Traffic Win situation

[TicketSlayer]

Rizzotherat states: "AILL is about exposing the scam. The all CAPS argument is irrational and just as important; it does absolutely nothing to expose the government hoax."
Life would be much simpler if the answer to everything could be easily reduced to just a simple matter of yes or no, right or wrong. I can't prove the existence of God but, I believe there is ample credible evidence that God exists.
I can't prove that the government and the courts use your name printed in ALL CAPS to bind you to a legal fiction but, I can show you ample credible evidence of it. Having now helped people with over 100 traffic court cases in more than twenty States of the Union, I can tell you that almost of all of them spell the person's name in ALL CAPS on their traffic tickets and court papers.
The following link is to a website that has one of the best in-depth studies of the ALL CAPS issue I have seen to date. www.usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/memorandum%20of%20law%20on%20the%20name.html The author is unknown.
Below is a segment of what is written on this website. It provides a very good example how the ALL CAPS is made to become a legal fiction holding you to debt unless, you know to challenge it. I encourage all skeptics and non-skeptics alike to read it. This webpage contains information I believe most of you will find very enlightening and it will help you to understand better just how and why the court system is steamrollering the uninformed. Believe me the politicians and courts are not going to inform us, we have to inform ourselves. It is no easy task but, this website is a very good start.
By the way Rizzotherat, I want you to know that I am not picking on you. From what I can tell, your skepticism is shared by many on AiLL.
A good degree of skepticism is a healthy thing to have, as long as one doesn’t use it to bar the door to enlightenment.
Greg

Assumption of a Legal Fiction
An important issue concerning this entire matter is whether or not a proper name, perverted into an all caps assemblage of letters, can be substituted for a lawful Christian name or any proper name, such as the State of Florida. Is the assertion of all-capital-letter names "legal?" If so, from where does this practice originate and what enforces it?
A legal fiction may be employed when the name of a “person” is not known, and therefore using the fictitious name “John Doe” as a tentative, or interim artifice to surmount the absence of true knowledge until the true name is known. Upon discovering the identity of the fictitious name, the true name replaces it.
In all cases, a legal fiction is an assumption of purported fact without having shown the fact to be true or valid. It is an acceptance with no proof. Simply, to assume is to pretend. Oran's "Dictionary of the Law" says that the word “assume” means:
1. To take up or take responsibility for; to receive; to undertake. See "assumption."
2. To pretend.
3. To accept without proof.
These same basic definitions are used by nearly all of the modern law dictionaries. It should be noted that there is a difference between the meanings of the second and third definitions with that of the first. Pretending and accepting without proof are of the same understanding and meaning. However, to take responsibility for and receive, or assumption, does not have the same meaning. Oran's defines “assumption” as:
"Formally transforming someone else's debt into your own debt. Compare with guaranty. The assumption of a mortgage usually involves taking over the seller's 'mortgage debt' when buying a property (often a house)."
Now, what happens if all the meanings for the word "assume" are combined? In a literal and definitive sense, the meaning of assume would be: The pretended acceptance, without proof, that someone has taken responsibility for, has guaranteed, or has received a debt.
Therefore, if we apply all this in defining a legal fiction, the use of a legal fiction is an assumption or pretension that the legal fiction named has received and is responsible for a debt of some sort.
Use of the legal fiction “JOHN P JONES” in place of the proper name “John Paul Jones” implies an assumed debt guarantee without any offer of proof. The danger behind this is that if such an unproven assumption is made, unless the assumption is proven wrong it is considered valid.
An assumed debt is valid unless proven otherwise. (“An unrebutted affidavit, claim, or charge stands as the truth in commerce.”) This is in accord with the Uniform Commercial Code, valid in every State and made a part of the Statutes of each State. A name written in all caps — resembling a proper name but grammatically not a proper name — is being held as a debtor for an assumed debt. Did the parties to the Complaint incur that debt? If so, how and when?
Where is the contract of indebtedness that was signed and the proof of default thereon? What happens if the proper name, i.e. “John Paul Jones,” answers for or assumes the fabricated name, i.e. “JOHN P JONES?” The two become one and the same. This is the crux for the use of the all caps names by the US Government and the States. It is the way that they can bring someone into the "de facto" venue and jurisdiction that they have created. By implication of definition, this also is for the purpose of some manner of assumed debt.
Why won't they use "The State of Texas" or "John Doe" in their courts or on Driver's Licenses? What stops them from doing this? Obviously, there is a reason for using the all-caps names since they are very capable of writing proper names just as their own official style manual states. The reason behind "legal fictions" is found within the definitions as cited above.

[theghost]

Sorry, I deleted my own message. Rizzo, I don't know how to use the quote feature yet, so bare with me please. As for your questions about a traffic complaint and ticket not using the ALL CAPS name, they don't have to. Any paperwork short of actual "court briefs or valid (and I use that term loosely) judgments, are not binding and cause no actual damage to the person. The ticket is nothing more than an offer in commerce, i.e., a contract.

You say you've seen minute entry and court orders that have the ALL CAPS in the CAPTION, but then immediatley to the right they use the same name in upper and lower case. Doesn't that strike you as even stranger? That they feel the need to use both versions of the NAME on one document? So much for the theory ("bunk") about outdated computer/printing equipment, or saving space on paper, eh? (Not that you were the one who said that).

If you ever find one of these "orders" that contains the person's proper surname, (John Henry Doe) a judges signature, and the seal of the court clerk, I'd like to see it. Anything short of this won't cut it. You won't find it. FYI, anything short of "John Henry Doe", such as John H. Doe, J.D. Doe, Doe, John H., etc. etc., are all fictions as well. The ALL CAPS is not necessary throughout the document. This is not a mistake, or any computer thing, it's by design. These "courts" and their actors are all fictions of the legal imagination, and even with our cooperation and consent, however unwittingly, they cannot deal with real sentient beings, it will always contain the ALL CAPS, or dare I say, the STRAWMAN! That's right, I said it.

Try this sometime, if a judge "offers" you a judgment, tell him you'll accept his "ruling" and pay the fines if he would only spell your name correctly, sign the "order" with his full name as it appears in his oath of office (assuming he has one) (yeah, right!) and has the clerk seal it. By the way, have witnesses present. This is not unlike Marc's method of the unsigned guilty plea on the judge's bench. He won't touch it, I guarantee it.

As for Marc's comment about it being an "irrational" argument, I'm not exactly sure what is meant by that.

As for your comment about the argument being "irrational" and doing nothing to exposing the scam, are you kidding? That's exactly what it does! It certainly doesn't suggest that what the "courts" are doing is legitimate! But hey, I know I can't put a dent in this juggernaut we call the legal system, so what. I'm not trying to. That's why forums like this are becoming so popular, and why we're so attracted to them. Their frauds are being exposed in hundreds of little ways across America, and I believe their days are numbered.

By the way, I'm not saying that anyone should go running into court spewing out stuff about the ALL CAPS NAME, quite the contrary. If you don't know how to use it and back it up, don't touch it. It would only create more bad case law, and screw it up for those of us that do know how to use it. I would also suggest if you aren't familiar with explosives, stay the hell away from them.

Also, I think we all need to be very careful about using the term/label "patriot myth", and dismissing things without doing the proper research on any given topic. That very term is the product of the government's own propaganda machine. My favorite new term from the propaganda presses is "paper terrorism", and we all need to pay very close attention to this one. It is evidence that they are getting ready for a massive revolution where the "weapons of mass destruction" are the pen and paper.

[Rizzotherat]

I know from my own experience that "patriot" "constitutionalist" "freeman" "
strawman" approaches, arguments, are misleading and dangerous. This includes all caps, using colon and hyphens in a name and so forth. I have posted before on this board how I feel about "patriot" type arguments, and I know that Mr. Stevens is in agreement. He said: "This is not a patriot type board". And I praised him for it.

I have personal, close friends in Northern California who "fell" for "patriot" type stuff through a false company called "volition" and they lost millions of dollars and NEVER won anything in court. Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing..........

Once again, Libertarian YES!!! "patriot" an big huge resounding NO!

[KaosTheory]

Greg and Ghost,

Have you listened to any of the archived radio shows on the main Aill site?

I don't think that anyone is acually saying that there is no "straw man". I think the point that Riz and Marc are trying to make is that it is far more efficient to ask the judge who he represents. It's quick and dirty and exposes the scam every time.

I have heard of people who have gone into court (Howard Freeman) and written "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" and gotten a dissmissal. The commercial side of the courts is a reality but since there is no full disclosure, it is all still a scam.

What it comes down is: What is the quickest most efficient way to expose the scam?

KT

[kevin]

Regarding the fringed flag/strawman type arguments - I would say they are not jibberish in that they do expose the fraudulent system.

Now having said that - I would also say they will not get you anywhere unless YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING...and then they still may not work to your benefit.

I'd say when you go to court as a truth seeker or patriot type/minded individual, you have a lot of issues to grapple with, such as:

1) I know I am free
2) The courts dont really have any jurisdiction over me
3) If I Arogantly demand anything I will not get any justice from these ego maniacs
4) If I concede w/the thieves then I will also not get any justice from these ego maniacs

I believe these questions fall into two sub-categories of posturing yourself in court.

1) Do I "Defend" myself in such a way that I verbally indicate to them that "I am on to their scheme?"
2) or, do I approach them in such a manner I address their "Legal Facts" that they have alleged exist; so that they must either admit the facts dont exist or continue tresspassing against me?

The problem with #1 is that is shows all your cards and attacks their ego (emotional approach and when you attack someones ego you will humilate them - which leads to rage/anger). I had an uncle who was an excellant horse trader who once said, "You never let someone know what you know, because when you do they are now smarter than you - simply because they now know what they know plus they now also know what you know."

Approach #2 takes is not attacking the "Freedom" issue, you are merely continuing along with their "Dog/Pony Show" of legitmacy and gathering the facts they proport to have had when you were "charged" and according to their rules you are also entitled to this line disclosure. This approach doesnt tell them you are a "freedom fighter/patriot" so you dont get labled/treated as such - IMHO it is much more stealthier. As long as the courts continue w/their air of legitimacy then your arguments "in law" ....based on THEIR RULES should get you further respect/better results.

So, if you dont understand the underlying dynamics of the fringed flag/ALL CAPS/STRAWMAN, then dont bring up those issues.

As stated in Marc's AiLL book - what is the quickest route, most efficient and least expensive manner in which you can stick a spear straight into the heart of the fraud?

IMHO - the quickest manner is to always ask the questions and ensure they end up answering more questions than you answer or to ensure that they ignore the questions on record so that the record indicates they did not give you proper due process according to their rules of evidence.

I do not debunk the strawman arguments - I just have not seen them work consistently enough to attempt them myself.

However, I have talked to some people (from Rice McLeod's group in Irving Texas) who were really about to ge steam rolled by the banksters. Upon using the Strawman argments and filing their papers accordingly - the banksters went away.

So I would merely add this to think about. How you posture yourself in the courts should parallel the severety of force/threat in which the government or banksters are coming at you.

All arguments that expose the fraud are valid, we simply need to understand them, emphasis on UNDERSTAND, so that we can know WHEN and IF said argument should be utilized and how to obtain the largest degree of accuracy/results of that argument when it is being used.

Kevin,

[Rizzotherat]

KaosTheory said:

Greg and Ghost,

Have you listened to any of the archived radio shows on the main Aill site?

I don't think that anyone is acually saying that there is no "straw man". I think the point that Riz and Marc are trying to make is that it is far more efficient to ask the judge who he represents. It's quick and dirty and exposes the scam every time.

I have heard of people who have gone into court (Howard Freeman) and written "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" and gotten a dissmissal. The commercial side of the courts is a reality but since there is no full disclosure, it is all still a scam.

What it comes down is: What is the quickest most efficient way to expose the scam?

KT

KT

It is not my intention to argue with you, but please let me be clear: There is no "straw man". The "patriot" view, way, ideology etc... is just as big of a government hoax as the current bureaucrats are. Both will steal you blind. To participate as TS wants us to do is extremely dangerous and does not work. It will only make your problems worse. So to answer your question, there is no quick way. Be careful who and what you believe. My good friends wish they never heard of a "patriot", "staw man" and silly phrases like "without prejudice".


BTW, you are an excellent musician!

[sagas4]

Guest-theghost said:

People, while I'm a big fan of AiLL, I'm actually shocked at the remarks being made about the all caps thing being "bunk", and with such certainty I might add. If there's one thing you walk away with from Marc's book, it's the fact that the entire legal system, courts, judges, prosecutors, etc., are all fictions, and yet there seems to be a consensus here that the all caps idea is preposterous. First off, we all know that any given argument in the "courts" across this land are not going to get the same results, not even close. So why the rush to judgment on this issue? There are so many variables that bring about different results, it's mind boggling. I personally have addressed this issue in "court", and have obtained the results I was seeking; dismissal. I know several others who have done the same. Too many to just write it off as luck, or that the "court" didn't want to bother. If ever I've seen a line of "bunk", it's that tired line about the computer equipment not being updated, and/or the space/ink/paper saving garbage. If that's what it's all about, why just use all caps on the fictional parties in the legal briefs caption?? [snip . . . . ]

TG,

It is pretty obvious as to some of the posts you are referring to. If you will read close it was stated, "As for the court cases ?? Hey maybe they just match the name with what is on the driver lic. for consistency. Maybe it is just a throw back, who knows, . . . " , and that was the point. I do not have first hand knowledge about the why and what for as related to all caps in court cases and the statement shows it; however, I have DIRECT knowledge of how and why THE BUSINESS STATEMENTS were and are printed.

With the variations of names such as VanMorrison, etc., there is no hard and fast rules for spelling of names to recode the names already existing in the computer databases converted from times past. In fact I was in a meeting where this very issue was discussed. Whether to enter new names in upper and lower. The decision was made to keep the new names consistent with the old and no money would be spent correcting the MILLIONS of records that would need to be done, so all was to remain UPPER CASE. In another organization where this topic came up, they chose to enter all new names in upper and lower and make corrections on the old if people asked for them.

Furthermore your post referred to Christian Appellation or Christian Name etc. Not all people are Christians and the rules for their names are not always the same as for Christians.

If you can write a flawless program to convert the data accounting for the myriad of spelling punctuation, that will also work for all databases, and all storage methods, then I suggest you do it because you will make billions of dollars. If you could do it for just one type of computer system and say Oracle, you might stand to make millions.

If the State decides to follow suit and correct names as one company consulted with did mentioned above, what will be the argument then? That ones name may be spelled "John Christian Doe" but it is pronounced Mickey Anti-Christ Mouse, and that since you did not call my name that is not me??

Please do not take this post the wrong way. I believe you stated that all localities are different. And that is my point. The All Caps argument does not stop them in some places. They are wise to it. The just have a sworn witness point out the defendant, adjust the records, and proceed with the execution right wrong or indifferent and no one in the court room is none the wiser.

It may be more beneficial to do as Marc advocates. If you read Lysander S-p-o-o-n-e-r No Treason The Constitution of No Authority, you will comprehend why "Who do you represent?" is a powerful way to expose the scam at the start.

If you find anything offensive in this post it was not my intent to do so. The outrageous statements are meant to be light hearted to make fun of the ridiculous nature of focusing on a leaf or a branch of a tree when we need to be striking at the root.

From my point of view, If I have been cuffed and stuffed, then brought into court, as I have been before, it matters not whether they call me by my name or whether they call me EXCREMENT HEAD the objective is to expose the scam so there is something that can be appealed if necessary, and get out of there with the least amount of damage being done to me.

UPDATE:

And BTW, I never said that the equipment was never updated. In fact It has Been Many Times. Its Just Every Organization doesn't use PC's exclusively. Supercomputers, Mainframes and Mini's are still in use, they just aren't the size of a small city anymore, and the new ones are still faster than PC's.

[sagas4]

Rizzotherat said:

KT

It is not my intention to argue with you, but please let me be clear: There is no "straw man". The "patriot" view, way, ideology etc... is just as big of a government hoax as the current bureaucrats are. Both will steal you blind. To participate as TS wants us to do is extremely dangerous and does not work. It will only make your problems worse. So to answer your question, there is no quick way. Be careful who and what you believe. My good friends wish they never heard of a "patriot", "staw man" and silly phrases like "without prejudice".


BTW, you are an excellent musician!

Rizz,

I concurr. Think of it like this. If one holds that the state (a fiction of the legal imagination), created a STRAWMAN (fictional entity), and the State bound you to it, then one is in a difficult position if confronted by a court. One is in the position of proving a nonexistent entity (Strawman) exists for the purpose of enslaving something that exists (You).

Now while there may be some truth to the Strawman theory, lets ask a couple of simple questions.
1. Did you create the Strawman? - No The State Did.
2. Can you prove the state did this with the intention to enslave you? - Not Likely.
3. Is this an arbitrary opinion? Well, I don't think so because there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence.
4. Where is the actual evidence? May I examine it? What are the facts that support your opinion a straw man exists to enslave you?

etc.

[theghost]

Hey everyone, this is a great thread. First let me say that, if any of my writings seem a little harsh or offensive, it is not intentional, it's just passion. I love this forum, and hope it continues for a very long time.

That said, Rizzo, in regards to your comments, we all know people or of people that have failed using this argument or that, including myself. I said as much. This is bound to happen in a system built on fraud and corruption. It's not only bound to happen, it's a certainty. This means nothing. As for there being no STRAWMAN, i.e. ALL CAPS NAME, let's say the judge calls out your name in court, JUDGE: "will Rizzo The Rat please step forward?" Sounds just like your name, I know. But he's reading it from the legal papers where it's spelled RIZZO THE RAT. It matters not what it sounds like, the "court" is in the paperwork, period. He reads off "RIZZO THE RAT", and you jump up and say "Yeah, that's me!" You just became a surety for the fiction, period, end of story. If you doubt this, you'll need to study the Uniform Commercial Code for a year or two, or three, like I've done. Article 3, Negotiable Instruments in particular. Am I claiming to be an expert? No way. Not possible. Again, I'm not trying to be a smart guy here, but the STRAWMAN exists, you'll even find him in Black's law, all editions. It's a false front, or stand in, to establish limited liability for the real folks with a pulse.

By the way, I no longer find the need to use the STRAWMAN argument, because I decided about a year ago to stop going to court, when I realized for certain that there was no such thing as a fair hearing. And yes, I've been invited many times. I actually have used numerous methods for staying out of court, and have learned much from guys like Howard Freeman, Rice McLeod, Jerry Lahr, Clyde Hyde, and others. I have combined the best of the best, and have done pretty well. As far Marc's book and methods, absolutely great stuff, and would use it in a heartbeat, but only if I was physically dragged before a judge against my will, because that's the only way I'll visit one of those gremlins again.

How about this, I believe Marc's teachings can be used in paperwork, in the form of sworn affidavits, placed into the public record for all to see. Put Marc's questions in the the form of statements of fact, and demand a reply. This not exclusive to just the judge, do it to the persecutor, clerk, city manager/Mayor, everyone involved, it's fun. This is pure Administrative Procedures Act, but you don't have to mention it by name. But they do have to respond, because they are bound by these procedures, or they are in default, and their pretense of good faith and fairness is gone! Something to think about.

sagas4, if I misquoted you or offended you in any way, I apologize, it's just my passion run amok.

To all, another excellent read I can't recommend highly enough, is Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier. It's a bit of a tough read, but stick with it. There is much wisdom to be gleaned from it. It can be found online.

[sagas 4]

TG,

None taken. Just wanted to clarify.

If Mercier was a judge, his documents give great insight in how the proverbial system looks at its subjects. You are correct they are a difficult read but they really make one think.

Your last post sums everything up very well. Since there is no such thing as a fair hearing, and all the people DBA the State really want is total obedience and control over everything, what makes anyone think that a few words or letters on paper are going to stop them? It may be working in some places at the moment but one day soon even filing papers, affidavits, and public records may be declared an act of terrorism if one does not have the "correct intent" when doing so.

[sagas4]

BTW Kevin,

I went back and re-read your post again.

Many thanks for the logical slap upside the head again. I need that once in a while.

Keep'em comming.

[marc stevens]

Guest-theghost said:

To all, another excellent read I can't recommend highly enough, is Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier. It's a bit of a tough read, but stick with it. There is much wisdom to be gleaned from it. It can be found online.

The fatal flaw in this premise is the nature of men and women pretending to be "states" or dba governments. These are men and women providing "services" on a violent basis. I discuss this in AILL when I cited Cohn v Graves, 300 US 308 on page 55.

There are several factual elements that make up a contact. Two are a meeting of the minds and agreement. How could men and women doing business on a violent basis actually have an agreement with anyone?

Their very foundation is violence. Everything they have is stolen. How could they possibly bring any property rights to the table for there to be a contract?

[theghost]

Marc, couldn't agree more. My only purpose for mentioning Mercier was for the reader of his works to understand how these violent individuals see us, and how they proceed. Maybe I should have said; read Mercier, then re-read AiLL. Another great book that goes well with Aill is "There's no government like no government", by Jackney Sneeb. And no, this is not his real name.

[kevin]

sagas4 said:

BTW Kevin,

I went back and re-read your post again.

Many thanks for the logical slap upside the head again. I need that once in a while.

Keep'em comming.

No problem Saga4.

Someone asked in a previous post on this thread (dont remember who), why even bother bringing up the ALL CAPS argument at all? I'd say the reason for bringing up any argument that confronts the fraud would be "To Attack Their Conscience".

If you understood the argument and understood how to phrase your questioning then more power to you. I personally only understand about 75% of it and have never personally tried it myself. Just because I have not used this argument or that I have not taken the time to fully research it does not mean it will not work.

I once went out on a very long limb when I first understood that these highway citations were just offers to contract. I was sick to my stomach of these glorified legal hwy bandits that I mailed a hand written letter to the court record and carbon copied the letter to the police officer and the judge. The ticket was for no registration, inspection, or insurance. In my letter I stated that their game was just a game and a contract by one which I was not going to play. I stated in the letter that they should not look for me to show up as I did not accept their offer to contract therefor I was not going to show up.

I did not fully understand all the underlying dynamics at the time, all I knew is that I was tired of being lied to and was not going to take anymore; so the letter was written and mailed return receipt requested.

I was all prepared for some legal maneuver from the Judge or D.A. Instead all I got from the D.A. was some nonsense that I forgot to "Date" my letter - luckily I had the "return receipt requested" receipt, so a date in which they had received the letter was on the record.

Even more interesting was the fact that the D.A.'s letter was typed and his signature was also typed - NOT HAND WRITTEN(?)! Why would the D.A. not sign his own signature? There is something to the fact that the court system is a fiction and can only respond to LKQ (like kind quality) fictions as a fictioni can not respond to a flesh and blood living individual. I believe this is why the policing agencies are so demanding about everyone having their papers in order as a fiction cant verbally speak - they can only respond thru their paper work.

I never heard from them again. No police cars in my driveway...ever! No IRS/ATF or Marshals ect., ect coming to take me away. This was my leap of faith in that I was not going to take it anymore.

The point of this story is this: you never know how a Judge/D.A. will respond when you confront them about their fraud.

The point for confronting them is not merely for economical or political reasons...but for spiritual reasons.

There is something about confronting an individual who is about to spiritually tresspass on you, where if they still have a thread of descency, ethics and or morals - then once confronted they may just admit what they are doing and go away. Confront them on their lies and they may merely dismiss your case and move on to some other poor innocent victim who doesnt put them on spiritual notice: hence in their mind - they are "off the hook".

Unfortunately I dont think we have much more time to really be concerned w/the legal system (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, latest Intelligence Bill ect., ect).

The manner in which we should posture ourselves in court would be the Simplest approach that offers the quickest way out. The Simplest and Easiest approach is a relative one - meaning it is relative to the individual: you have to decide which approach is best for you.

IMHO, the AiLL approach is the simplest...but that is my decision as I cant speak for you I can only speak for myself.

Kevin,

[RNT]

I do not give much to the all caps name. If not for the mere reason that there is not a lot of "law" or "court decisions" on the subject. It is ironic that the only time you see the all cap name is dealing with the government (corporate identity), any commercial transaction (commerce name), and any contract obligations where you are the debtor (debtor's name). However a friend of mine who did a land patent went to file it with the "proper agency" and he did get a reply back stating that they could not file it because "his name had to be spelled using all capitol letters and only with a middle initial. I just think in court (with the exception of allocution) and dealing with the average "joe" who works for this agencies, no one knows this and if they do they are not going to address it. This is why I like Marc's approach it undermines their system using the most basic rules of the system. If anyone has any good sites on the name stuff i.e. "laws" or "court cases" I would like to hear about those. Today is my friends day in court and we went over the script last night. More details tonight on how it went.