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

Date: October 20, 2019

Hello Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


The Ordeal: Part Seven, A New Attorney Is Appointed, Won’t Defend Me, and Lies to My Face

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.


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.