This Could Be Your Silver Bullet! If you comprehend it. . .

Date: September 17, 2022

Hello Friends,

New subscribers who have not been studying this phenomenon (victimless traffic citations) as closely as some of the rest of us have may have difficulty accepting what is about to be presented chiefly because they have had little contact with the legal system in this country and are not up-to-speed with how pernicious the system actually is. Unless you’ve been to traffic court lately and witnessed what goes on there, it is likely that you are living in a completely artificial world created in your mind by public officials and the mainstream media which is the spokesperson for government propaganda. 

This project ( started out innocently in 2014 as a personal revelation of my wanting to share with others my research into what I took at the time to be a remedy to defeat the prosecution of what has been labeled as “victimless traffic violations.” I wanted to test the legal grounds for being able to “travel” using one’s own chosen mode of transportation without the need for a license to do what was already legal to do according to the government’s own federal codes. What am I referring to? If you’re not yet aware and haven’t taken the time to look, the legal definition of the term “motor vehicle,” and by association the term “driver,” are commercial terms when used in conjunction with the motor vehicle code, and can only be regulated in an atmosphere of committing commerce. This is explained on the index page of my website where it dlearly  states:

In United States Code, Title 18, Section 31(a)(6) it states: “The term motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.”

Section 31(a)(10) states: “The term ‘used for commercial purpose’ means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

The wording in the current listing for U.S.C. Title 18, Section 31(a)(10) has changed slightly since the definition I first looked up. It now reads: “(a)(10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term ‘used for commercial purposes’ means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.” Though the wording has changed, the meaning is essentially the same.

After many false starts and road bumps along the way in testing the legal system about this issue, we think our research has finally uncovered a rock-solid remedy for people that will have government officials quaking in their boots once they realize the significance of the Notice (affectionately called a “Kill Warrant”) that they are being served! This is a long and complicated story, so please bear with me as I endeavor bring you up to speed in a newly published article “This Game Changer Demolishes Court’s Jurisdiction.” The information being disclosed is regarding a process that could be a silver bullet for many, allowing people to leave the government’s induced slave plantation for good! It also allows one to impose harsh penalties, by contract, on any public official who attempts to administer your estate without your approval.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how powerful this information is. Once you understand what it is and how it works and have satisfied yourself about its effectiveness in the real world, I think you will agree with me that this really is a game changer in terms of the people versus government dictate on behalf of corporations! Anyone who has undergone this status change process will virtually stand above government in their authority as a private individual.

The new article linked above is really only an introduction to a much larger detailed and explanatory report published about this process of going about changing one’s status that needs to take place before you can begin to serve notice and contractually hold public officials to account. That report can be found in our publication How To Handle The Five Scenarios.  What this researcher (who goes by the handle Zenmaster or Zen for short) has accomplished with the Kill Warrant — which has undergone one hundred revisions since its original version, until it is now virtually a perfect document — is a complete one hundred and eighty degree turn of the tables on the government using the government’s own tactic of a form of adhesion contract. How ironic it is that their own tactic is now being used against them!

If you are curious as to what the Kill Warrant can accomplish, there are several legal issues which are thoroughly covered within it. Here are just a few (out of eighteen items) listed below. Remember, this document gets recorded along with your status change documents, and thus is placed in the public record and cannot be denied having force by any court. They can attempt to deny it, if they are arrogant enough to try, but they will in the end suffer the consequences!

1)  It appoints all public servants as trustees of the estate and any trust created therefrom. This prohibits a judge from being able to “presume” you are a trustee of a  constructive trust that they, in their discretion, create in a court matter.

2)  It restates by reference to the proof of life inquest that you are the legitimate son or daughter of your parents, that you have come of full age (as per the Magna Carta articles 3, 4, and 5), that you are one of the people of your respective state, establishing your sovereignty and position above the government in a republic.

3)  It demands that all who get served with this document immediately bring a superior claim against the estate or forever let go and lose any hold of claim over same.

4)  It informs the corporate state that the all caps dead trust names (derived from the estate being abandoned for seven years) is the beneficiary of the social security number and the account connected thereto.  This removes any presumption that you (the living man or woman) are taking a benefit from them, and therefore are waving your right of benefit as a legitimate heir to the estate.

As mentioned above, these points, and so much more, are explained in greater detail in the report pubished as an Addendum in the publication How To Handle The Five Scenarios. This report has been almost a year in the making since I was first introduced to this information. I needed to make sure that all the i’s were dotted and the t’s crossed before publishing this information to help people understand the gravity of the status change process which Zenmaster has developed. In my personal opinion, this is the gold standard remedy for the people to, individually at first, put government back in its subordinate place, subordinate to the people. 

Zenmaster, who uncovered this remedy, can be reached directly through a web platform known as the server where he has an active community of members and on going educational sessions every week for those who need to catch up in their legal education as well as those who are interested in undergoing the status change process. Access to the server and the information it contains is free pending filling out a brief application for membership.

If you end up joining the server to check out the report discussed in the Addendum of the Five Scenarios ebook, mention in your application that you were directed there by, and Zenmaster will pay special attention to your application to process it quickly so that you can get started educating yourself.

The group that Zen heads goes by the acronym VSOF which stands for Vocational Science of Freedom, and there is an invite link to the server in the article “This Game Changer Demolishes Court’s Jurisdiction” linked above for anyone who wishes to directly check out the information he has to share. 

But this is not all. While recognizing that the VSOF method of exiting the corporate plantation may not be for everyone, in my research I have come across a second way to  remedy this situation, an alternative method for achieving this same feat, which I am currently in the process of testing for my own individual use. While this alternative method is not as labor intensive to carry out as the VSOF’s process, it does hold promise (eleven years of positive statistics) to be effective in achieving a similar goal. By that I mean, it won’t accomplish everything that the VSOF method accomplishes, however it will suffice to get the government to leave you alone when your paths cross.

As soon as I am able to amass and verify all the facts about this alternative method, I will be providing readers with a detailed report complete with instructions on how to implement this remedy to be published in the Declaration of Truth Notice and Affidavit of Identity ebook detailing this alternative process for remedy. The remedy involves making out an affidavit and sending it as notice to specific public officials for recognition of your change of status. But there are some interesting twists that I have added to this process that make it even stronger than it already is which will assist people in their notification process. So, stay in touch, and I will send notice of this information’s avaliability at the appropriate time. 

If you have a question or a comment, pro or con, I encourage your feedback.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


The Legal System In America Is Not Going To Be Fixed Until It’s Corruption Can Be Outed And Ended

Date: July 21, 2023

Hello Friends,

The present newsletter is slightly off topic of the study of law, but is no less important as an institutionalized reality of which to study and become aware of the many complications that make it up. From the beginning of this newsletter, its intent was to inspire self-education in the law and what the law actually is as opposed to what is legal. And it attempted to do this through examining and using, as an example, one of the most common ways that modern people interact with the legal system by means of having to deal with the issuance of a traffic citation.  However, it would seem that many subscribers were more interested in finding a quick and easy resolution (some kind of legal loophole, trick or process) to the relatively benign event of having to deal with a traffic ticket than in learning about and studying the principles and concepts of law that underlie the phenomenon of the legal framework being used to bring about the traffic ticket itself.

Once you understand that the scope and the reach of a traffic citation is based on presumptions of facts not yet established on the record but which the court accepts as having been presumed into existence based on the lack of a rebuttal of those presumptions, you begin to see where the real problem lies. This is a very subtle point, almost invisible to the naked eye, and definitely frustrating to have to deal with without being able figure it out. I speak from experience. Yet it is a point that must be recognized first before any meaningful response to correct any of the faulty presumptions can begin to be made. It is helpful to be able to view this phenomenon from the twenty thousand foot level, overhead looking down on it, so as to see all the parts that make it up rather than trying first to find and then hone in on the specific elements involved to find a remedy. A lot of time can be wasted doing the latter going through false door after false door.

There are no simple solutions recognized in the current legal industry to remedy this seemingly institutionalized and often misunderstood phenomenon of the traffic ticket that one can discern without taking an historical view of its development and ultimate implementation within present-day society. When people of ill-intent in positions of power begin manipulating an already corrupt legal system in order to brainwash the masses and therefore bring about a manufactured institutionalized and criminalized mindset regarding a basic right of the people, then you know that what you are having to deal with is not operating on level ground — i.e., where all are equal before the law in a lawful society. The current structure of the legal system in America assumes itself more equal than the people it is supposed to serve. And herein lies the complication needing to be understood before any real relief can be brought about to resolve this inequity.

For those subscribers who are not aware, there is an underlying difference between what is lawful and what is legal, beyond the fact that these two terms mean essentially the same thing on the surface in casual conversation, meaning those actions which are “allowed by law.” If something is legal and or is also lawful, that basically means it is allowed by law and thereby, hence, by the legal system, which are two different entities.  Yet because there can be more than just one form of law, the appropriate question we have to ask here is: just whose particular law are we talking about?  Are we talking about French law, British law, American law, German law or the foundation of all law?  And can that foundation of law really be said to play a role in the “laws” to which any legitimate country adheres?  If it does—which it most certainly does—is there a possibility here that a nuanced part of the law, that part which allows it to be both legal and lawful in a sense, is this what is being carefully highlighted?  In other words, is there a silent subtle aspect of law that is being quietly brought into reference here when people make a distinction between the term “legal” and the term “lawful”?  

You don’t have to take my word on the fact that these two terms also have a nuanced meaning, as regards the legal system in America, of which meaning most people are unaware. You can do your own research and study to confirm this difference for yourself. By making this statement, what I am also saying is that not everything that is legal—i.e., according to the governing national legal system—is necessarily also lawful, especially in America. The difference depends upon the jurisdiction to which one is referring, and whether or not there is disclosure of material facts allowing reasonable consent by one of the parties.
A recently posted article, Legal vs. Lawful, will provide a bit more insight into the nuances in meaning that exists between these two terms. Readers are encouraged to avail themselves of that article first before continuing on with the rest of this newsletter. Otherwise, points that are being brought up in the newsletter may not be connecting and making sense.

The overarching picture that is being painted here is that we need to be cautious of not only corruptions in our social institutions—institutions that have broken apart and no longer serve our needs, such as in the breakdown of justice in America—but also within the very framework of the language we use to describe it. Those who have contemptible intent on their mind as a social agenda will not be above using mental trickery to pave an easier pathway forward for their agenda to succeed.  In case you haven’t noticed, both your own government and the legal system use this tactic. This is why, more and more, people cannot find justice in the courts, unless they are able to go to extraordinary means to prove their point.

People really need to understand the difference between these two concepts before they can begin to grasp the immense nature of the fraud that has been perpetrated upon the people over the centuries. There are, essentially, two jurisdictions at variance here, each with its own history and case law records of implementation. While this newsletter edition is not the place to examine this evidence—there isn’t the space nor the scope with which to do it justice—it can be used to bring these issues into the light of day so that readers who are interested can do their own individual investigation rather than just taking our word for it. Evidence can be found and seen if one begins to examine two specific areas of law, those being the common law as this tradition was adopted by America from the common law heritage of Anglo-Saxon English law, and what is known as merchant law or lex mercatoria, which has an historical relationship to the Law of the Sea (in international venues, meaning Admiralty and Maritime law). 

For those interested in seeking out the somewhat hidden history behind the development of law in England and thence its influence on America, there is an eyeopening article published in the Georgetown Law Journal (1983) by Judith A. Shapiro titled “The Shetar’s Effect on English Law – A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land,” which exposes the origins of how Anglo-Saxon English laws were overthrown after the Norman invasion of England in 1066, and the ultimate transformation of what had become traditional English law by the Norman King, William the Conqueror.

Ms. Shapiro in her article “The Shetar’s Effect on English Law” writes:

“After the conquest of 1066, the Normans imposed on the English an efficiently organized social system that crowded out many Anglo-Saxon traditions. The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England, in their turn contributed to the changing English society. The Jews brought a refined system of commercial law [also known as merchant law] their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into the developing structure of English Law.”

And we might add to that last statement, “and were passed on to American jurisprudence after the Revolution” as part of the legal system being constructed for the newly so-called “liberated” colonies attempting to form themselves into a unified country. 

To be fair, though, what Ms. Shapiro refers to as “Jews” originated from a group of sixth to tenth century semi-nomadic Turkic people of non-Jewish heritage from an ancient area north of the Baltic Sea called Khazaria (current-day Ukraine) and which people purportedly converted their identity to the Jewish tradition, but who had no actual lineage tracing to the Israelite Hebrews in ancient times. For these people to call themselves Jewish was to do so in name only, and to surrepetitiously steal that identity for their own use and purposes.

The most accomplished of these people became successful merchants even as they developed a major commercial empire in the southeastern section of modern European Russia, southern Ukraine, Crimea, and Kazakhstan. By the mid-eleventh century some of these non-Jewish “Jews” had migrated into what became France, bringing with them a well established mercantile system of law based on Babylonian Talmudic concepts. And as Ms. Shapiro points out, by the thirteenth century, “Jewish [meaning Babylonian] debt procedure had by then become part of everyday business in England.”

At the outset of her article, Ms. Shapiro makes clear that: “English Law, like the English language, is an amalgam of diverse cultural influences.”  In other words, there was no one national source for its development, but rather foreign principles of law were grafted onto English law becoming a permanent part of the law tradition and becoming transferred to America after the Revolution. She continues: “The legal system may fairly be seen as a composite of discrete elements from disparate sources.”  What Ms. Shapiro is telling us is that the law in England, up to the 1066 conquering and occupation by the Norman king, was hijacked by the Norman conqueror thereafter, and has never been the same since. In other words, it has a basis in Babylonian Talmudic concepts of law which became graphed into and superceding the existing Anglo-Saxon law tradition.

Why am I pointing this out? Because it demonstrates the important role that history plays in a country’s form of jurisprudence. If you are not aware of the various influences that are at play in the legal system, you have little chance of finding a remedy that sticks.

This also tells us the source of how these same “borrowed” principles of law made their way to the American shores, and eventually became established outside of the founding principles for the confederation of states. What it doesn’t tell us is the true history behind how this happened in America, a story which is partially told in brief in Chapter Seven and the Addendum of the How To Handle The Five Scenarios ebook, as well as mentioned briefly in a previous newsletter titled "For Your Consideration: The New Face of War! Part Two" beginning at the paragraph linked to (i.e., “Importantly, the presentation offers a kind of overview...”) and including the next eight paragraphs following, making nine paragraphs in all. It is advised that you stop and read that article again in order to maintain the correct perspective on what is to follow herein.

In that restatement section linked to, we learn that the King of England, George III, is described as being the “arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America,...”  In other words, he was in essence an agent for the  Roman Catholic Church as water boy treasurer and debt collector, since it was highly likely that it was the Church’s money (with the blessing of the Church, of course) that he lent to the colonies to fight the war.  The Paris Peace Treaty was therefore nothing more than a bankruptcy instrument notifying the private parties (the so-called "Founding Fathers" of the United States) who had formed the confederation of American states under the Article of Confederation that they were in debt to Mother England, and this treaty formed the terms for that bankruptcy.  Of course, none of this was ever explained to the common people who made up the population of America at the time, or even since then.

It is also interesting to note that the three American delegates (John Jay, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin) along with the single British representative, David Hartley, at the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty were all lawyers with ties of allegiance to the English Inner Temple Inn of Court (otherwise unofficially known as the Legal Guild in England).  If you want to know who controls the courts in America, you do not have far to look!  For all intents and purposes, the United States of America, at that time, was an economic [slave?] colony to the British Crown corporation through the British Accreditation Registry or BAR Association, and have been so ever since. This arrangement was set up ostensibly to legally hold the U.S. government in receivership for the debt and the bankruptcy that the Founding Fathers (and others) had amassed during the Revolutionary War and afterwards. 

For those readers who are not aware of this seeming hidden history, there is more. If you are familiar with the story of the original Thirteenth Article of Amendment as the final amendment to the organic Constitution of the United States, then you should be familiar with one of the main reasons why Britain instigated the War of 1812 against the United States. Well into the Second Session of the Eleventh U.S. Congress, on January 18 of 1810, the first version of a proposed amendment to the Constitution, known now as the Titles Of Nobility Amendment (TONA), was introduced and read to Senators. In its final form on February 13th of 1810, and as sent to the Legislatures of the seventeen States for ratification, it reads:

Amendment Article XIII
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”  [emphasis added]

As one anonymous writer wrote:

“This Article of Amendment was intimately connected to questions of loyalty, honesty, war, and national defense. It was designed to combat internal subversion and discord sowed by people who are adhering to powers foreign to the Congress of the United States without stepping across the bold constitutional line of treason. The authors of the TONA wrote it after some additional experience with how the British Empire, as well as other European nations, actually conduct their affairs. It is a corrective and supplemental measure to go along with Constitutional treason.”

This amendment in its offical documented form in the U.S. government archives, as evidence, was burned in August of 1814 when the British torched the City of Washington, which resulted in the destruction of the Library of Congress and of many of the secret journals and records of the House of Representatives, making it seem as though the Amendment had never even existed much less than the fact that it had to be properly ratified by a majority of the states at the time, which it was but which fact was never formally recognized by the U.S. federal government after the fact. It is interesting to note that in that same August month of 1814 is when negotiations for the Treaty of Ghent, to end the 1812 war, began. Is that just not the mother of all coincidences?

Now just what does the significance of this Amendment (which is still on the books and therefore still in effect no matter what the "government" says) mean for ordinary Americans? In terms of what we here are interested in, the legal system, it would mean that any American attorney that is connected to the BAR associations (which in today’s world virtually all are) which write the so-called laws passed by a crooked Congress would not be able to hold public office (as prosecutors, judges, congressional representatives, senators, or other government officials etc.) as they would be considered to be agents for a foreign principal and acting in treason to their mother country. That principal being, namely, the Crown corporation in England. The duty of the attorneys being to oversee the receivership of the bankruptcy proceedings outlined in the Peace Treaty of 1783.

By 1812, the United States government had not only not repaid the loans made to it by the British King during the Revolutionary War, but the federal government had added even more debt on top of the original debt. And the terms of the agreement were that those debts would be repaid according to the Treaty signed by three American attorneys and one British attorney. That little title the attorneys in the BAR association carry at the end of their names, i.e., Esquire, is a title of nobility in violation of the Titles of Nobility Amendment of 1810. Now do you see why it was so important for the British (and their American domestic agents) to get rid of the TONA amendment once and for all? Yet this very important tid bit of information has been conspicuously missing in American national education programs. You have to seek it out (as I did) in order to know that it ever existed!

There was just one problem though: they didn’t get rid of that Amendment. They only covered up it’s history! And then refused to acknowledge that it ever existed. The main problem with that is: evidence of the original Thirteenth Amendment still survives in several statehouse acrhives across the lands as well as having been recorded in a few other publications, such as “Echoes From The Cabinet” (page 38) published in 1855 just before the War Between The States (erroneously called the Civil War). I have two certified copies of the original  Thirteenth Amendment obtained from the State Archives via a county recorder in Colorado Spring, Colorado. So there is evidence that the Titles of Nobility Amenment is not only legitimate, but still active. Although there is a question whether or not it would be recognized in a compromised commerical court.

The point of this retelling of historical fact being that until we recognize the true history of our county’s founding, we cannot even begin to discern or figure out why certain lawful processes that we may use in today’s courts are ineffective. For all intents and purposes, it can be shown historically that what was founded in 1777 — first through the Articles of Confederation (AoC) and then later in 1789 through the Constitution of (not for) the United States of America — were both basically misrepresentations at best and fraudulent documents at worst, and were a fraud upon the American people at the time as neither event sought the actual feedback or consent from the people themselves. Both the AoC and the later Constitution were wrought in secrecy away from the national attention and mind by a private association of men who had a financial interest in being able to claim, fraudulently, to speak for the American people as a whole as their representatives.

Anyone who has seriously looked into the history of the meetings held in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania beginning on May 25th of 1787, those meetings being characterized as  a “constitutional convention” can testify that those meetings were held outside of the public’s interest to learn what was being discussed much less with their input on any of those issues. This was not a national forum for reformation or the legitimate constituting of a national state with the express input and consent of the people, but rather a meeting conducted by private individuals for their private financial interests. There was nothing democratic about it at all! Nor was there any legitimate authority given to this group of private individuals by the people. It was all just assumed that this group of men had any authority at all to speak for the people.

We can find evidence of this in the objections of people like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams to the proceedings going on in Philadelphia at that time. A generation later there were still people who did not agree with the validity of the founding of the so-called nation.  Lysander Spooner, born in 1808, was a Massachusetts lawyer noted for his vigorous and brilliant opposition to the encroachment of the State upon the liberty of the individual, who in 1867, penned a pamphlet titled No Treason, which contained three essays, one of which was titled, “The Constitution of No Authority.” He wrote about issues such as the following:

“The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody. . . . Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.” [emphasis added]

Two generations on from that, another lawyer, L. Bradford Prince (b. 1840), in a Columbia law school paper written in 1866 and eventually published in book form in 1867 titled, The Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution, The Progress of Nationality Among the People and In the Government, admitted in the quote below that the so-called founding of the national government was “never formally constituted.” Stop and let that sink in, dear reader. So what does that mean? It's very simple if you understand the law. It means that going forward from that day on, every action that supposed government entity took was void and illegal, ab initio meaning “from the beginning.” It had no authority formally delegated to it by the people, the Citizens, to do anything! The constitutional convention itself was basically a private non-public event! Prince wrote:

“It would be aside from our purpose to consider the history and nature of the revolutionary government existing from the year 1775 to the time of the Articles of Confederation. It [the government] was the creature of necessity, and never formally constitutedthe Congress exercising all the functions of government, even the most high and absolute, and its acts being acquiesced in by the people, as necessary to the welfare of the nation. Its powers were entirely undefined and discretionary, and in some instances exercised in a most remarkable manner when the public safety seemed to require it, as in the dark days near the close of 1776, when Congress invested General Washington with dictatorial power over the lives and property of all citizens of the United States for the space of six months.”  (pgs. 24-25; emphasis added)

It's the same thing as if a contract were established in which one of the two parties, to begin with, was not given full disclosure of all the terms of the contract. That means a meeting of the minds, an essential element of every contract, never occurred, voiding the contract instantly. The omission of any of the terms to either party voids the supposed contract altogether, as though it never took place. The people could not be held out as a party to this travesty since no one was ever consulted, any more than the men to undertook it could bind the people to the agreements made in the proceedings.

The same is true regarding the founding of the supposed United States federal government under the constitution. It is a rogue operation operating under unlawful terms, and therefore a transgression and criminal entity. At the close of 1776, the so-called national Congress had no legitimate authority (explicit or implicit mandate with the cognizance and blessing from the people) to “invest General Washington with dictatorial power over the lives and property of all citizens of the United States” at all much less than for the space of six months. The Congress, as it has done throughout the history of this “country,” overstepped its presumed delegated authority, which it never really even had in the first place. It was presumptive of that body, calling itself “Congress Assembled,” to assume it had any power delegated to it at all! The people, though, were none the wiser.

Are you beginning now to understand the difference between what is lawful and what is legal? The law is one thing: explicit, fair and unyielding to self-interested interpretation (meaning a conflict of interest). Whereas formal agreements between two parties (such as statutes are purported to be), which can be fraudulently forced (through implication) upon one party by the other without reasonable remedy, is another. You have to correct the faulty presumptions being used by the legal system to legalize its unlawful practice of piratical plunder of the people. In other words, nothing is bound to change unless and until the trespasses of the past against the people can be corrected. And I'll leave it there for you to ponder these thoughts in more depth as it relates to your individual circumstance in contemplating going up against the legal system.

On a related topic, as an update for those subscribers who have been patiently waiting for me to finish a report describing a “way to remove yourself from the corporate plantation,” I have run into some obstacles that have kept me from being able to finish that report. This is why you haven't heard from me for several months. I have been fighting health issues that continue to play havoc with my ability to timely get things done. I also ran into some resistence in being able to verify the necessity of certain aspects of the report. However, I have decided that it is too important to keep bottled up much longer, and am ready to finish the report without being able to verify the importance of certain steps in the process. Rather, I am going to include those steps in the process that becomes described, along with my reasoning why, and let the reader decide for him or herself how they want to handle it.

As always, if you have a question or a comment, pro or con, I encourage your feedback. Two way feedback is the only way I can learn what is on your mind, and where you are at in your thinking process about this subject.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


Announcement: Report On Alternative Method For Status Change Published!

Date: September 10, 2023

Hello Friends,

If you are a relatively new subscriber to this newsletter, having subscribed within the past several months, then you are aware, from an update notice at the end of the email sent out with your link to download the free report, that I have been working on publishing a report describing a “way to remove yourself from the corporate plantation.”  Well, that report is finally finished and ready to be distributed.

As with any information of this kind having to do with the legal system in this country, the devil is always in the details.  If you are new to the study of law and the legal system in America, then you may not be aware of the many word games that the government plays in order to keep you locked up in a self-made prison. In order to unlock that prison door, you need to be able to navigate your way through all the artifice and deceptive word games in order to know and comprehend the correct process for accomplishing that end goal.

Not only that, but you need to be able to explain what it is that you are doing to anyone in authority who asks. Why? Because they are going to test your knowledge. The government is not going to make it easy for you to leave its plantation. Because it sees you as an asset, a working asset that produces the wealth that it steals from your meager paycheck each year through taxation. Servitude (in essence slavery) can take many forms; it can be voluntary or it can be involuntary; it can be compelled by economics; it can be implemented through psychological intimidation and programming; or it can be, in one way or the other, associated with all the above.

You may think that you are free because you are not locked up in a cell and have license to roam around at your leisure. (Did you notice the use of the word “license” in the previous sentence? To what might you think that refers? If you don’t know what a license is then you need to look that word up, don’t you, to find out its legal implication.) So you may think that you are free to roam around wherever you wish when in reality, one of the above elements of servitude is at play beneath the surface. Just because you can’t always see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Physical liberty means little without the accompanying psychological liberty. And when your government starts telling you that you don’t own the property that you just spent fifteen, twenty or thirty years paying for, well then, “Houston, we have a problem.” Because that is not the American way that you were taught about when you were young. 

The method of changing one’s citizenship status, which is the subject of the forty-one page report contained in an additional chapter, Chapter Eight of the Declaration of Truth Notice And Affidavit of Identity ebook, is nothing that you cannot find anywhere else with just a bit of research. There are at least three other sources for this information that come to mind; two of them are somewhat problematic stemming from the unreliability of the personalities involved to provide valid information. The third, T.J. Henderson of, has done his homework on this subject, and has perfected a way to accomplish this feat with little chance of failure. So, you've just been given a hint at where else you can seek out this information.

The fourth source of information for changing one's status is the source that I came across in my research and spent a great deal of time vetting, as well as delving into the history behind how it all came about. If you don't think that history is important to know about, well then maybe you don't wish to pass the test that some public officer may put you through to see how well you understand the key that unlocks the door to your freedom. That key is buried in the mountain of detail that the devil puts out to keep you in bondage. 

It is no secret that an expatriate by the name of Roger Sayles, who now lives in South America and who worked in the radio and music industries, has been for the past twelve years attempting to wake Americans up to the information that will set them free from the United States corporate plantation.  Actually, the government now just forces this status on people through assumption rather than inquire of the person beforehand. If they have to ask you what your status is first, then they are giving away the goose that lays the golden egg by hinting to you that you can leave the plantation anytime you wish. You just have to know how to do so properly, in a way that the government will acknowledge and recognize.

Roger even discloses in an interview how to go about applying for a passport card that you can use for ID—using your Affidavit of Citizenship Evidence as additional documentation along with the passport application once that Affidavit has been received by the U.S. State Department—by showing you how to avoid a land mine or two, which might doom your chances of success, on the passport application itself. Once you have the updated passport you can stop federal and state officers in their tracks from imposing their false authority on you. So, it is greatly recommended that you follow up initial notification of the U.S. State Department with an application for at least a passport card which you can carry around with you in your purse or wallet.

I invite you to read the additional Chapter Eight and the information it shares with an open yet critical mind. Do your own research, if you have doubts. Look at the information provided and see whether or not you can discredit any of it. There are links to video presentations of original source information of which you can take advantage in order to verify my sources and findings.

Here is the page link for obtaining Chapter Eight and the updated September 2023 Edition of Declaration of Truth Notice and Affidavit of Identity:

We, as individuals, must wake up and realize that the only one who has your best interests at heart is yourself and others who have an alike mind-set with whom you can network. If you want your liberty and all the rights that go with it, you are going to have to step up and take it back. No one is going to hand it to you willingly. You’d better learn what you can do, and start taking proactive steps to secure it.

If you have any questions about this report, I’d like to hear from you. Also, if you happen to order the report, after reading it, please share any comments about it that you might have. 

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


A New Newsletter Article

Date: ??, 2019

Hello Friends,

The next article is in composition and has not been completed.

It has been a long time in coming, but I’m finally ready to begin sharing with you more of  what I have learned about the law through publishing a semi-consistent subscription newsletter service. I won’t commit to how often these newsletters will be sent, whether on a weekly or a bi-weekly or a monthly basis or whatever as they are free to people who subscribe to download the free Common Law Remedy report. The frequency of publication also depends upon my workload at any given time.


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.