prize. Yet, because the information I was reading at the time was incomplete, it was still not clear in my mind how all this worked or how to explain it in court. But let’s back up here so that readers who are unfamiliar with how a trust works can get up to speed.

A trust has four main components: a grantor or settlor (also known as the trust creator or trustor), a beneficiary, a trustee, and the corpus or body of the trust — this latter meaning a specific property, some “thing” of value placed in trust by the trust creator for distribution to a beneficiary. Because the grantor (settlor or trustor) can sometimes act in the capacity of an administrator and be so designated, the term can sometimes become confusingly associated with that of an administrator for a deceased person’s estate in probate (as one of the explanations I was reading was proposing). (I’m sure that this confusion on my part must have played a part in my inability to communicate and explain this to the court.)

Information that I was reading at the time was telling me that these administrative courts were really acting as probate courts, and were administering the corporate estate of the PERSON listed on the birth certificate, which certificate itself was being used as the originating funding instrument (bond) used by the prosecutor that the prosecution was obliged to put up as an insurance indemnity for the legal proceeding. By that I mean, the prosecutor is supposed to put up a security bond to bond the case being brought to court just in case he injures someone in the public. This rule regarding an indemnity bond, I was led to believe, also applies to a quasi-criminal case in these commercial courts in order to indemnify against an unjust prosecution.

Where the information that I was reading and having to vet for accuracy fell down was in its assertion that the PERSON listed on the birth certificate (BC) was indicative of the original source (grantor) of the monetary funding credit that the government was receiving from its private lender in order to carry out the government’s business. In other words, the monetary credit that the government received was created on the back of the value derived from the Man’s ability to perform labor, which is a consideration of value and therefore fulfills one of the elements of a contract or a trust. The faulty assertion in the information continued by stating that since it was the Man’s labor (or value) that was being used in the loan of money to the government, it implied that the Man (in the instrument of the BC) was the original creditor in the transaction, and therefore was legally entitled to that position (i.e., Creditor) in the matter being administered before the court.

Effectively, whatever financial instrument (presumably the BC) was being held by the prosecutor as an indemnity bond for the matter must then be surrendered to the true Creditor in the matter and not maintained by the assumed creditor (i.e., the state). According to the faulty information I was relying upon, this is the reason that prosecutors were implored to bring their checkbook to court if they wanted to proceed with the matter once they were divested of the use of the instrument (BC) being used to draw an indemnity bond for the matter. In other words, if they had a firm conviction that the defendant in the matter was liable, they should themselves be willing to put up the indemnity bond out of their own pocket. Or so this Internet yarn went.

This all refers to a theory for remedy (whose veracity I was never able to fully confirm)  proposed on the Internet encompassing a concept and process spoken about primarily in the insurance industry known as “subrogation.” Although it can also be applicable in matters other than insurance. Subrogation refers to “the substitution of one thing for another, or of one person into the place of another with respect to right, claims, or securities.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition)

It “denotes the putting a third person who has paid a debt in the place of the creditor to whom he has paid it, so as that he may exercise against the debtor all the rights which the creditor, if unpaid, might have done. The equity by which a person who is secondarily liable for a debt, and has paid it, is put in the place of the creditor, so as to entitle to make use of all the securities and remedies possessed by the creditor, in order to enforce the right of exoneration as against the principal debtor, or of contribution against others who are liable in the same rank as himself.” Readers interested in fleshing out this theory can watch the following video at the link provided below in order to further their comprehension of it.
Stop A Court Case With One Question - Right to Subrogation
81,982 views  Time:  19:28
TJ  Published on Nov 17, 2017

The following is a direct quotation from one source of this information. It looks and feels so convincing based on the build up of the reasoning being used for its presumed truth that many, if not most, people will fail to further research this in order to verify its accuracy.

“What you are effectively saying here is that you are not going to be the surety to underwrite and become liable for the bonds created for the case, and stating you have the highest claim to any securities created in your [THAT] name, as all courts do.  You now own the case, and the bond, which the prosecution had to create in YOUR [THAT similar] NAME.”

While this all looks and sounds reasonable on the surface based upon the assumption of facts made in the information, the simple fact of the matter is that the information is faulty in its assumptions. And it is faulty for the following reason, if not more. You cannot assert that you are the Creditor in the matter because you did not create the presumed security instrument (the birth certificate itself, if it even is a valid security instrument, which one source that I came to accept suggests it is not) supposed to be used to create the indemnity bond. The state created that certificate and may assign, if anyone may, its beneficiary. As implied above, on further research, there is some question (a denial) as to its even being considered a financial instrument in the first place. So, when the actual facts are considered, the basis for the assertion is blown apart at its very inception. No need to go any further in disproving this theory regarding the errant use of the concept of subrogation as an instrument of remedy in a traffic code violation matter.

Without a complete understanding of what I was doing, I perhaps wrongly associated the designation of the term “administrator” (in the “Declaration” paperwork filed with the court) with the capacity of the grantor in a trust, who can also be termed to be an administrator for the trust, because they each essentially perform similar tasks. A trust administrator, like an administrator for an estate in probate, can appoint a trustee to handle the matters of the trust (or estate as the case may be). The court could easily deny the premise being argued (there being nothing entered into evidence proving such) that the matter involved an issue of probating the settlement of an estate, and would likely continue to assert that this was a traffic code violation and not a matter of probating the estate of a deceased. And if you don’t know how to rebut that assertion using a known legal angle, what is a person to do?

It is difficult for me to say if I erred in using that designation because I had no one I could trust (meaning legal counsel) to confirm for me truthfully about the correct circumstance and usage of the legal approach used. Attorneys certainly were not going to let the cat out of the bag — if my usage of the term was correct, therefore validating the theory that one can appoint the magistrate or prosecutor as trustee to settle the accounting (financial offsetting and discharge) of the matter and thus take control of the case itself — and by so doing empower the people to beat the courts as well as to close off a lucrative business market for the attorneys themselves. Such an outcome was never going to be in the cards.

Despite my own confusion in this, it doesn’t mean that the approach mentioned on the Team Law website might not have some merit, as it seems to me to be based upon a correct understanding of the law and the real parties in interest. It was just that, at the time, I was unaware of this approach and therefore unable correctly to assert it in court. Therefore, attentive readers may wish to look more deeply into understanding the Team Law approach as I continue to examine it and will be reporting back my findings at the appropriate time.

One of the things that readers should be noticing from this series of first hand accounts is that the conflicts of interest in these matters that exist for the various players (the judges, magistrates, prosecutors, court clerks, attorneys etc.) are so numerous that it would exclude anyone with a conscience from attempting to maintain their integrity in light of all the loopholes (legal constructions) they could use in order to justify their legal plunder of the public. In other words, no one with any true honor or integrity would allow themselves to be dragged into this gutter to become involved in such a moral and ethically questionable venture. And yet, this is exactly the present state of our courts today. 

I will have more to say on this subject in the next newsletter, along with what some might consider to be controversial explanations, when I return with a success story from one of my recent subscribers. He used, in court, some of the concepts explained above in this presentation to get the prosecutor in his matter to withdraw the charge and dismiss the case. While the confrontational method he used may not be for everyone, it will show readers the extent to which some of us are being forced to assert our rights in these court. It should prove to be a very educational and provocative story for most readers to digest. Stay tuned.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


Belligerent Claimant Claims Estoppel, Gets Case Dismissed

Date: June 22, 2020

Note:  This Special Edition of the newsletter is presented as a break between installments of The Ordeal series, whieh has currently been suspended for an indeterminate period, in order to bring to light an important recent development in the instance of one newsletter subscriber and how he successfully handled his battle against the harsh and unfair hand of local government. This Special Edition is intended to introduce a new article which has been posted on the website, under a title espousing the connection between concealment of a material fact and estoppel, and in addition, to tell the story that the subscriber related to me and how the case against him came to be dismissed. 

This is a long piece, and I make no apologies for it being a long read. However, because the subject matter required a thorough telling, there was little choice but to include as many details as necessary in recounting the story. Those who choose to spend the necessary time reading and thinking about this account will be amply rewarded.

Before simply accepting the legal premise upon which the subscriber presumed the dismissal of his matter, I wanted to understand its legal basis from the standpoint of statutory law and whether or not their courts would recognize it. And so I began to vigourously research it in order to verify certain facts about the premise as well as to ascertain the extent of its power to produce positive results in light of the current system of jurisprudence practiced in America today.

Please read this newsletter edition and the accompanying article carefully in order to appreciate what should have been the overriding concept which brought this subscriber a dismissal of the charge against his person. Unfortunately, my opinion about what caused the prosecutor to drop the case has changed after further review of the facts sent me by the subscriber, which included two recordings of proceedings that took place. I’ll explain my reasoning in a separate commentary for those who wish to know.

Hello Friends,

This may be one of the most important newsletter editions I have ever published on the subject of finding a remedy for a victimless traffic citation. This remedy, if it truly is one, should be able to be used not only on victimless traffic violation issues, but many other legal issues where the court simply assumes jurisdiction over the matter without establishing supporting facts on the record. Only time will tell whether this is a valid way to get the court to disqualify itself. But the initial evidence in the way of empirical experience suggests a much deeper meaning than the surface meaning to the concepts about to be explained.  

About three months ago (in February 2020) I was contacted by a new subscriber who wanted to ask me some questions about the research he had done and studied which, at least on the surface, sounded reasonable and as though it may be relevant to challenging the plaintiff’s assertion of jurisdiction on a speeding ticket. The subscriber was very confident and committed to the stance he was considering taking based upon his studies, and just wanted to know my opinion about it.

During the course of the Ordeal I underwent, I came across many different yet seemingly reasonable approaches for attempting to remedy a victimless traffic citation. I tested virtually all of them during my Ordeal in court, and so I had a background of experience from which to draw. The approach this subscriber became enamored of was based upon some information he found in videos he had viewed and studied by an Australian named Romley Stewart.

Well, I was familiar with Romley Stewart and most of the information in his videos, and had tried out one of the arguments in his approach on the prosecutor in one of my cases in a private meeting, only to have the prosecutor poo-poo it as preposterous and irrelevant. In retrospect, I may have presented it to him wrong or given up on its use too early. Which is to say I’m not certain whether having a physical copy of the Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition with me at the time may have been enough of an authority to sway the prosecutor from wanting to address and rebut that issue in court.

The following information is attributed to its assertion in the Chicago Manual of Style. If you wish to verify this information, it can be found in that book or you can watch the Romley Stewart videos where the book’s pages are openly displayed for all to see! Search for “the GLOSSA channel” and the “Justinian Deception” channel on YouTube to find Stewart’s treatment of this concept. Following are links to six of the many videos posted by Romley Stewart on this subject along with a few relevant quotes from the material. In fairness, many of these videos evidence an early comprehension in Romley’s understanding of the law and material covered, therefore some of his impressions about it are rather roughly formed. I have not tried to correct everything he asserts, but only to clarify certain points he makes. Note: the double bracketed text is my additional explanatory clarification of the material.
ROMLEY STEWART - Is the ATO a legal entity 1/3 - Interview 12 (Day 3, Part 2)
Oct 30, 2015  the GLOSSA channel  Time: 11:48

At the 6:00 minute mark of the video, Romley states the following:
[[talking about the ATO (Australian Tax Office)]] If you ask them who and what they are, well they have the right and ability to just say, No it’s alright. We don’t want to tell you. But the minute they refuse to tell you who they are, that creates, in legal terms, the estoppel. Which means that they don’t have to deal with you. You don’t have to deal with them. But they don’t have to deal with you either.
ROMLEY STEWART - the discovery of the GLOSSA by Rohan Lorian - Interview 16 (Day 3, Part 7) the GLOSSA channel  Published on Dec 8, 2015  Time:11:41

At the 7:35 minute mark of the video, Romley states the following: 
@ 7:35  A corporation has no ship. When you want to have any sort of form of comeback or to sue for damages, you can take the ship of a ship. But a corporation, because there’s no ship, then you can take the assets of each man that has agreed to become a part of that corporation. It is his assets that is the ship.

@ 8:05  So when the police officer creates a charge against you, and he doesn’t identify himself, then he actually incites the, um, where there’s no subject matter the charge is void. So if he doesn’t give you the identification of who he really is, by giving you his birth certificate identification, his name, his date of birth, and his serving address ... and if he refuses to do that, then it becomes a concealment. And a concealment, by law, is an estoppel. That means that that police officer, from the point that he refuses to identify himself by removing his NAME, by removing any form of identification, then it’s up to him, the minute he carries on, if he’s been asked to provide his personal information, if he carries on then he’s the one that’s violating the trust.

@ 9:00  [interviewer] So the risk that they’re taking is that they have wised up to the fact that they are personally liable and accountable and they’re trying to escape that accountability. And they do that by failing to identify themselves, so all you can say is, Well I was stopped by someone. Who was it, which officer? I don’t know.
ROMLEY STEWART - Interview - Part Two (Day 1, Part 2)
Dec 8, 2015  the GLOSSA channel  Time: 11:48

@ 8:30  Because it’s a corporation, they’ve got to give full disclosure. But the court couldn’t give full disclosure. Because I asked, well what is the language? Rather than coming out and explaining oh that’s another language we use in the court to trick you guys cause you don’t know how to read. And instead of saying that, they just run away. Which is called a concealment. Or silence. And what that does is it creates a thing called an estoppel. Which means that everything comes to an end. Or the court or the one charging, has to pay the damage fees.

@ 9:08  But at that point I didn’t know that it was an estoppel. When a court comes to an estoppel, or can’t carry on any further. It’s got to then pay the damages. And I’m supposed to hand him the damage bill. Which didn’t happen. Since then, thanks to Rohan, we’ve come to find what this is. And it’s section 11.147 It clearly states that glosses in ASL (American Sign Language) “the written language description of a sign” is of a sign which is a symbol is called a gloss. Glosses are words from the spoken language written in small capital letters [[or in regular capital letters]].  ... And straight after this in brackets it says: “Alternatively regular capital letters may be used.” And I went, “Well, there it is.”

@ 10:30 That means that somehow or other, they’re using American Sign Language on articles and on court documents. ... On anything that’s very important that could incriminate them, they’ve written it in a foreign language!

@ 11:00  Then it goes on to say in section 11147 three lines here: “One obvioius limitation of the use of glosses from the spoken written language to represent signs is that there is no one to one correspondence between the words or signs in any two languages.” So that means ... [[a concealment of the true nature of the communication is taking place which, because of misrepresentation, creates an estoppel]]
Justinian Deception  Published on Aug 16, 2017  Time: 23:06
Justinian Deception  Published on Apr 26, 2018  Time: 32:12
Justinian Deception  Published on Jul 11, 2017  Time: 15:15

(The Chicago Manual of Style is seen by many — including presumably government courts — as an authority on the use of the English language in written form, and therefore would need to be rebutted by a higher authority regarding its definition of a language foreign to English when words appear in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in a legal document. That foreign language would be either a derivation of ancient Latin known as DOG-LATIN with each word separated by a hyphen if it were to be recognized as a word in English, or as an example of American Sign Language which is symbolic in form, or as what is known as a wordmark or trademark, the latter of which can be registered as copyrighted text.

(The unauthorized use of a trademark — which can be made up of two or more words — can be prosecuted as protected intellectual property. In the United States, the term “wordmark” may refer not only to the graphical representation, but the text itself may be a type of trademark. In most cases, wordmarks cannot be copyrighted, as they do not reach the threshold of originality. But a trademark, like IBM or 3M or STATE OF ARIZONA or THOMAS ELIOT SMITH, can be registered in order to protect its commercial usage. Knowledge of this information is key to the subscriber’s point of inquiry when pressing his point before the prosecutor and judge. So pay close attention!  See one source:

(The description of what follows in terms of the information provided by Romley Stewart is one of the approaches I have intended to write about in The Ordeal series. But I haven’t gotten to that part of that story yet. So, readers will be introduced to it a bit earlier than I had originally planned. And hopefully for good reason!)

For readers who are not familiar with the approach described in Romley Stewart’s YouTube videos, he focuses on the unusual “style” that is made of the NAME written in all capital letters in the State’s documentation. He asserts that writing in that style can be confusing because it is based upon a foregn language (that is, either a variant of ancient Latin known as Dog-Latin or a more recent form known as American Sign Language; see the Chicago Manual of Style 16th or later edition for authority, page 666) and the style of that language’s written form. He presents a very convincing theory that a man (or woman’s) proper name in English is not supposed to be “styled” in all capital letters unless such styling is being used to confuse or fraudulently represent a material fact to an unsuspecting alleged defendant (or victim).

When two or more languages are being used in court documents, that is definitely an action that is prohibited. When this issue is brought up, it can disqualify the document as faulty from the beginning. Not only is it unethical and unfair, but it raises the question of fraud. Any document written in more than one language, especially when the second language attempts to identify one of the parties, is suspect and should immediately invalidate the purpose of the document. For reasonable comprehension’s sake, only one language (representing one jurisdiction) is allowed to be used in legal documentation. This is a very serious point, and one, among others, that this subscriber was willing to stake his claim on.

The only difference between what I had learned from the Stewart videos and what the subscriber had seen and learned, was that he incorporated an additional element into his approach. This element was not immediately apparent from the Stewart videos that I had viewed, and so I was intrigued to learn more and to find out the legal reasoning underlying why this approach may be important. By that I mean, I couldn’t readily identify any legal significance to the approach he used which may have caused the prosecutor (and hence, the court) to slow down and reconsider moving forward in the matter. In other words, why would an officer be afraid of simply identifying himself with state issued documentation?

Very briefly, the concept of estoppel is a judicial device in common law and case law legal systems whereby a person is barred (or estopped) in a legal proceeding from making allegations or denials which are contrary to either a previous statement or act by that person. In other words, an estoppel may prevent someone from bringing forth a particular claim or complaint. An example of this might be if a second party was served Notice (given a legal warning) by a first party in the form of an affidavit of truth, and the second party was given an opportunity to rebut the affidavit point-by-point but failed to do so within a specified time frame, then the second party is estopped from making any claims that might reference the specific material issues in the affidavit, which in turn may affect the validity of the complaint.

In other words, the second party had its opportunity to bring forward evidence that might rebut the claims in the affidavit, proving them wrong, but did not do so in a timely fashion and therefore was estopped from making any immediate legal claim regarding those issues. Such an estoppel is known as “estoppel by silence or acquiescence” or estoppel by conduct. This form of estoppel prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and the silence (or inaction) put another person at a disadvantage. Of course, it also may be the case that the second party didn’t have any evidence to begin with to rebut the claims made in the affidavit, thereby making that party’s initiating claim or complaint totally spurious and unable legally to move forward.

This new subscriber, whom I’ll call Carlos, made mention in his initial email to me that he had been studying information about the legality of the state to pursue violations of the Motor Vehicle Code for the past six to eight years, and that the incident (issuance of a citation) that initiated his correspondence asking for my opinion had only recently occurred. Truth be told, not many (in fact virtually less than one percent) of the people who contact me have researched these legal issues ahead of the time in which they might consider using that information. That puts them at a distinct disadvantage when the time comes, as surely it will, when they will need to know and use such information. So I was more than happy to oblige his request, and at the same time to gather more feedback from the front lines of people who, like me, were willing to fight back against the legalize extortion of the people by the state.

Carlos began by giving me a few of the facts surrounding the issuance of the citation. Most inquiries like this don’t even mention many facts if any at all, so I was already impressed with his grasp of the idea that one must keep the detailed facts of what happened and how it happened in mind at all times. He wrote: “I encountered an ‘officer’ who created a document based on my providing him a ‘license and registration’.”

Of course, the document he was referring to was the citation itself. What he may not have known at the time was to preface his handing over of the DL with the statement: “This is for competence only, and not for identification.” And while that disclaimer may have helped him to overcome the “officer’s” bias and thereby gotten him only a warning. However, in today’s charged political climate, and based upon feedback I’ve been receving, it is more likely the policy enforcer would likely have ignored that disclaimer and proceed forward based on what he was being told to do in such circumstances. In other words, the system was telling him to ignore and therefore break the law (by not acknowledging a valid disclaimer) in order to obtain the dispensing of a[n invalid] citation. For those of you who haven’t realized it yet, this is the level that the legal system in America has sunk to!

Carlos then went on to provide me with more details regarding the facts of the incident. He said before the officer himself signed the citation (on Carlos’ behalf; Carlos never personally signed it!) and threw it into his car, he had asked to see the officer’s driver license. The officer did not respond to his request, so he asked the officer if his non-response was his estoppel by conduct. Again, the officer did not respond. Carlos then explained to the officer that he (the officer) had given Carlos tacit consent of his estoppel by conduct, that is, by his engaging in a concealment through not properly providing his own identification.

When you ask an officer for his identification, they should be forthcoming and provide it in order to provide evidence of their employer and himself as an agent of that employer. Yet this officer was not forthcoming and therefore was engaging in a concealment. Carlos knew from his studies that a concealment creates an immediate estoppel. And while that may be true out by the roadside when faced with someone who was unfairly dishonoring their oath of office, the question remained, how was Carlos going to get this evidence into the record of the matter before the court!

Carlos provided even more details of the facts surrounding the incident. He pointed out that the citation the officer threw into his car was signed as the “DEFENDANT” by the officer. The officer had placed his mark on the line labelled “DEFENDANT X _________,” and the mark he made on the line was “REFUSED.” So, Carlos had not signed a promise to appear. But would that fact be acknowledged by the court? Who knows! But likely (according to my experience) it would not!

Carlos wanted to know what my view of the significance was of an officer making his mark / signature on the line marked “DEFENDANT” on the citation, suggesting that it was a summons. Well, it’s quite obvious that the mark or signature of the officer on the citation is not a valid signature of consent made by a self-confessed or consenting alleged “defendant.” Yet, for whatever reason, the officer didn’t want to confront the situation any longer, and simply left the scene after throwing the citation into Carlos’ car. So far, I couldn’t discern anything that Carlos had done wrong. And yet every dishonor that was on the record belonged to the officer and not Carlos.

Carlos further explained his reasoning writing that although he had studied many approaches to the “game of court,” his first inclination was to look at the accusing document itself that was being used to bring the action to court. He wrote: “The ALL-CAPS text on their documents is not English, or any other recognizable language for that matter. If the all caps text being used by these highway criminals is some sort of sign or cipher, then they must show what the definition of the text is? To my knowledge, ALL-CAPS is an illustrative text, or art, artifice. English is not an illustrative text, period, full stop. Prove jurisdiction, yeah?”

At the arraignment hearing, Carlos kept pressing the same issues. He wrote (and pay careful attention to how he handled this):

“When I was at the court, a man who suggested he was the ‘District Attorney’ stated his name to me. I asked him if his identification was fact. He said yes. I then asked him to provide me with his State driver’s license, and he said he would not.  He engaged in a concealment, then attempted to make a written offer to me. i asked him what language the ALL-CAPS writing on the document was.  He said ‘i am not going to go there with you!’.”

“Then I was at the courtroom speaking with a man in a black robe. I asked if it was a court of record, he said ‘yes’. I stated on the record that i was challenging jurisdiction. I will be following up with documents during my next special appearance. I asked the man in the black robe what jurisdiction the court was operating under. He said he would not answer me. I then asked him what his name was, he responded ‘you can read it, its right there’, referring to a name tag sign on the bench with an ALL-CAPS [picture] of a name. I asked him again to state his name, he refused. I then asked for his State drivers license, he again refused.  He engaged in a concealment as well, which creates estoppel.  In common language, he put a cork in it by his conduct.”

If this court appearance was being recorded by an audio-visual system as it likely was, Carlos got all of these facts on the record. Now this court, should it attempt to go forward with the matter, will be faced with a challenge of any outcome it arrives at based on the fact that jurisdiction was never established on the record when it was questioned. 

Carlos then made the following observation: “Being that these ‘traffic courts’ are administrative and not judicial, I believe that title 18 of the U.S.C. §1001 applies. This is the false conveyance of language...”

Now, if you’re like me and you’re not exactly familiar with how Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 reads, you will look it up. And here is where the confusion can begin to set in if you aren’t careful in reading. At the Title subsection (a) it states the following:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Fine so far. But then at subsection (b) it states the following:

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

This subsection (b) would, on its face, seem to invalidate the accusation of a concealment  (i.e. allow the falsifications and concealments to stand in a traffic citation that is viewed to be criminal in nature and therefore presumably held in a judicial proceeding). Except that traffic violations are generally viewed as being civil and not criminal. The court is an administrative commercial court that deals only with legal fictions. Therefore, while a judge may say that you are in court on a criminal matter (presumably under some contractual obligation), it is a criminal matter being heard in an administrative court and not a judicial court!

And then reading subsection (c) this clarifies the exception to subsection (b).  

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch;

This is why Carlos mentioned that “being that these traffic courts are administrative and not judicial, I believe that Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 applies. This is the false conveyance of language...” And I think he is correct.

At what was supposed to be the arraignment hearing, Carlos began asking questions from the get go. The city prosecutor met with Carlos prior to the hearing to see if Carlos would accept a plea bargain. Speaking with the prosecutor outside the courtroom, Carlos asked: “Is this a criminal matter or a civil matter?” The prosecutor answered: “This is a traffic matter.” Immediately, Carlos asked again: “A criminal matter or a civil matter?” The prosecutor: “Traffic.” Immediately, Carlos asked one more time: “Criminal or civil?” The prosecutor: “Traffic.”

Carlos was using an old common law trick, however without a witness, it was off the record. When you ask a question three times in succession and your opponent fails to provide a meaningful response to it three times in succession, a concealment has taken place. Once a concealment takes place, an estoppel has become established. But will these courts honor such an estopple? In many, if not most, cases these days, they will not even acknowledge that such a thing has taken place. What does that tell you about the integrity of this justice system?

Failing to get an answer from the prosecutor, Carlos then tried another tact. “What jurisdiction is this court operating under?” The prosecutor did not answer; he was hand-writing up an offer for Carlos to look over. Once the offer was written up, Carlos asked: “I’d like to know what language this is?” Apparently, the offer was written partially in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. The prosecutor said coyly: “I’m not going to go there.” Carlos replied: “You’re not going to go there? What do you mean, you’re not going to go there? You’re not going to answer the question?” The prosecutor said, “. . . you know what this is.”

Carlos immediately stated: “I don’t know what language this is. From what I know English is not written in all caps, sir.” The prosecutor came back: “It can be.” Carlos snapped: “No it cannot. Never.” The prosecutor shot back: “Really” Carlos persisted: “I’ll bring you in a book...if you want proof. Do you have any reference to what you’re saying here? Where can I find the closure for this document?” The prosecutor was becoming impatient: “Do you want to accept the disposition or not?” Carlos again replied: “I’m trying to find out whats written here. I don’t know what’s written here. And I don’t know who you are.” The prosecutor was now beyond his patience; he tore up the offer saying: “What you’re going to do is you’re going to go up in front of the judge. There’s no deal. And take care of it.”

Carlos immediately came back and said: “You have to prove some jurisdiction, buddy. You work under Admiralty jurisdiction or common law. Is this common law jurisidiction?” The prosecutor responed: “I’m not answering any questions.” Carlos replied: “Oh. Really? What’s your name? What’s your name again, sir?” The prosecutor: “I’m not telling you.” After a subsequent brief exchange, Carlos asked: “Can I see your ID, then?” Prosecutor: “No.” Carlos said: “You’re withholding material facts, sir. You want to contract with me. Why don’t you identify yourself. Where’s the instrument that you’re using to bring forth what you claim to be charges? Can I see the instrument you’re claiming brings charges?”

The prosecutor responded: “You were served with it.” Carlos then stated: “No I wasn’t. I wasn’t served with anything.” The prosecutor now exasperated said: “We’ll let the court deal with this.” Carlos persisted: "What court?" The prosecutor said: “The one that you’re here. Now obviously you know the English language...” Carlos replied again: “You don’t know the English language. You’re trying to pass off false documents, sir. That’s not English. That you have on that paper there. You know it. You don’t write English in all caps.”

From there, they entered the courtroom. The prosecutor announced: “Your honor, this is Carl Ruiz...” Carlos interrupted saying: “No, my name is not Carl.” Carlos then asked the prosecutor: “Sir, what is your name?” The prosecutor, still talking said, “And we are unable to reach a plea bargain disposition.” Turning his attention to the judge, Carlos asked: “What is your name? I challenge jurisdiction. Is this a court of record, sir? What is your name?”

The judge stated: “My name’s right there, sir.” [pointing at the NAME plate in front of the bench] Unphased Carlos asked again: “I asked you what you’re name is...” The judge: “You know what, you don’t ask the questions...” Carlos respectully shot back: “I have questions always, sir. Always. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives me the right to ask questions. I need to be able to defend myself here. Correct?” The judge: “You can do whatever you want, sir. As long as you don’t disrespect my court.” Carlos replied: “I don’t intend on disrespecting...” The judge retored: “Well, you already have...”

Carlos persisted: “No, I’m asking who you are.” The judge replied: “I’m not going to answer your questions.” Carlos persisted: “Is this a court of record, sir. What sort of matter is this? Is this criminal, is this a criminal matter? Or a civil matter?” The judge then stated: “It’s a criminal matter.” Finally getting an answer, Carlos inquired: “Okay. Under what jurisdiction are you operating?” The judge again became contentious: “I’m not going to answer your questions...” Carlos persisted: “There’s only two jurisdictions allowed in  criminal matters, sir. That’s Admiralty and common law. Which jurisdiction are you operating under?” The judge shot back: “What law school did you go to?” Carlos, unphased, said: “It doesn’t matter. What I’m asking you...” The judge, agitated, said: “Stop.”

The exchange went on back and forth between the judge and Carlos with each not giving an inch, when finally Carlos asked: “Are you refusing to identify the jurisdiction which this court is operating under?” And the judge answered: “Columbus Valley Municipal Court, sir.” Carlos asked: “What’s that?” The judge repreated his response, to which Carlos clarified: “No, I said the jurisdiction. You say this is a criminal matter. Under which jurisdiction. There are only two jurisdictions that are authorized by the United States Constitution. That’s an Admiralty jurisdiction and a common law jurisdiction.” The judge responded: “According to you.” And Carlos retorted: “Okay. So you’re engaging in a concealment because you will not identify yourself. Which creates estoppel, sir.”

The judge continued not to identify himself whenever Carlos asked for his Driver License or other identification. When the judge asked if Carlos had received the summons, Carlos stated, “What summons, sir? I don’t see anything written on that document. That’s a document that does not have English written on it, sir. I’d like to have closure on the words in this document.” 

At this the judge attempted to establish a fact: “Let the record reflect that the defendant refused to accept...” But Carlos jumped in and stated: “No, let the record reflect that the judge will not identify the jurisdiction which this court is operating under. He will not show his ID. He will not identify himself. Ah, someone in a badge and uniform brought a paper here with with a language that is not English written on it.” The judge: “Okay.” Carlos: “I don’t know what this is. I don’t understand these charges.” The judge then looked over to a court officer and said: “Will you escort Mr. Ruiz out.” The judge then scheduled a trial date, saying “See you on February twenthieth.”

By the time Carlos was back in court several days later for a hearing, there was a different judge than the one at the arraignment hearing and a different prosecutor. They do this to confuse people, because now, if you know what you’re doing, you have to establish your facts all over again with the new “actors.” Ask them the same questions and get them to create an estoppel by conduct again on the record. If you don’t do that, they will walk all over you, and you’ll wonder what just hit you.

Once the original state actors have left the stage, a new offer is on the table, so to speak, with new players, and you have to re-establish the facts from your side of the matter that you established with the previous state actors. Otherwise you cannot just assmue these facts are established on the record of the matter being presently heard just because you established them before with the other state actors! When they switch players on you, the game begins anew as though nothing before had been said. You can’t assume anything with these courts, but they can (and do with impunity) assume all sorts of unproven-
on-the-record so-called “facts” about you! And they get away with that if you don’t rebut their assumptions at the earliest opportunity!

At the subsequent hearing on February Twentieth, as Carlos entered the empty courtroom, empty except for the witness that accompanied him, the judge was apparently waiting just for him. The judge piped up and said, “Good evening. I’ll assume this is Mr. Ruiz.” Carlos immediately asked, “What’s your name?” The judge answered, “My name is Jim Dale.” Carlos inquired: “Okay. Who are you?” The judge said: “I will be your municipal court judge.” Carlos retorted: “I don’t have a municipal court judge.” The judge continued, “And it’s my understanding that this case is set for trial.” Carlos reponded, “Ah, I’m not, I’m not aware of the matter of this case.” The judge continued, “So I’m going to refer this case to the prosecutor...” Carlos interjected, “I don’t know anything about this case.”

At this point the prosecuting attorney chimed in, “Your honor..." Carlos then asked again, “Is there a case?” It was at this point that the prosecutor made an unexpected request. He said, “Your honor, on behalf of the town of Columbus Valley I’m going to move to dismiss this case without prejudice.” The judge asked the prosecutor for the rule under which he was making the motion, “Is that 248?” The prosecutor queried, “Two Forty Eight is ah, speedy trial. I think.” The judge replied, “No, that’s dismissal. 248(a). What’s the grounds for seeking a dismissal?” The prosecutor answered, “Ah, it’s, it’s, we believe it’s the best interest of Columbus Valley that the case be dismissed without prejudice, your honor.”

The judge without any hesitation then said, “Okay. Now I’m going to go ahead. I’m going to dismiss the case without prejudice.” The prosecutor said, “Okay.” Turning to Carlos, the judge said, “Mr. Ruiz, there’s paperwork if you can pick it up at the clerk’s office. We’d appreciate it.” Carlos replied, referring only to the dismissal, “Thank you, sir.” The judge finished by saying, “Thank you for stopping by.”

At this point in the process, Carlos had no intention of stopping by the clerk’s office for any so-called “paperwork.” He knew it was bait to see if he would bite, that is recognize the NAME of the party on the paperwork. He knew better than to fall for that trick. When Carlos walked out of the courtroom and back into the adjoining hallway, the policy enforcer who issued the original citation tried to serve him with a “summons.”

The officer handed Carlos the summons, and Carlos asked, “What is this.” The officer replied that it was a summons. Carlos then asked the officer, “Who are you? Can I see your driver’s license?” The officer refused to respond. If someone (like a purported state employee) wants to do business with you in your legal capacity they must provide their state identification if you ask for it. Their identity is a material fact if they wish to contract with you in the capcity of your legal person. Otherwise it is a concealment which creates estoppel. 

Carlos threw the summons on the counter and said, “That is yours, not mine.” Then he left the courthouse. He refused to recognize their faulty paperwork. That was the last card the State had in their hand to play, and it failed. Carlos walked out of the courthouse a free man. 
It is interesting to note that throughout the whole process — from the traffic stop by the side of the road to the attempted intimidation by the judge and prosecutor in the courtroom — Carlos never identified himself with the ALL CAPS name, and he never entered any paperwork into the court. Those are two important points that every reader should take away from Carlos’s experience. This is what it takes to become a belligerent claimant. These administrative traffic courts will rarely give an inch. They want to steal your money, legally that is, by tricking you into incriminating yourself. That’s the game they’re playing! And they’re very good at it!

If you truly wish to learn from Carlos’s experience, you should go back over this newsletter slowly and carefully, thinking critically and realistically about every idea and concept that is being brought up. Take the time to view the Romley Stewart videos linked to in order to grasp the concepts disclosed in them, and take them seriously. While attempting to use this approach may not be for everyone, learning about the concepts of law brought out in this experience is basically indispensable and priceless! If you don’t know how lawfully to hold your oppressor accountable, you are at his mercy and basically defenseless!

For additional information about the concept of concealment of material facts and how it can relate to an estoppel of legal process, please read the following new article — Concealment Of Material Facts Triggers Estoppel — which expands and explains this concept in more depth.

I did a follow-up debriefing correspondence with Carlos afterwards, and the points he brought up regarding how he handled himself were very insightful. It also provided me with an opportunity to correct some of his misunderstandings based upon my experience and research. I will be writing a separate commentary about this debriefing which will be available only to those who are seriously studying these matters and who write to me asking for it.

The commentary will explain my revised take on what happened in Carlos’s case, and why I see it that way. Initially it seemed to me that the threat of estoppel by concealment might have been the deciding factor leading the prosecutor to ask for a dismissal. I thought it might be the kryptonite we have been looking for that might have discouraged the court from proceding any further. However, after listening more closely to the audio recordings of what happened in the courtroom and reading Carlos’s explanation of what he did, I no longer fully hold that view.

That commentary will be well worth people’s reading and consideration. So if you’re interested, please send an email to me with the phrase “Send me the debriefing commentary” in the subject line, and when I’ve finished it, I will send it to you.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


This Information Might Save You Some Suffering

Date: December 20, 2020

Hello Friends,

I’m going to deviate today from writing about the traffic issue, and touch on something that threatens to touch each of our lives. No matter whether you are young or old, prosperous or poor, a man or a woman, at some point, ignorance of social indoctrination has to be replaced by empirical observation of the truth through an enlightened mind guided by experience and observable facts. And not by deceptive authorities who would use ambiguous or faulty science and an accommodating news media to spread their view (or as they term it, their “narrative”) of reality and thus to extend their questionable agenda.

Before I begin, I just want to say that I’ve done my due diligence investigation of this topic, and have come across a remarkable group of people, scientists and researchers alike, who have been willing, like some of us, to stick their necks out in order to inform the people (not the “public,” which term refers to the artificial “dead” corporate entity with which government is authorized to deal) about a serious matter. Some of these people you may recognize, while others of them perhaps not. But what they all bring to the table is a rare knowledge (rare in the sense that they are telling the truth in an atmosphere of lies and deceit) about the subject they are discussing in an effort to inform other people about this serious matter. And with your empirical observation in play, it should become clear to you that they are likely more honest in speaking the objective truth about this subject than others in government and the private sector who have an inbuilt conflict of interest.

[As an aside, whenever you hear a government official speak about the “public” (as in “public safety”) what he or she is generally referring to is a “thing” (as in the legal term “in rem,” which means “in the thing itself,” usually referencing a two dimensional rem or thing — like an automobile or some other property — which is represented on paper but which has no association in law to real living people). The term “public” as it is used by government officials simply implies a reference to a two dimensional “thing” that can be controlled (made subject to) the man-made rules of “law” by the two dimensional incorporated government official. You see, your ALL CAPITALIZED NAME is a “thing” to these government officials that they use to subject people to their dictates. And when you recognize that “thing” as belonging to you, it provides government officials with authority over “it” or anyone associated with “it.” Something that they can order around because “it” has no intrinsic rights. It’s just a thing as far as their “law” is concerned. Just some food for thought and personal investigation. Now, enough of the legal vocabulary lesson.] 

How I came across this information was quite by serendipity. Recently, I’ve been having to deal with a prostate health issue possibly relating to cancer. No medical diagnosis has been made yet, but preliminary observation suggests some sort of possible tumor or enlargement. Anyway, I began researching everything I could find that promised to be valid information on this subject. In the process, I came upon a documentary by a man who I knew to be of good reputation and a quality researcher. He had put out a docu-series called “The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest.”

It turned out the link I clicked on took me to this page . . .

. . .  which in turn I entered my email info and signed-up to allow me to see the documentary (all nine episodes) in its entirety. When I clicked on the link in a subsequent email, it took me to a page that had the sixth episode in another docu-series called “The Truth About Vaccines” which was showing for a limited time. They are no longer showing the ten episode series of that documentary on vaccines for free, however, they are showing the first and last episodes in the series at the link directly below this paragraph as well as the two Roundtable discussions held afterward are linked there also, all four of which are worth watching and taking into consideration.

If you value your health, I would respectfully implore you to watch as many of these videos as you are able at your earliest convenience.

I was able to download the ten videos over a weekend that they were temporarily up for people to watch so that I could watch them later. And what I saw caught my attention, because I had earlier researched information about vaccines and their use, and had come across some videos by some of the same reputable presenters who were featured in this new docu-series. So I knew the information was likely valid and important information to have.

[As an aside, you might be able to access this same docu-series if you take the time to sign up on the same page that I signed up on. A series of emails may be sent you with links to videos playing for a limited time. I will try to find some of these videos on other platforms so that readers can view them in order to come to their own conclusions about the information contained within. Believe me, you will not be sorry you took the time to view at least one or two of these important videos. The people who made them are of the same mindset as most of us are: they want to retain their unalienable rights up against an encroaching government power grab and the hysteria over the current pandemic scam.]

If you have some time to set aside in the near future either before or after the holidays, you would be well rewarded to watch one or both of the discussions from a Roundtable discussion held between six of the presenters provided in the full length documentary series at the following links.  Time: 1:05:57  Time: 1:46:57

If you have the time to check into any of the ten episodes in the series, which I highly recommend, I promise you won’t regretting the time spent. You don’t have to watch all of them, but at least watch the first and/or the last episode of the docu-series and/or one or both of the two roundtable disscussions linked above. It will provide you with some important food for thought regarding the upcoming roll out of the Covid-19 vaccine.

One of the presenters was someone that I was surprised to see on such a documentary. Everyone knows about the Kennedy family, right? Well, that family now has a black sheep in the form of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who is an environmental lawyer and is the Director of an organization called the Children’s Health Defense ( Robert, as part of his investigation, has read the scientific papers on vaccines and immunizations put out by the medical industry. And he is not a happy camper with what he has learned about the affect of certain vaccines on children’s health or the industry as a whole, and the coercive and corrupt way it proceeds with the assistance of the government.

In short, RFK, Jr. is on the people’s side of this issue in seeking safe testing and transparent reporting about the data by the phamaceutical industry, while the rest of his family views him now as misinformed and disseminating falsehoods to the “public.” All the while his family seems to support the government’s misleading narrative of information about vaccines to the American people. 

Once you hear RFK. Jr. speak passionately on this subject (BTW, he has a speech defect that is a condition called spasmodic dysphonia), you will see how serious and passionate he is about this issue. I was able to create a transcription of a couple of speeches that were captured from the Ninth Episode of the docu-series. The film switches to part of a speech RFK, Jr. gave in Albany, New York outside what appears to be a government building. Here’s what he said in this brief excerpt speaking about which agency of government is tasked with the authority to make official pronouncements on vaccine safety:

You know what the ultimate authority is? The Institute of Medicine. That is what Congress named. The Institute of Medicine is to be the ultimate authority on vaccine safety. And you know what the Institute of Medicine says, is it says there are a hundred fifty diseases that we think are caused by vaccines. CDC you have to study them. They said that in 1994. CDC refused. They said it again in 1998, CDC refused. They said it again in 2011, they say it every year. The Institute of Medicine says we have no idea whether these vaccines are causing this huge chronic disease epidemic. That is the ultimate authority. Not W.H.O., not CDC.

Did you get that? The IOM (Institute of Medicine) and not the CDC (Center for Disease Control, which by the way is a private non-governmental organization; did you know that?) is tasked with the authority to make official pronouncements on vaccine safety. Not the CDC! But because the CDC has not funded any studies on vaccine safety, the IOM has nothing of real substance to report to the public! Isn’t that convenient.

It’s also interesting to note that the IOM was renamed in 2015 as the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).  It is part of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that was founded in 1863 under a congressional charter signed by President Lincoln, which created a body that would operate outside of government to advise the nation “whenever called upon.” The Institute of Medicine was established over one hundred years later as the health arm of the NAS in 1970.

The simple fact is that there is no official government agency report on the safety of vaccines based on actual studies of the medical data of any vaccine being used by the American Medical Industry Mafia today. The only report on the adverse effects of vaccines issued in 2011 was not based on actual scientific studies, but rather on “peer-reviewed literature to review eight vaccines given to children or adults.” As we all are able to surmise, “peer-reviews literature” can be ambiguous at best and misleading at worst since peer-reviewed literature is not the same as an actual study of the real scientific data, something which has yet to be done!

I found the full version of Episode Nine on YouTube. If you don’t have the time to watch the full version of Episode Nine now but can spare seven minutes to watch a revealing preview of Episode Nine that should wet your whistle to see more, you can watch a brief preview at the following link.

TTAV 2020 Episode Nine Preview: Suppression, Persecution, Lies, Coverup

In the right hand side panel of the preview video above there are more short previews of other episodes in the docu-series that would be beneficial to watch in addition or if you don’t have time to watch the full verion. At some point, though, you should make the time to watch the full version.

In the full Episode Nine version, this part of RFK, Jr’s talk in in that Episode begins at around the 34:00 minute mark. Here’s the link to the full version of Episode Nine:

Later in the video, RFK, Jr. continued elaborating on his repugnance of the pharmaceutical’s industry’s treatment of people through the industry’s licensed drug dealers: your family physician!

There’s a list of those diseases which is the list of diseases that suddenly became epidemic in 1989, and the exact same list, everyone of those diseases is listed as a side-effect on the vaccine inserts of the manufacturers. And by the way, the twenty top selling pharmaceutical drugs of those four manufacturers are drugs that are marketed to treat a disease that is listed as a vaccine side effect on their own products. Those companies are making fifty billion dollars a year selling vaccines. When I was a kid it was 270 million. Today’s it’s fifty billion. And they’re making 500 billion a year selling the drugs that treat those diseases.

If you’re disgusted with the idea that the legal system in this country, run by the American Bar Association, is corrupt, it is only one of many private institutions in our country which has been co-opted as a private non-governmental organization (NGO) like the CDC. And who sanctions these NGOs? Who charters them? Who provides them with any authority (not to mention additional taxpayer funding) that they so arrogantly usurp with the blessing of any so-called government? None other than the very incorporated private government itself — under the auspices of the District of Columbia (otherwise also known as the United States Incorporated), which is Congress’ private corporate tool used to circumvent the organic original jurisdiction government. It’s the perfect marriage of private interests with public policy masquerading as sovereignty itself.

These government entities (e.g., the STATE OF NEW YORK or the UNITED STATES INC.) are incorporated by Congress’ private municipal corporation — the District of Columbia — which Congress created and owns privately as a result of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. So these government entities are essentially outside any original jurisdiction constitutional reach. Or so it would seem. The only way they can exercise their respective authority is by agreement with other agreeable parties through contract law. To that end they formed their Social Security System, which is the primary linchpin contracting people into the D.C. municipality’s private contract jurisdiction. Anyone claiming an identity that leads back to a social security number becomes subject to their jurisdiction. Can you begin to see how this collusion and compromise of legal principles within government combined with the raw power of coercion works?

They can thus make up their own rules and regulations as contract terms, which they do with impunity, and then pass the responsibility (and any blame) for that off on the incorporated government entities and their bought and paid for legislative members who are merely corporate boardroom officers with only the appearance of having any accountability to the people. In other words, private corporations (and those who run them) have usurped the mantle of sovereignty from the world’s multi-national governments while maintaining the illusion within the public consciousness that the [quasi-] government NGO is the boogeyman tyrant. It’s all about misdirecting public attention away from the true power while keeping everyone guessing who to really blame.

In his talk at a gathering, RFK, Jr. expanded on the evidence that powerful unelected institutions have taken over our governance, outside the sanctioned limitations of the organic state and federal constitutions. If you’ve been wondering how such a thing could take place in America, the explanation given here might well ring true to your experience and comprehension regarding how this could happen. It’s been happening under our noses right in front of us all along! It’s just that most of us never fully recognized it until now.

Dwight Eisenhower, a republican, in his most important and famous speech ever, on my birthday in 1960 as he was leaving office and my uncle (JFK) was coming in. He gave a speech in which he warned America against the domination by a military corporate industrial complex. The unity of corporate and government power. Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the Republican Party, and the greatest president probably in our history at the height of the Civil War said I have the South in front of me and I have the corporations behind me, and for my nation I fear the corporations more.

And Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is quote: “The essence of facism.” And Benito Musolini who had an insider’s view of that process said essentially the same thing. He complained that facism should not be called facism, it should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And today, we are living that, what they warned us about. There is a seamless unity between CDC, EPA, HHS, FDA, the regulatory agencies and the vaccine companies. And they have turned Americans into commodities.

We have to understand as a nation that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called facism. Now our job is to walk that narrow trail in between and keep big government at bay with our right hand and keep big business at bay with our left. And walk down that road of free market capitalism and democracy. And in order to do that, we need a public that’s educated. And understands the science, and understands and appreciates all the milestones of tyranny, and that is willing and ready to stand up and defend the values of our country and our culture and our children’s health. 

Our challenge now is to go out and find all the other people, men and women of good will in this country who if they understood what we know would be with us a hundred percent. And we need to take back our country, our children’s health, and our democracy. So thank you very much.

There are no easy answers once one learns that those in the employ of government are being paid to, at best, mislead people’s thinking, and at worse be untruthful using the defense of plausible deniability about what is safe and what is not safe as far as vaccines are concerned. In other words, for example, “When I spoke, we didn’t know it was unsafe.” The legal system always creates an out, an excuse, to excuse what would otherwise be their criminality. Yet, isn't that just naked negligence on their part?

I can only say: If the reputable sources of information in these videos don’t begin to tip the scale for you in terms of doubt about the safety of the vaccination program being currently proposed, then do your own research and prove them wrong if that is what you believe. But have the courage to take up the subject on your own behalf. We can only take responsibility for our own personal health choices and for no one else’s. And for that we need to look at the undiluted (and uncensored) scientific facts even in the face of government denial of those facts.

My only hope is that you will take this criticism of the health industry seriously (you, of course, know that it is an industry seeking legal cover from accountability, don’t you), watch the videos, and conduct your own investigation.

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.