The Ordeal: Part Three, Incarceration and the Initial Hearing

Date: August 8, 2019

Hello Friends,

I’ll pick up the story from the point of the initial detention and hearing in front of a magistrate the following day. The arrest occurred on a Thursday early evening, and the hearing took place the following day in the afternoon. Before they transported me to the detention center I was allowed (handcuffed) to guide an officer to a safety deposit box I had in my bedroom to obtain $150 dollars for bail. There was mention from the deputies of the bail being around 1,500 dollars and that it was necessary to put up ten percent of that to meet bail, and ten percent of that is $150. Having some money on hand before you enter custody is something people need to be aware of, especially if they live alone and have no one on the outside they can count on to assist them once they are detained.

When something like this occurs, it is amazing the number of things you have to stop and consider taking care of before the opportunity escapes you. Because once you are locked up without access to any number of things — money, exculpatory documentation or without any apparent way to defend or acquit yourself — you are screwed. Or at least it seems that way. And it can be very easy to slip into a dejected or depressed mood based on the pressure of the physical and mental coercion the state is imposing upon you.

I was taken into custody from my home around 5PM on December 28, 2017 and booked into the county detention center. The Sheriff deputies did not have a copy of the warrant to show me which they were using to detain and arrest me. Then again, I didn’t have enough presence of mind at the time to ask to see one. I was too busy trying to figure out what I was going to do. It wouldn’t have mattered anyway because on a subsequent detainment and arrest when I did ask to see the warrant, the deputy said he didn’t have a copy but would provide me with one once we arrived at the detention center. What he provided me with was an internal work order document of the Sheriff’s Department with a bunch of code numbers and letters on it that didn’t make any sense to anyone who was unconnected with the Department. To that deputy, thats what a warrant was: a work order form. (Do you see the kind of mentality we’re having to work with here?) In other words, I was never handed a copy of an affidavit of complaint and warrant signed by a judge with the court seal on it. That’s what I wanted to see in order confirm the lawfulness of the action. And that didn’t happen.

The incidences of due process violations only mounted from this point on. If you think you are considered innocent before being proven guilty by the legal system, you can buy into that window dressing lip service ideal until reality finally dawns on you that what is happening is you are considered by the system to be guilty until you prove yourself not guilty, which is an impossibility. Because no one can prove a negative.

The detention center itself is more or less a mental torture chamber for psychological exploitation and mental degradation. It is not a good atmosphere to be in if you’re trying to think and figure things out. You’ve heard of the phone call that you’re entitled to in order to contact counsel or whomever. Well, the booking room and the community detention cell both have a phone or phones in them (four phones connected to a phone tree in the detention cell). But unless you can get the party on the other end of a call to pay for the call (or you have money on account to cover that call), you have no contact with the outside world. And the phone call itself was outrageously priced! Several dollars for just a few minutes (each call only lasts 15 minutes before the phone system automatically hangs up!). Everything in these places is about squeezing money out of you, one way or the other. Because the people employed in this kind of work (the state officers, court workers, detention officers etcetera) are not productive members of society; they don’t produce any goods that benefit society, and the bulk of the services they extend to the bulk of people who come into contact with them are many times questionable and/or unnecessary. The legal society has spawned an industry of financial piracy which is ingrained in the system itself.

There was a list of bail bondsmen taped to the wall next to the phone in the booking room, so when allowed, I started to contact those with local numbers. If the person at the other end accepts the charges, then you have 15 minutes to talk before the phone automatically hangs up. Most bail bondsmen will accept an initial call because that means business for them. But if you are not able to come up with or convince them that you have the collateral to put up for the bond, they may not bother answering a second call. My only chance of being able to address this situation was to get out of custody and back to my research material where I would at least have a fighting opportunity to acquit myself.

Also, when you are in custody, unless you have someone on the outside (which I did not have) who is able to support whatever needs you have in order to defend yourself, you are basically left in the dark and on your own. I had no access to documents I had in my file at home, which contained what I considered to be exculpatory material with regard to the present circumstance, before I was forced to enter a hearing unprepared and without adequate legal counsel. And perhaps equally important, I was not familiar enough with court procedure to know what to do or how to respond in any given situation.

At the time I was incarcerated, I was three months away from my sixty-sixth birthday. Luckily, I had kept myself in good shape through daily exercise and diet and had no major medical issues, save one or two minor issues. I needed to take 50 mg of zinc at least twice a week in order to keep from having problems with my prostate. I don’t trust state educated “doctors” and their complicity with Big Pharma, and so I research everything having to do with health before I even think of seeing a doctor about anything. My concern about the possibility of my prostate acting up and blocking my ability to evacuate the bladder was real, and one that I had experience in the recent past. On that occasion in the past, though, I had access to zinc lozenges to alleviate that situation. But being locked up, I had no access to what I knew would be an effective antidote. This was a real concern stirring in my mind, because it could act as a distraction to my ability to mentally function should the prostate issue come to fruition.

So, already, I have more than one concern on my mind as I’m endeavoring to prepare for a hearing the next day. If it hadn’t been for my training earlier in life with a monastic order and the practice of meditation, I might have succumbed to the psychological pressure being applied in that situation. As it was, I was able to apply some measure of focus and concentration to keep myself on track. 

As anyone who is near or over the age of sixty knows, inconsistencies in cognitive functioning begin to rear their ugly head somewhere around that age. In 2014 at the age of sixty-two, I was experiencing difficulties with recalling thoughts that I’d just had five or ten seconds before I wanted to recall them. Not very good if you’re a writer and a good thought strikes you and a few seconds later, after being distracted, you cannot recall that good thought well enough to write it down. Distractions can easily have one forgetting what one was thinking just a few seconds before. It’s not that I was ignorant of some subject or other, but that my mind would not make the connections for proper recall of exactly what I cared to express. This could be a potentially disasterous condition to have to deal with should it occur in front of a judge. Unless one is mentally alert and ready to respond in court, things can go south very quickly in the blink of an eye.

Through research, I had learned about the power of blueberries and krill oil as a remedy for restoring the nutrients necessary to bring back cognitive functioning in old age, and in the years since that time in 2014 have been using those ingredients with much success. It was an amazing one hundred and eighty degree turnaround when I started doing this, like between night and day. After just four to eight weeks on this regimen I was able once again to recall thoughts I’d had just seconds before being distracted.

That whole night before the next day’s hearing, I was struggling to recall certain information about how to handle myself at the hearing. It was frustrating because all I needed was a refreshed look at the material I had been accumulating on my computer in order to figure out what I was going to say at the hearing. I don’t think I got more than a couple of hours  sleep throughout that night. The next morning I asked for a pencil and paper so that I could write down, before the hearing, everything I wanted to remember.   

It wasn’t until much later (over a year, in fact, after having come across it in my research, because none of the attorneys I ever talked with brought it up) that I learned I should have asked to confer with counsel before proceeding any further with the hearing or responding to any questions. I was aware that the judge, no matter what I might say to mitigate or challenge the matter, was likely to enter a plea of “not guilty” on the defendant’s behalf, and I did not know how to counter or properly object to that move. As it turned out, there were other factors in that hearing (that I was to later learn about) which violated due process enough that I should be able to bring up in a post-conviction challenge.

In the meantime, I vaguely recalled having read about a procedure in pleading that was used to deny the jurisdiction of the court from which the alleged record of the matter initiated. Although I may have been mistaken on the correct procedure of its application, it went as follows: [link source: http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/nul-tiel-record/ ]

nul tiel record  (Fr. no such record). In pleading. A plea which is proper when it is proposed to rely upon facts which disprove the existence of the record on which the plaintiff founds his action. Any matters may be introduced under it which tend to destroy the validity of the record as a record, provided they do not contradict the recitals of the record itself. 10 Ohio, 100. It is frequently used to enable the defendant to deny the jurisdiction of the court from which the alleged record emanates. 2 McLean, C. C. (U. S.) 129; 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 293. It is said to be the proper plea to an action on a foreign judgment, especially if of a sister state, in the United States (2 Leigh [Va.] 72; 6 Leigh [Va.] 570;

My line of reasoning for using this went as follows: When the deputy asked for identification at the stop, I handed over my home-made ID card which was in fact a sworn affidavit with my First and Middle names (Thomas Eliot) on it along with an address and other identifying marks such as sex, weight, height, color of eyes and hair, and a family name in brackets (brackets meaning that anything between the brackets was not to be considered a part of the document) and my signature in First Middle. It also contained a black and white photo. The notary’s jurat and signature was on the back. That is how I identified myself at the stop.

Despite that, the deputy falsified the citation by including a LAST NAME and presuming that I was surety for the legal name estate in his computer records. It was the falsification of the record that the “nul tiel record” plea I used was responding to. In other words, the deputy (having been lied to and indoctrinated by his faulty training) did not truthfully convey the correct information provided by the alleged accused to the citation. He falsified the information found on my written and sworn testimony (ID card). Hence, no such record. This, as it turned out, was only the first of several dishonors that the state plaintiff was allowed to get away with. It was a shocking and eye-opening revelation to me, and one that I eventually furiously sought a remedy to.

For the information of those who have never before been through an arraignment hearing, I purchased a recording of mine, and have made a transcript of the hearing that took place that day for your education. Read it carefully and learn from it. There are some instances where I have added emphasis to important concepts; you should pay special attention to those instances. Later on, I will address my thinking on some of those instances. The only thing I have left out of this transcript is a paragraph where the judge spoke on immigration status, which didn’t apply in my matter. The hearing on this matter took only about eight minutes. As you will later learn, those were eight very crucial minutes within the whole scope of the proceedings.

Dressed in red detention clothing, after calling the NAME and the case number, I was directed to walk in ankle shackles and handcuffs up to the defendant’s table. The shackles had rubbed beginning-to-raw against my bare ankles on the way through the maze of corridors leading to the courtroom from the attached detention center. Yes, this whole physical complex (detention center combined with the courthouse) was set up to expedite what to the county was a revenue gathering activity. In many instances, as regards many, but not all, of the accused victims that were brought forth in this manner, it was an out and out racketeering and extortion scheme being perpetrated by the state on an unwary public.
 
Judge:  Would you state your full name and your address should you be released, sir.

Accused:  I am thomas eliot a man and private person. Here by special appearance to challenge jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s establishment of jurisdiction. I require this matter be held in a court of record. I am merely here to exercise my right of avoidance in a matter that has already been supposedly adjudicated.

Judge:  Alright. Thank you, sir. And um. . .

Accused: Um. . . I wanted to. . . I’ve got just a couple more.

Judge: Okay, go ahead.

Accused:  Ah. . . . [squinting reading from notes:] I have refused for cause timely without dishonor and without recourse to Me the citation that was issued. Everything in my. . . everything that I have to say is in my paperwork. I have nothing more to add other than that. Uhh... I’m sorry but I don’t have my glasses so it’s a little bit hard. I’ve made a few notes to read. The court was... oh that’s right... presented with a notice in 2015 through a letter that I sent to judge Stewart. But apparently the court has chosen to dishonor that notice. [stands silent]  

Judge:  Alright, thank you, sir. Ah, this matter is ah being conducted in a court of record. And what is your address, sir, should you be released? 

Accused:  A court of record? That means it must be a common law court and the magistrate is separate from the tribunal. According to Black’s Law Dictionary. Is that what we’re talking about because that’s what I’m talking about. 

Judge:  [overspeaking the accused] Sir this is a, this is the Justice Court who has jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses in addition to petty offenses and traffic citations which occur in our jurisdiction which is Yuma County.

Um, let me explain to you what you are here for. Number one, the court has reviewed the release questionnaire in your matter and does find there is probable cause for purposes of your detainment. There was a misdemeanor, failure to appear warrant issued April 3rd, 2013 with respect to an Arizona traffic ticket and complaint issued by the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office.

With respect to this proceeding, sir, you do have the right to remain silent. Anything that you say can be used against you as these proceedings are being recorded by both audio and video. You have the right to counsel. You have the right to be represented by an attorney at your own expense at all stages of your case. If you’re unable to hire an attorney, a procedure is available to have one appointed to represent you at little or no cost. You also have a right to a trial by the court with respect to these allegations. If you’re ordered to return to the court after today the court will set conditions of your release. You’re also before the court today on your arraignment. As to your arraignment advisement, should you choose to enter a no contest or a guilty plea today you would be waiving or giving up certain constitutional rights. Those constitutional rights include your right to plead not guilty. Your right to a trial with the assistance of an attorney at all stages of your case including an appeal if that became necessary, to confront the witnesses against you, to present evidence on your own behalf, to have the state compel the attendance of witnesses of your choosing to appear and testify for you. Your right to remain silent and not be forced to incriminate yourself. Your right to be presumed innocent, to have the state bear the burden of attempting to prove you guilty beyond a resonable doubt and your right to a direct appeal which would be to our Superior Court if you thought this court did something inappropriate.

I’m also required to advise you as to your options here today. You may enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest. A guilty plea means you’re admitting the allegations in the complaint and giving up your constitutional rights. A plea of no contest is essentially the same as a guilty plea, but you’re not admitting you committed a crime. However, you’re not contesting your case by asking that it proceed to a trial. And the court would be entering a finding of guilt if there’s what’s called a factual basis shown in your matter. A plea of not guilty means you are contesting the allegations in the complaint, we would then discuss your right to counsel and set your case for what’s called a pre-trial conference.

Now with respect to the complaint I referenced earlier, you are before the court today on an alleged violation of ARS 28-3473 (a), Driving with a license that’s cancelled. That is a class one misdemeanor which carries a maximum of up to six months in jail, up to three years of probation, and the maximum fine is 4,723 dollars and 46 cents. A minimum would be a fine of 316 dollars and 65 cents which could be further reduced with proof of the reinstated license. You’re also before the court on three separate civil citations. A civil traffic citation, um, on count one is for not having current registration. Count three is not having mandatory insurance, and count four is displaying plates suspended for mandatory insurance. On all three of these civil traffic offenses you have been found responsible by default. Due to your failure to address these issues. So there’s already been fines and fees imposed as to those three civil traffic offenses. And again that is by default.

With respect to today, that leaves pending the count one driving with a cancelled license. And sir, were you able to hear and understand your constitutional rights?   

Accused:  [One, two, three, four, no response. I wasn’t certain what I could say or not say at that point. I later learned, through a book (You Have The Right To Remain Innocent) written by a criminal defense attorney, that you must explicitly invoke your “constitutional right to remain silent.”]

Judge:  Should you choose to exercise your right to remain silent you do have the right to do so. However, I will ask you do you wish to enter a plea today?

Accused: Nul tiel record.

Judge:  Alright. So the court is going to enter a not guilty plea on your behalf. Your matter is going to be. . . [stops speaking]

Accused:  [overspeaking the judge] I do not give the court . . . I do not give the court power of attorney over me. 

Judge:  I’m not exercising power of attorney, sir. I’m entering a not guilty plea on your behalf. Your case is going to be set for a pre-trial conference on Friday, February 26th, 2018 at 3PM. Counsel will come and discuss your matter fully with you. And a bond will be ordered in our matter in the amount of five hundred dollars. Should you post that bond, you need to be present on Friday February 26th 2018 at three o’clock to address this matter.

As to counsel, the court’s going to make a finding that you do qualify for the assistance of counsel and I’m going to waive those fees at this time. Alright, thank you, sir.  

[End of hearing on the matter.]

In reviewing my performance in the above hearing: I began my statement at the outset in order to establish my status in the matter by mentioning that I was “a man” and “private person” and therefore not re-presenting myself as a surety for a legal fiction, based on information I had researched from the Internet which emphasized the importance of establishing oneself under the status of a private person. It made sense to attempt to take the presumption of my being anything other than that out of the equation, and according to the information I had come across, had been effectively used in some cases in the past. However, I had no idea of its effect in this court. At least, not until the judge decided to ignore it. So, there, you have genuine feedback on that legal theory. Although this is not to say that another court might not have acted differently. What it does tell us is that, in general, when you use unproven legal theories in these courts you are taking chances, the outcome of which is unpredictable. But that’s okay, at least you got it on the record as a challengeable issue.

I then expressed my assertion of being there in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. Next I endeavored to establish my preference for a court of record. The judge then tried to obscure that requirement by stating that the matter was “being conducted in a court of record.” So I immediately made a statement defining what I meant by “court of record.” The judge then launched into a distraction tactic which I didn’t have the presence of mind to know how to counter. When she finished, she came to part of the formal arraignment that judges want to get to with all due haste. “I will ask you do you wish to enter a plea today?”

Here, in retrospect, is where I missed an opportunity to extend the matter into another hearing. It didn’t register with me that she was asking a question. I’m not sure I would have known what to do even if it had registered in my awareness as a question. I mistook it for asking for a plea. But if I can remember to do so in the future, here is what I should perhaps have said. “I wish first to confer with counsel before proceeding any further.” And thereby avoid having to enter a plea in that moment. It should be noted at this point that thus far no assistance in the way of legal counsel was ever offered by the court. That offer didn’t come until after the arraignment was sealed. And yet the Supreme Court (in Powell v. Alabama) has ruled that an arraignment is a crucial part of any criminal proceeding, one which deserves a higher than usual discretionary caution on the part of a judge before proceeding. But, of course, that kind of discretionary caution goes flying out the window when an inferior court is acting in a prejudicial manner against a legally ignorant alleged defendant.

(See and research the information in this link for more discussion of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel:  https://sixthamendment.org/the-right-to-counsel/history-of-the-right-to-counsel/defining-when-the-right-to-counsel-must-be-made-available/  )

As it was, I took her question to be asking for a plea. If I didn’t say anything at that point, I knew she was going to enter a plea herself for the defendant. The only thing I knew to say at that moment was “Nul tiel record,” as it conformed with my understanding of the matter of the falsification of the record by the deputy. And as far as I was aware, it was considered to be a valid plea (although not one of the three she was looking for). However, the judge chose to ignore (dishonor) that plea (even though it was now established on the record) and went ahead and entered a not guilty plea for the defendant. I immediately objected to that in the only way that I — in that moment — could remember to do. When she skimmed over that objection, I had no idea what to say to counter her statement. At that point, it seem that the hearing, from my side of the matter, had become a lost cause.

It wasn’t until much later that I came across information from a respectable source (Marc Stevens) saying that judges may only enter a plea on your behalf if you are refusing to plead. I didn’t refuse to enter a plea for the defendant, I entered something different than what was offered. And as far as I was aware, it was a valid plea to enter, which had an historical precedent behind it. I could have also said “innocent” and that would have been just as valid a plea. Yet the plea I made is still on the record of the matter as far as I am concerned, and as such provides a reason for challenge in a higher court.

The fact that the court chose to dishonor it reflects on the demeanor of the court, not me, and the unfairness with which the court treated me. It was a jurisdictional challenge, and it is up to the plaintiff to bring forward evidence of jurisdiction over the opposing party and place in on the record, not the court. Something that the plaintiff state (or its attorneys) never did in all three of the complaints made against THOMAS ELIOT SMITH. And something that the court never admonished plaintiff’s attorney to correct before proceeding.

Another interesting piece of information I came across recently during my research of which needs to be taken notice is the following. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case from the 1930s (as well as subsequent cases following) which point out when the right to counsel (a Sixth Amendment right) must be made available in a criminal case. In Arizona, driving without a license is considered a criminal misdemeanor. The case I’m referring to is a famous case argued and decided in 1932, Powell v. Alabama.

That case involved nine black youths dubbed by the press as the Scottsboro Boys — described as, “young, ignorant, and illiterate” — who were accused of raping two white women. One of the women later recanted her testimony. Alabama officials sprinted through the legal proceedings: a total of three trials took one day and all nine were sentenced to death. Alabama law required the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys did not consult with their clients and had done little more than appear to represent them at the trial.

The Powell case was decided together with Patterson v. Alabama and Weems v. Alabama. Ozie Powell, Haywood Patterson, and Charlie Weems all sued Alabama in federal court to have their cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. The question to be determined was: Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In the final determination the Court held that the trials denied due process because the defendants were not given reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel in their defense.

What caught my eye was a quote from the decision stating that the Scottsboro Boys had been denied their right to a fair day in court, because “during perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings against these defendants, that is to say, from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, when consultation, thoroughgoing investigation and preparation were vitally important, the defendants did not have the aid of counsel in any real sense, although they were as much entitled to such aid during that period as at the trial itself.” In effect, they were denied effective assistance of counsel which should have been provided them at the very outset of their matters.

On reading this, it occurred to me that the very same thing had happened to me. At a most critical period during the proceedings, the arraignment, I was not afforded opportunity to confer with counsel — not that it would have made much difference, because the three attorneys that were eventually appointed had each already made up their mind that the defendant was guilty, no matter what exculpatory evidence I showed them. Effective counsel should have known, better than I, the correct procedural pathway to get my evidence on the record. But that never had a chance to take place, and I was too ignorant of the rules of procedure to discern how best to proceed.   

[Read the Supreme Court holding on Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 here:  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/287/45/ ]

Later on in this same holding, at 287 U.S. 69, Justice Sutherland writes that: “The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect.”

Each of the underscored passages in the quotation just above pertained to my situation. Even though I considered myself as relatively intelligent and educated, it quickly became obvious that I was not skilled “in the science of [their] law.” And that I lacked “both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his [my] defense, even though he have a perfect one. . . . because he does not know how to establish his innocence.” As I later reflected on that quotation, it struck me that Judge Sutherland used the phrase “science of law” in his case holding. In that tenor, he seemed to be using the word “science” to mean — as is stated under the sixth definition in Webster’s New World Dictionary, Fourth Edition — “a skill based upon systematized training [as in, the science of cooking].” And anyone who isn't skilled in the “science of law” (that is, private copyrighted law), but who is being forced to participate in a foreign jurisdiction litigation is obviously working at a disadvantage! So, its stands to reason: How could any such circumstance be deemed fair? 

By the time the trial in this first matter took place (a description of which will follow later on in this series), the reader may be able to conclude, as I did, that there was no way that I would have been able to challenge the issues I wanted to challenge because no attorney that I was aware of (appointed or not) would have attempted to defend the matter using the approach of challenging jurisdiction, even though he might very well have known how successfully to do so. Anyone who finds himself in the position I found myself in would have been aware that he was being set up for a loss. My only hope, according to what I was learning, would be to collaterally attack the verdict in a post adjudication hearing in a higher court on the grounds, inter alia (meaning “among other things”), that I had not been afforded “effective assistance of counsel.” Which speaks toward the ultimate unfairness of the proceedings. 

Keep an eye out for the next installment. There is certain to be various interesting points of law for you to take note of interjecting their presence within this series of narratives.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy
BeatTrafficTickets.Org 

_________________

The Ordeal: Part Four, Detention Life, Bail, and the Psych Evaluation Order

Date: August 24, 2019

Hello Friends,

After the Friday December 29th, 2017 arraignment hearing, I was returned to the community detention holding cell they use at the initial stage of detention. The cell itself was a large room fitted with about forty or so steel bunkbed structures lined against three walls of the room. People who entered this stage of the detention system were only expected to remain in this initial holding cell for about seven to ten days, depending on whether they bonded out or were assigned to a more permanent community cell block within the main population at the center. At any given time there were anywhere from six to fourteen (or more) inmates being held in the initial holding cell, either waiting for hearings or to be released on bail or waiting to be moved into the general population being housed in a similar community cell.

The concrete room had narrow foot-high rectangular windows high up on one wall which allowed morning sunlight to peak through for a few minutes before the sun rose past the windows, but other than that, one had no contact with the outside world of nature. There was little to no chance of getting any sunlight to allow the body to manufacture vitimin D. Before the detainment, I had taken certain nutritional supplements, some of which could be dispensed with for short periods of time without much harm while others needed to be taken at least weekly (like zinc for the prostate). The atmosphere was air conditioned, which at times bordered on the chilly side, but generally it was comfortable.

Yet worst of all the Sheriff had explicit rules regarding what one could and could not do while in the detention cell. And one of the things that was forbidden was exercising. The reasoning for this, I was told by a guard, was that if a person harmed themselves through exercise, then the County was on the hook to pay for the medical treatment. And so the ban on exercise was a measure imposed to cut down on the County’s liability. Well, if I wasn’t going to be allowed to attend to my own health needs through exercise, I could easily lose my health by way of the Sheriff’s policy of no exercise, and then the County would be on the hook in order to make me whole again, which might be a whole lot more expensive than if it had just allowed me to do what I already knew to do to maintain my own health.

Having reached that stage of life where, if you want to maintain your mobility and general health, you’d better be willing to get in some kind of exercise every day or stand by watching the slow deterioration of your body, I was concerned by the restriction which allowed no exercising in the cell. I was used to being able to run every day and lift weights three times a week in order to keep my body in shape and mobile. Yet, we were not allowed to do even the simplest of calisthenics (pushups, situps, jumping jacks etc.) while in detainment without being sactioned (punished) by any of the guards for disobeying that rule. As for myself, it was mandatory for me to be able to exercise in order to maintain my health. Anything less was a slow sentence of bodily deterioration eventually ending in an inability to maintain a quality of life.

Adding insult to injury, the percentage of nutritious food that was served at meal times was next to nothing. Proper amounts of protein, fresh fruits and vegetables were virtually in abeyance. Vegetables, when there was such, came out of a can, and thus whatever nutrients they contained were cooked out of them. The only fruit we ever received while I was there was an occasional apple at lunch. Lunch, many times, consisted of four pieces of wheat bread, a slab of peanut butter wrapped in saran wrap, a package of chips, and an apple. I threw away the first three and ate only the apple. If they served baloney rather than the peanut butter, which was rare, I would eat (yuck!) the baloney alone along with the apple and toss the rest. At least there was some protein value in the baloney; the peanut butter was of the lowest quality and therefore questionable in value. Hardly any fiber at all in this diet they served, which made bowel movements difficult.

Therefore it is not too difficult to see that there was some incentive for my being able to get out of detention on bail to be able to not only maintain my physical and mental health, but to begin researching remedies for this situation.

In talking with one of the other inmates who had had experience in the past of dealing with the local legal system, he suggested a particular bail bondsman who might be willing to help me. He had dealt with this bondsman before and had good results. By this time it was the weekend, and most of the bail bonds people were not answering their phones. Bail bonds people are a particularly cautious animal within the legal industry (yes, it is an industry, folks, I’m sorry to say). If you can’t convince the bondsman that you are trustworthy and won’t burn them on their fees or the bond, they will let go of you faster than a hot potato. All they need is the slightest suspicion. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, all they need is the suspicion. I had already gone through two or three other bondsmen who weren’t accepting my call for one reason or another. So I figured I had nothing to lose attempting to get hold of the person he suggested. Unfortunately, this person wasn’t answering his phone over the weekend.

At the beginning of the next week I was finally able to make connections with this bondsman. He sounded likeable but cautious. I explained to him my situation, let him know that I had $150 dollars on account at the detention center, the bond was $500 dollars. He asked me if I could reimburse him the bond once he had put it up with the court, and I said, “Of course. I just can’t recall any of my credit card numbers to give you.” I made a deal to pay him $100 dollars of his $150 dollar fee once I was released (yes, he charged me a 30% fee because he didn’t know me well enough to trust me, and was going out of his way to do this as a favor — so much bull$**t). He said, “Okay, I’ll take care of the bond, and have you out in a couple of hours.” That was at 10:00 AM on Tuesday morning. He was laying it on thick, all that he was having to go through to get this done; I wasn’t buying any of it and was just going along with him. But the “two hours” bit was just over the top because the Sheriff had a policy of not releasing anyone until after 4:00 PM.

As it turned out, he made good on his end of the deal, I made good on mine, and everything worked out. Except that now I was 18 miles from my home. They don’t give you your cash back when they release you from detention. They convert it into digital so-called “money” and give you a magnetic debit card that you can play hell trying to get your money off of. The card company has so many fees it can charge if you unintentionally use one of those services, and if you don’t do it correctly, you can end up losing money in fees. It cost me $36 dollars by taxi to get home. Are you beginning to see why I call it a “legal industry?” Bail bondsmen, cabbies, tow companies, and the debit card companies are on the periphery of the industry, skimming off the person being duped. The real money is in the courts themselves. 

If this picture, so far, hasn’t yet gotten you upset and outraged about how corrupt and lawless the legal system is in this country, I don’t know what will! All I can say is, you haven’t heard the half of it yet.

Once released, I was given a copy of an order of the court to contact the Legal Defender’s Office within three days of my release, which I did. The court order waived any legal fees the defendant might be responsible for the assigned attorney; the court was sure to have those fees reimbursed through fines once the defendant was found guilty. Yes, the outcome was presumed ahead of time; so much for impartiality! The week following that week I was greeted with a letter from the Conflict Administration Division of the County. They were sending me notice of the attorney who was assigned to the case as well as the next hearing date. Conflict Administration? I wondered what that meant.

Rather than assign the case to the Public Defender’s Office, the court had assigned it to what was called the Legal Defender’s Office. Try as I might to find out what the difference was between these two offices (because inquiring minds want to know), I was given a basic runaround. Their story was: when the Public Defender’s office is deluged with cases, they assign excess cases to the Legal Defender’s office. Therefore there is basically no difference. The Legal Defender’s office sometimes uses outside contract attorneys to defend clients rather than in-house attorneys who are often times overburdened themselves with cases. The attorney they assigned me was from an outside law firm, what is known in the industry as a “contract attorney,” under contract to the county to provide legal services. The county pays their legal fees to “defend” the person being victimized through extortion. In the end, the county gets reimbursed those fees through the extorted fine that is charged to the convicted defendant.

But because of the unusual circumstances surrounding this matter (it had been “refused for cause, timely,” and a copy of an Affidavit of Administrative Notice that had been recorded at the county and served on both the Arizona Department of Transporation and the County Sheriff in May of 2009) I was wondering whether the Conflict Administration Division and the Legal Defender’s office were part of a mechanism to keep the State’s embarrassment to a minimum being that the plaintiff had already defaulted on its opportunity to rebut the affidavit. Maybe this was a way to keep a tight lid on things so that the masses won’t find out that there’s a remedy going on behind the scenes. Boy, was I ever wrong about that.

Yet, if such was true, it was never admitted to me. Because, in case you haven’t learned about it, law enforcement officers (LEOs), attorneys, court personnel, and yes, even magistrates are encouraged to lie to defendants in order to get them to cough up their consent to the process. Whatever they can do using intimidation and threats they are allowed to do by the legal system. What is worse: it won’t get them in trouble within their system if it’s discovered! (Are you beginning to get steamed yet?)

As I eventually realized, there was nothing to the Conflict Administration moniker being what I imagined it might refer to; it was not a euphemism or disguise used for anyone to save face. It’s just another layer of bureaucracy manned by people trying to justify their miserable paycheck through their involvement in a racketeering influenced corrupt organization calling itself the state “government” and plundering the people using frivolous complaints as an excuse for being able to do so.

Released on bail and free to roam the Internet, I immediately began searching for additional possible methods to obtain remedy that the court might recognize. Although not just any method. It had to look and sound reasonable based on what my previous research had uncovered (in this case, about the realities surrounding the many bankruptcies of the United States government and the manipulation — corruption — of its monetary system). And herein, it seems in retrospect, I was setting myself up for disappointment and failure on a scale much grander than I could have imagined at the time. Hopefully, it will save other readers from going down these same wrong rabbit holes and having to undergo the same disappointment.

In seeking a quick fix to my troubles, I came upon a concept I’d never heard of before. It involved adding a new word to the lexicon of my vocabulary. The word “subrogation.” The word is defined as “the substitution of one thing for another, or of one person into the place of another with respect to right, claims, or securities.” It refers to the process of substituting a third person who has paid a debt in the place of the creditor to whom he has paid the debt. It is used primarily in insurance cases. Rather than go into detail here about an explanation of how this term is used, I will just supply a link to a couple of videos I viewed which led me down this path. The first audio/video contains a more complete version of the definition as it was theoretically to be used. It is well worth your looking at and studying both these audios. The second audio/video was a way to somewhat verify the actual usability of the process in court; the most significant passage is somewhere around the 28 minute mark where there’s a recorded interview with someone calling himself Fischer who supposedly has actually used the process and what to expect. I searched and searched, but could find no other verification on the Internet about this process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTFQr39Gwc
Stop A Court Case With One Question - Right to Subrogation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rke4QqP85XU
D.I.Y. Kangaroo Courts 13 - Subrogation

Now to be fair, I did more research than is present on these videos before I was satisfied about attempting to use this approach. The problem was: there was no way I could verify that this approach had ever been used successfully, try though I might to find such. Therefore, I wasn’t willing to stake much on its outcome. Although I was interested to see how the players (prosecuting attorney in particular) were going to handle it. I sent a letter to the prosecutor asking him to certify my right to subrogation, as was suggested by the information I came across. In the end it turned out, as with so many other methods tested, the letter was just ignored by the prosecutor.

One of the reasons that letter may have been ignored is that once the court has assigned legal counsel to a defendant, the prosecutor can only deal with that legal counsel. In other words, he cannot hear or speak directly with the defendant about anything or consider anything that defendant might offer. Not unless the defendant is officially “representing” himself. Any offers for settlement the defendant makes have to go through his assigned attorney to the prosecutor. I sent the letter the same day I received notice in the mail of the attorney that had been assigned by the Legal Defender’s office. The only way to have the offer recognized would have been to have the defense attorney formally (orally in court or by written motion) withdraw from the case before making the offer. I didn’t find all this out until after the fact. I’m not sure it would have mattered much anyway; they would have found another way to get around it or just continued to ignore it. 

After being notified of the defense attorney that had been assigned, I spent three weeks, before contacting the attorney, researching different avenues of approach to the matter, looking deeper into the subrogation process as well as into other possibilities I was coming across. I began to consider drawing up my own pleadings, using a Supreme Court ruling I came across during my research of Richard Cornforth’s material. I had found a three hour seminar of Richard’s posted on YouTube that was chock full of what seemed to be useful information about challenging jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruling stated that: “Actual facts, not mere allegation of complaint, are determinative of issue of jurisdiction.”

As far as I was aware at that moment, the only document that could possibly allege jurisdiction of the defendant was the Traffic Ticket and Complaint filed by the Sheriff’s deputy. There was nothing in that document or on the record verifying (through sworn testimony of first hand knowledge) that the plaintiff (deputy representing the State) had obtained personal jurisdiction of the alleged defendant in the matter. Again, “Actual facts, not mere allegation of complaint, are determinative of issue of jurisdiction.” An allegation is not a fact. Facts have to be alleged through sworn testimony. And there was no such animal (affidavit alleging personam jurisdiction) in the court file! Another example of no evidence on the record regarding the “nul tiel record” [no such record] plea mentioned in the previous newsletter.

It turns out, I later learned, that that Traffic Ticket and Complaint document was also what the court was considering to be the charging instrument. This fact will become important later on when I get to the third citation issue wherein I sought to challenge the validity of the charging instrument as alleging anything at all since everything that was written on it was enclosed in boxes and therefore not considered part of the document in any significant manner, according to the “four corners rule” as stated in Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, that no contractual meaning can be applied to or derived from any “isolated parts” within a document. In other words, if text is enclosed in a box or by brackets, it is not considered to be part of the substance of the document.   

Before I contacted the attorney by phone, a woman in her early thirties a few years out of law school, I spent several hours working up a questionnaire to ask her so that I could get an idea where she was coming from. She answered my questions in a fairly reasonable manner. We ended up talking for about forty-five minutes at the end of which I set an appointment to meet with her in her office the following day. It was at that meeting that I first learned of the “Order for Rule 11 Evaluation,” the psych evaluation order being motioned by the justice court magistrate. A copy of the court paperwork (filed in the Superior Court on January 9th) for that order had been sent to the attorney, but not to me! A status hearing regarding the order was set for February 14th; it was already January 30th when I was meeting face to face with the attorney. That hit me like a ton of bricks, because from my previous research, that meant that the court might try to muscle it’s way through the proceedings by being able to label me as incompetant so that an attorney could be assigned to ramrod the case through the court without my ability to respond or defend.

At least, that was one scenario I had in mind. I had read accounts of others who were put through this degradation of a process by the legal system in order to break them down psychologically and emotionally so that the court could have its way with them. This was something to be genuinely concerned about if I was going to be forced to undergo such an evaluation. It was nothing to take lightly. 

I spent nearly three hours talking, explaining my personal background and position regarding the matter with the lady attorney, who for the most part just listened and took notes as I talked. She seemed pleasant enough. However, my focus was on eventually getting rid of her (having her withdraw from the case) so that I could handle the matter myself and not be trapped by having an attorney and thereby guaranteeing a losing defense. Fortunately, all that talking did not go to waste. Near the end of that meeting, she turned and said to me: “You know, I don’t think this psych eval is really necessary. I’m going to talk with the prosecutor to get the order withdrawn.” I asked: “You can do that?” And she said, “Yes. I just need to make contact with him and let him know, based on my personal evaluation of you, that it’s not necessary.” Truth be told, that was kind of what I was going for all along, I just wasn’t sure whether she was part of the machine (out to sink another victim) or was willing to listen to reason. Thankfully for me, it was the latter. 
 
There were other reasons that eventually came to the surface which pointed toward my wanting to have her withdraw from the case. After that meeting, she never answered my emails or calls. I was particularly miffed by that. I could see that her attention was being buffeted this way and that by other issues. She had over fifty other cases that she was dealing with for the courts, which is typical for a contract attorney, and it was very difficult to get hold of her in the following days leading up to the status hearing. I was left having to deal with her assistant, a paralegal, who wasn’t very much help at all being that he was limited in what he could say or provide answers the questions I had. I was attempting to learn as much as possible about this mysterious legal system as I could while I was in contact with it, but they talk in a different language from you and I. It is meant to confound and confuse matters, not to clarify, and to maintain the fraud that is going on.

Rather than sit back and let a bunch of incompetents run this matter into the ground, I became proactive and decided to take out an insurance policy in the form of a Notice to the Superior Court judge just in case they were presuming my consent in this farce. The idea was to go on the record and put the judge on notice from the common law venue of the matter. I wrote up a five page Notice of Non-Consent, stating at the outset that “This is a notice of non-consent — to be taken under advisement.” In other words, if your actions do me damage, you’re on notice that I’m coming after you.

What got me riled about this “Order for Rule 11 Evaluation” was the wording of the document filed in court that I finally was able to see thanks to the attorney, a copy of which was never sent to me but of which I obtained from the attorney. The document making a motion to the Superior Court for such an order was never presented to me; which made me wonder, who made such a motion? In order for the Justice Court to have a psych eval done, it has to go through the Superior Court. The Order from the Superior Court started out by saying, “Defendant’s Motion for Rule 11 having been submitted for an examination of defendant to determine...” This order was filed in the Superior Court on January 9, 2018 and signed by the same judge who eventually withdrew it. As far as I knew, the defendant had not made a motion for pre-screening or anything else for that matter. If I let that stand in the record of the matter, I would have been letting the court take actions and make determinations without refuting that any such thing happened! At least, that was my understanding at the time.

In the first paragraph of the Notice of Non-Consent, I laid out the position of who the court was alleging to be the defendant in the matter. I wrote:

“On and for the record, Thomas Eliot, one of the people of Arizona, acting as the authorized agent for the alleged defendant, THOMAS ELIOT SMITH, in the above referenced matter, hereby serves the following NOTICE on this court. (As clarification, the term ‘agent’ here retains its common everyday meaning, namely, ‘an agent is one who acts for another.’)”

An agent is not a principal, but rather one who acts for the principal. According to information I had come across in my research, I was endeavoring to separate the capacity of the two persons mentioned: Thomas Eliot and THOMAS ELIOT SMITH. Two separate and distinct persons in law. My research had uncovered the fact that the all caps name on a birth certificate or a driver license was indeed a separate two-dimentional person from the three-dimensional man who has the same or a similar name. The courts know this but they refuse to recognize it in order to justify their extortion and also because the cat’s already out of the bag. The people are just now learning about this difference, which the courts have not had to address for decades because it’s been kept secret, and now that more and more people are becoming aware, the courts, fearful of their loss of power and prestige in front of the [mostly ignorant] public, are simply coercing the joinder of the two names into one entity, when in fact they are two separate entities in law. Never let it be said that these courts let the facts get in the way of their “legal” processes.

One of the concepts I learned in my research which I used in this Notice to the court came from a man by the name of Karl Lentz. Now, I don’t recommend you look into Karl’s information unless you are ready to spend hour upon hour upon hour upon hour listening to his audios for that one little nugget of information that you know he’s holding onto but very rarely gives up in a straight forward way. Karl knows a lot about law, but he’s not very forthcoming in his explanations and can be exasperating to listen to. But in one of the many of his audio presentations that I listened to and spent hours transcribing, he finally came out and stated something outright that I found fascinating and credible:

“You’re supposed to do everything in writing. You put it on paper. You don’t get into a converstation with these people verbally. You will lose. There is no way in the world you’re going to hold your own in court. You do it all in writing. And you hold them all liable. Because if the judge wants to enter guilty, not guilty, no contest on you ... well you say, ‘May I have leave of court your honor.’ ‘Why?’ ‘I would like to answer the court. You wish to enter a plea on my behalf. Good. May I have a leave of court for a second so I can properly answer the court. Let me write this down real quick.’ And you write, ‘You will bear all liability. Whoever enters a plea on my behalf will bear liability.’ And that’s it. The judge knows what you’re doing by just saying ‘If you enter anything on my behalf, if you order anything on my behalf, you’re going to be liable for that order.’ Because in a civil matter, they can’t compel you to fight. They can’t force you to move forward until you are ready. It’s not civilized.”

And so I used the concept of stating in writing that anyone who wishes to act on behalf of the defendant [ostensibly without his consent] will personally bear all liability for their actions. The way I stated it in the Notice was:

As agent for the alleged defendant, I noticed that the very first sentence in the court’s "Order for Rule 11 Evaluation" plainly makes the assertion that the defendant has made a motion and states that: "Defendant’s Motion for Rule 11 Pre-Screen..." We are unaware of any motion placed before any court by the alleged defendant in this matter, and would question the validity of such assertion. The only possible explanation for this anomaly which comes to mind is that the magistrate in the inferior court is acting administratively as Trustee for a constructive Trust account that is being administered by that court, and that magistrate Pro-Tem Erin R. Farrar, acting in her private capacity as a private corporate administrator for an agency, entered a motion as a fiduciary trustee for the name on the account, viz., THOMAS ELIOT SMITH. As fiduciary trustee for the account, magistrate Farrar represents the account and is personally liable for any motions or orders issued concerning it.

In the next paragraph, I made even more clear that the defendant did not and could not have entered a motion for such an evaluation, while at the same time bringing up doubts as to the mental competency of the magistrate who likely did.

The alleged defendant has never consented to such an evaluation much less entered a motion for one, and through his agent so presently states. Since the alleged defendant is a juristic entity, an artificial person with no corporeal existence, with no one consenting to come forward to act as surety while inquiry into and proof of subject matter jurisdiction have not been satisfied, the motion for the Order seems frivolous on its face as not having been brought to court in good faith. It is uncertain whose mind is to be evaluated, when common sense tells one that an incorporeal entity obviously does not qualify for any such evaluation, which brings into question the mind of the magistrate who submitted the motion in the first place.

By this point in my research, I was beginning to understand something of what other researchers were referring to as a Trust entity (in the form of the all caps name) which is supposedly the real party whose pockets the courts are actually interested to get into. I filed this Notice just two days before the status hearing on the Order for Rule 11 unbeknownst to my attorney, primarily because I didn’t know any better but also because she wasn’t communicating with me about anything at this point. If she was appointed the attorney for the defendant and she considered me to be the defendant [which I denied], how come she wasn’t returning my phone calls or answering my emails! I was as much frustrated with her as I was with the court.

When I arrived at the court for the hearing, the attorney didn’t show up until about four minutes before the court was ready to go into session. I asked her how her talk with the prosecutor went, and she assured me that the prosecutor was going to go along with her motion to withdraw the court Order for a psych evaluation. I casually mentioned to her that I had filed a Notice with the Superior Court, and she said, “Oh, we’ll have to get that withdrawn. You’re not allowed to file anything while I’m your attorney.” At that point, I really didn’t care about their protocol. In my mind, I was making my own record of the matter, and that was my whole point in making the filing from the common law side of the matter. I’m not sure if she ever had that document withdrawn, she was so busy with other clients. It doesn’t really matter, because it’s still part of my record of the events that took place. 

At the status hearing, I tried to make sense of what the judge was saying after the two attorney’s had had their say, but could not, and when he asked if I agreed to whatever mumbo jumbo he’d been saying, I said, “No.” Because I couldn’t understand a word he’d just said. At that he looked at me with surprise and horror, as did my attorney. I bent down and asked the attorney to translate what has just been uttered, and she explained it in layman’s terms, after which I changed my answer to “Yes.” Both the judge and attorney sighed in relief, and the psych eval order was withdrawn. It took all of about five minutes.  

In the end, I was glad to have had the attorney’s assistance on that issue. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have known what to do or how to handle it in their court. The procedures and the language they use in these courts is so mysterious at times that you really do need someone to translate what is happening. In the third case, that is why I kept the assigned attorney almost all the way through the matter until he saw a moment in a status hearing when he could petition the court to withdraw from the matter without my having to ask him. I was attempting to use him as assistance of counsel to help translate what the court was doing, but after a while, he didn’t want any part of that. In essence, he was ineffective, a due process violation I’m looking into being able to use on the back end of these matters to be able to attack the proceedings collaterally.

But I’m getting ahead of myself here. There is plenty more of interest leading up to that moment when the attorney withdrew that I have yet to cover.

At this point, I would like to caution any readers who might be just blithely reading this series of newsletters for entertainment value without clicking on the links to read what is being referred to or who are really not delving into the subject matter and thinking deeply about what is being disclosed, that they are likely wasting their time in terms of what can be learned from this feedback. If you don’t have the time to really read and think about what is being imparted here right now, then save these newsletters to re-read for another time when you can devote a closer reading and critical thought to them. You will find that you value them more once you have a greater understanding of the nuances of law that are being discussed. 

Stay tuned for the next installment. There is certain to be interesting points of law that you may not be familiar with of which you will want to take note. 

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy
BeatTrafficTickets.Org  


_________________

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.


_________________

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.