Important Alteration To The R4C Process!

Date: August 12, 2021

Note:  This special email is going out to inform subscribers of recent developments with regard to the formal challenge of the twelve presumptions of law. While I have never claimed to have all the answers, I have been diligent in seeking solutions to our mutual concerns for maintaining our liberty in the midst of an upside down world which is being manipulated beyond all imagination by those in Power! It is not up to me, it is up to you, individually, to educate yourselves and to figure out how you wish to handle any given legal challenge to your liberty. Because ultimately it is you who has to take responsibility for your actions or inactions.

As evidence of my personal commitment to each of you, subscribers and supporters of the website, I am sending this message for your serious consideration. Due to the verification of information that has recently come to light, we are suggesting a slight alteration to the refusal for cause process which we trust the courts will not be able to ignore or disqualify. But don’t take that sentiment to the bank just yet because it has yet to be verified in reality. This alteration involves adding one extra document to the refusal for cause of the citation that is returned to the officer and also, most importantly, sent as notification to the court.

The attachment above ( Formal Challenge to the Twelve Presumptions of Law.pdf ) is a formal challenge of the court’s undisclosed presumptions that are, according to information recently uncovered, used to rope people into the court’s jurisdiction without their knowing or understanding how that was done. Because this is a challenge to the court’s officers presumption jursidiction, we think it must be done timely, that is, the first thing out of the box before you even utter a word in court. (There is some indication that this challenge may be done at any time during the course of a legal matter, but we have not been able to confirm that just yet.)  Otherwise, the court will proceed under the presumption that it has permission to act according to the twelve presumptions.

One of my subscribers has used this challenge in a recent action coming against himself with apparent success (with emphasis on the word “apparent”). He reported back that as soon as he sent it out to the proper parties, the next day the plaintiff in the matter coming against him moved to have the action against him dismissed. Rather than hold this important information back for further verification, we have determined that its use may be critical enough that it ought to be added and applied directly from now on to each refusal for cause issue that comes to your attention. It certainly cannot hurt.

Because it is early yet in this process, there are no guarantees as we do not know, as of the present, what, if anything, the court will decide to do in order to get around this additional direct challenge to its undisclosed justification for assuming jurisdiction in the matter of a victimless violation of the traffic code. In fact, we do not think the court can, legally or otherwise, get around this challenge. And we provide this caveat only as a precautionary warning, and something to be aware of in the present.

One other note, the document challenging the twelve presumptions of law does not need to be notarized, but does need to be viewed as a verified statement. The suggested language for the verification of the challenge is included on the last page of the above PDF. Also, do not forget to list this challenge document of the presumptions of law on your Certificate of Mailing along with the traffic citation listing so that you have proof of service of both documents.

So enough with the introduction. Let’s get on to the meat of this communication. Vince Lombardi once famously stated that “Winners never quit and quitters never win.” That sentiment has never been so meaningful as in the present moment and situation.

Hello Friends,

This journey to learn about how to implement a lawful (common law) process to disqualify the corporate STATE in its exuberance to seek unjust enrichment through the use of a fraudulent legal process based upon non-disclosure of material facts to the victim of the State’s process has been a long and arduous one. No doubt there were moments when many of us wanted to give up our search for remedy because everything we thought and were taught was true about law was being thrown back into our faces, disregarded by the courts for no discernible reason!

Well, today, we think, that era may have come to an end. At least until the courts can figure out a way to get around what we are going to expose about their dirty little secrets. Once this information gets out and becomes common knowledge (like fat chance that it ever will!), the legitimacy of these courts and the private law that they practice while pretending to be public servants will come into wider question in the public, and the hypocrisy of the State officer’s “more holier than thou” attitude will have been broken and splintered forever.

Folks, we live in an artificially created world, created by the Powers That Be for the Powers That Be. But who are and where are these Powers? Do they even exist in reality? Or are they all just Paper Tigers? Literally existing only on paper! Without any substance! These are questions that each one of us must ask and answer for ourselves, and be willing to test the artificial legal system that has been created around our NAMES by a nameless and faceless bureaucracy pretending to be public trustees of a Public Charitable Trust, the United States.

In recent days we have received verification of at least two different remedies which we have recently written about – in the Newsletter and in Articles – from subscribers with personal experience who have written in to validate those remedies: the Assumed Name Certificate and the Challenge to the Twelve Presumptions of Law. Today, though, we are going to focus on just one of those remedies. Not too long ago, I received the following brief email message from one of my long time subscribers who, like myself, is willing to try anything at least once. 

Hi Tom, So I was fighting the City of Chicago Building Dept and filed with them a rebuttal of the “12 presumptions of the court”. The next day, after filing with the clerk and sending a copy to the City, the city dismissed the case against me with no fine or costs.

At first glance, this seemed to be documenting a win using the challenge to the twelve presumptions of law. However there is a caveat. The subscriber wrote back a few days later to inform me that there was more to this story than what was first disclosed. He had been playing hardball with the City of Chicago, threatening to go after people’s bonds. He wrote back: “One other challenge... I discovered that if the judge acted to violate his oath of office, I could sue their bond. I prepared to do just that and told them about that. It was another incentive to drop the case.”

What this disclosure did was to throw a monkey wrench into the works. I wrote back telling him: “I agree with your conclusion. The liability possibilities were beginning to mount up. A similar thing happened in the case that I wrote about in the newsletter about Carlos, the belligerent claimant who claimed estoppel.” In that latter case, the prosecutor wasn’t making any headway in getting Carlos to acknowledge a connection with defendant, and the prosecutor’s checkbook was on the line (meaning that he would have to pay for the case out of his own pocket) if he couldn’t identify a surety to pick up the state’s tab (fines). 

So, an added incentive is to do to them what they do to us: threaten to make a claim on their bond for violation of oath of office so that they cannot be insured to work in a public office. This isn’t the first time I’ve read about such incentives being used in order to obtain a dismissal. Anything to make the road ahead a bumpy one for them. Provides them with  something to think about before they endeavor to move a matter forward.

It seemed fortuitous that the day before the subscriber added the challenge to the twelve presumptions of law, the City attorney wasn’t contemplating dropping the case. But after receiving that challenge, the very next day, he made up an excuse to drop the case. The City attorney wrote in an email: “The inspection earlier today found substantial compliance on the clean up in the front and back, the City will seek to dismiss with such an order and no costs and no fines and have the motion stricken.” Just a little too convenient of an excuse, don’t you think?

Bottom line: It would appear that the challenge of the twelve presumptions played a role, but not a definitive one, in my opinion. There were other incentives for the City attorney to consider to help him along the road to dropping the case.

For anyone who has followed the past few Newsletters and especially the one announcing the article on the Twelve Presumptions of Law, in which article I provided a download link to a PDF purporting to be a challenge to these twelve presumptions of law, you will no doubt know what I’m writing about. The subscriber above used that very PDF as a template without changing a thing in its verbiage for his own challenge. I have included a lightly edited version of that PDF with this email for your scrutiny and consideration. It can be used as a template for your own verified statement of challenge should you find yourself needing to use it.

In the recent past, many of us have learned through experience that the courts are wholesale ignoring our notices (refusal for cause notifications) while attaching to people’s driver licenses and suspending them if they don’t respond to the citation with which they were presented by an officer of the corporate policy enforcement branch. Well, hopefully that reality is about to end!
What I am proposing, and this is purely your own decision to take, is that from this day forth we institute a small amendment to our legal process. Anyone being issued a frivolous ticket for a traffic violation (or just about any other regulatory violation that they can imagine) that when they send back the abandoned paper (the citation) to the person who issued it, that you include in that package an original of the “Formal Challenge to the Twelve Presumptions of Law.” You can make a photocopy of the original Challenge that you send to the officer (or print out another original and sign it) when sending a photocopy of the R4C’d ticket as notice to the court.

Now, while this challenge document does not need to be notarized, it does need to be viewed as a verified statement. The suggested language for the verification of the challenge is included in the PDF that is attached. Also do not forget to reference this Challenge document (in addition to the citation) on your Certificate of Mailing as proof of service. 

Notice that the way one signs this Challenge statement should be using your surname in the first position followed by a comma, and then your given name, the First and Middle names, just as these names are also listed on a United States of America passport or passport card. Why is that? The reasoning should be obvious! You are making a distinction between the legal entity, what is also called the ens legis, and the flesh and blood man. This should be especially powerful if, when you enter this challenge to the presumptions of law, you are also able to include a copy of your Assumed Name Certificate (ANC) and Certificate of Existence (providing that you have timely and previously made application for, been isused, and fulfilled the requisite validation for an Assumed Name Certificate in your name). Although it is my understanding that the ANC alone is powerful enough to end the matter.   

In order to show consistency in this and other legal matters that may come your way, it is suggested that you need to get in the habit of signing everything in this manner, making sure that you follow that signature with either a DBA referencing the ALL CAPS NAME or other verbiage, such as the following, referencing the fact that you are signing on “behalf of the legal entity THOMAS ELIOT SMITH and the living man Thomas Eliot,” as is shown in the PDF. Of course, you will want to replace my name on this document (and any other personal references) with your own. Signing in this way brings home the point that you do not act in the capacity of having or using a trade name or legal name, both of which consist of a First Middle and LAST name, and both of which present prima facie (presumptive) evidence of one’s operating in commerce. 

By the way, speaking of passports, if anyone is interested, one of my other subscribers has authored a rebuttal challenge to the U.S. State Department’s presumption that you are acting in commerce (i.e., as a U.S. citizen rather than an American State National) when making an application for a passport or passport card. What this subscriber learned after submitting his affidavit along with his passport application to the State Department is that the passport card that was ultimately issued back to him had a special designation (five stars) telling public officers in the know to leave this person alone, do not hassle them because they can make life miserable for you if you do.

He has already benefited  from this action. He says that the passport card with five stars “reflects your non-resident alien status. In other words, i have ID evidence that i am not the all-caps name. but they just walk right through it. but on the bright side, i am no longer arrested for not having a license when i show a traffic cop my passport card. they still ticket me but allow me to ‘drive’ away.” Another person whose account I read about said that when he was at an airport and the TSA stopped him and were checking him out, that once they saw his corrected passport (as a foreign Ministerial Diplomat), they apologized and let him pass without any further hindrance. Now, I realize these are just anecdotal reports, but it is the best we have to go on at the moment.

This subscriber recently sent me a copy of the affidavit that he used to make the application. It is brilliantly written, and it rebuts the major presumptions that the U.S. State Department uses to keep people on the corporate “ship of” STATE when issuing passport documents. Anyone wanting a copy of that affidavit needs to just write me with “Send me the Passport Affidavit” in the subject line. This affidavit, if you will stop to think about it for a minute, can be used when renewing an expired passport or making application to amend an already issued yet not expired passport or passport card. With regard to the latter reason, you have a right to correct any error listed on your original passport application. I don’t think they can turn you down.

I don’t know how many people watched or took notes on the David Straight video that I linked to in “The Twelve Presumptions Of Court” article, but he recommends using your passport as identification (even though it cannot really be considered as such based on the legal technicality of not listing an address within the corporate zone of the United States, which most officers are not aware) when out on the road and being stopped by an officer who asks for the usual self-incriminating documents of the DL, registration and proof of insurance. That document (the passport) does not present you in the capacity of a legal fiction. Rather just the opposite. It presents you as a man or woman, legally, not that the officer will necessarily understand or recognize that nuance (although they should be taught that in order to keep themselves out of trouble with the true sovereigns of these united states of America). If you haven’t yet, you need to watch that video and make up your own mind about what he is proposing, and then take the appropriate action.

It is time that we all begin connecting the dots and taking action if we want to maintain our individual struggle for liberty. They’ve just about taken away all our collective societal rights as it is. Individual rights cannot be breached! That is, if you know what you are doing and take action. I cannot do all the work for you. I’m only a messenger. You have to be willing to educate yourself, figure out what works for you, and then take those actions that will be beneficial for you and your loved ones. In case you haven’t noticed it, your government is at war with you, it’s corporate [presumed] slave citizens. It is high time we all get into this game and rebut the presumptions, or the game, eventually, will be turned on getting us!

I hope I’ve reached at least a few brave souls who are ready to begin taking back their un-a-lien-able rights. Best of fortune to you.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy
BeatTrafficTickets.Org

_________________

I Jumped The Gun on the Alteration to the R4C Process! And an Announcement!

Date: September 05, 2021

Note: For new subscribers, those who subscribed after August 12, 2021, you will first need to read the August 12th 2021 newletter titled "Important Alteration To The R4C Process!" in order to understand the context of the present newsletter edition. In the original article the correction mentioned in this newsletter was not included. That article has since been corrected to read in accordance with the information being disclosed in this newsletter edition.

Hello Friends,

I must apologize to readers as I jumped the gun before fully understanding all the nuances of how to go about correctly making a challenge to the twelve presumptions of law in the refusal for cause process. This was pointed out to me by two subscribers, and so I am going about to set the record straight with the corrected process description here. 

In the previous newsletter, I made the suggestion that we might want to adjust the process we used when doing a refusal for cause by adding in with the documents we send to both the person who issued us the citation and in the notice to the court a document titled “Formal Challenge to the Twelve Presumptions of Law.” It was pointed out to me that unless that document was in the public record (i.e., recorded with the county recorder or county clerk) that the courts may choose to ignore and not recognize it.

Now this means that it must be recorded prior to and not after the issuance of a citation. Otherwise the court may say, for instance, “Well, this wasn’t on the public record before you got the ticket, hence the government was not notified timely, and so we’re just going to ignore it.” One of the reasons given by one subscriber was that unless you define your status prior to any legal action and have recorded it into the public record, the de facto (foreign agent occupied) state government is not obliged to recognize it since it operates on presumptions of facts (which, by the way, presuming anything to be a fact is against black letter law!).

It is unfortunate that this is the way the courts are set up to view this, but it is what it is. The one subscriber wrote to say, in essence, that the sooner and more consistently one establishes his legal status on the record, the better his chances will be of prevailing in these government courts. And not just on one document, you must be consistent and sign every document wherein you are dealing with the government in such a way as to establish your status as against the government’s presumption of same. The subscriber wrote, “All the records show it — every affixed signature with the reservaton of Rights. Every document, including the driver license applicaton I signed. That same document shows that I’m not a U.S. citizen, but a ‘non-resident alien.’ It is public record for all to see, and it has TEETH! It says mess with me and pay! A long paper trail...proving my status.” 

The important clue to take away from that last statement is “a long paper trail.” Consistency over many years, especially if it’s on the public record where it cannot be denied, is strong evidence in these courts. While this doesn’t necessarily make sense to my understanding of law that this (the necessity of prior recordation) should be so, since in an actual court of law a challenge of presumptions ought to stand no matter when it is entered and over and above the fact that it was recorded. However, we are not dealing with reasonable or even de jure courts these days.

This just points out that these corporate courts do not follow actual law but rather employ a color of law model of their own based in private law (contract) outside the original federal Constitution where the only rules are the ones they make up to justify their criminality. The fact that their contracts are based in fraud means nothing to them. Yet higher authorities than myself have assured me that recordation is a must prior to the issuance of a citation as it becomes standing public notice to the  court of one’s intent and status. Therefore, a word to the wise!

On a more somber note, I have been trying to get this notice out since late last month, but it’s been one thing or another that has delayed my ability to get this done in a timely manner. The time I have available to work on getting things done has been drastically cut into by the illness from which I am suffering, and I’m not able to get things done in as efficient a fashion as I am used to being able to do. From all appearances and the symptomatology that I’m experiencing, it is my perception that what I’m having to deal with is prostate cancer. This illness is chronic, meaning that it has been with me for many months. The fact that I’ve hit it with everything but the kitchen sink using the various treatments I’ve used and it has not budged an inch toward improvement tells me that I’m probably not using a high enough dosage of the medicinal substances I’m using in order to make a turnaround difference.

Over the course of the last several months (since November of last year until the present), I have not been paying that close of attention to this illness. Although I have been treating it as though it might be cancer in terms of treatment, I have not been fully invested in tackling it head on. The factor motivating me has been my determination not to let the illness get in the way of my research into discovering the cirumstances of the legal system we have to put up with, and being able to share those discoveries with newsletter subscribers. In the past, I have put my own health risks on the back burner in favor of being able to figure out how we can get remedy from the legal system. However, that time has come to an end, and I must now focus on helping the body repair itself.

I intend to scale back my activities having to do with the Common Law Remedy website in favor of dealing with this illness. I should say here that readers should not become too alarmed by this as I feel in relatively good health and spirits at the moment. Yet I am reluctant to keep putting up with the loss of quality of life that I have experienced over the past year and four months since having been hit by two health issues, one (cancer) more serious than the other (a bad ankle from a high ankle sprain which limits my mobility). 

I will endeavor to keep working on writing projects throughout this time, but can make no promises as to when they’ll be finished or when they will appear. Incoming subscriber inquiries will also be affected by this work slowdown as it may take me more time than usual to respond to subscriber’s concerns, if I respond at all. If it ever gets to the point where you haven't heard from me in a couple of months, there may not be a me here to hear from. Although I do not expect that will be the case, just keep it in the back of your mind, because this is a one man operation with no backups.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy
BeatTrafficTickets.Org  

_________________

A New Newsletter Article

Date: ??, 2021

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: ??, 2021
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.