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

Date: April 30, 2019

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

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

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

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


Hello Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy
BeatTrafficTickets.Org

_________________

Resurrection: The Reason For My Silence

Date: June ??, 2019

Hello Friends,

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

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

Yet before I explain what happened, I need to clarify the manner in which I became involved with the issue of victimless traffic violations in conjuction with setting up a website. It’s really quite simple. I was educated during a time when United States Civics was taught in our government-run high schools. Not that the Civics classes were all that informative; they were meant to condition and control one’s thinking rather than to inform it. Yet the exposure to these ideas on politics did open up questions in my mind about which I later did personal historical research.
 
It wasn’t until much later in my self-education that I learned that all legitimate law is based on first causes. And that the faculty of reason, above all else, is held in highest esteem in all true courts of law. It was then that I realized that these concepts were very important. For it is on the basis of these concepts that all claims for personal liberty can be asserted. I learned these concepts by studying various versions of the maxims of law from which all statutory law (American civil law) has its foundation. There is a maxim which epitomizes this concept which states: Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. “What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law.”

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

At the time I set up the website, my experience in having to address matters in court was somewhat limited as was my knowledge of the procedures and law being used in these courts. In the past I had been to court about half a dozen times on relatively minor issues; and each time I learned a little more about how they worked. When I soon learned that others who were attempting to use the process I was sharing were having difficulties getting the court to recognize their position, I began to do more research on court procedure using the Internet and my knowledge of law as best I could. And I did so with the forethought of possibly having to use the information that I was coming across for myself. Court procedure was always the weakest area of my knowledge base, because I didn’t have the advantage of a wide ranging practical experience (whether of myself or others) in an actual court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy
BeatTrafficTickets.Org

_________________

A New Newsletter Article

Date: ??, 2016

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.


_________________

A New Newsletter Article

Date: ??, 2016

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.