Comment: Great comment thanks :)

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You're right (see in situ)

Great comment thanks :)

I accept your challenge:

Go to the side of the road and start any business you choose... tomorrow. Then when some revenue agent comes to you and tells you what you can and can't do... you then get a piece of paper.

When I say "look no further" what I mean is you need to START THERE to realize how bad things are. Now you have to do your due-diligence in order to deal with the piece of paper.

I don't feel like searching for the precise text... but it is said that the cop is "holding court at the side of the road." If the cop is the plaintiff... you are the defendant and are now rebutting the presumptions of the plaintiff.

The piece of paper is also a contract offer. You obviously have the option of accepting the terms of the contract, asking for the terms to be clarified, or you can outright reject the terms... without dishonor. The cops presumed "authority" comes from him making presumptions in the contract which you do not object to. He has presumed you owe the fine... and if you do not rebut that presumption you must pay the fine since you've agreed to it.

Here's a great letter a friend recently wrote that has worked extremely well for that purpose:

*******************************************************

Allegedly the Eight day of the month of October of the year Two thousand and twelve A.D.
To: XXXXXXXXX
Acting as ‘debt management’ agent and/or principal
For the corporation known as Xxxxxx Regional Council
XXX xxxxxxxxxx Street, at xxxxxxxx East
XXXX, 3XX6

Notice of refusal for fraud and surrender of your documents

Greetings XXXXX:

On last alleged Wednesday, Third day of the month of October of this current year A.D. and again yesterday, two envelopes were found, one on each occasion; and later one of them was opened in error.

1- After due lawful consideration, and a conversation with his chosen lawful counsel, the author of this Notice has concluded that he has no other alternative than to refuse the entire contents of such envelopes for fraud, given that said documents have been weighed, have been measured and have been found wanting, to say the least; and also, he has concluded that he must surrender said documents back onto you so that the implied and not explicitly stated liability, is returned to you.

2- The author understands that the Xxxxx Regional Council is a corporation, and therefore a dead entity In Law, and as such he cannot possibly communicate with the dead. For the same reason of impossibility, the author cannot communicate with anyone who being a man or a woman, does not accept fully and unrestricted liability.

3- The author considers that there could be only one lawful alternative left for him, as matters currently stand:
to demand that you confirm in writing and within the following ten (10) standard days and no later than by the alleged Nineteenth day of the current month and year, that you accept full and unrestricted liabilities in regards to the responses you must provide, to any further lawful questions which the author will endeavor to put to you within the following standard fourteen days.

4-The author also requires from you that you confirm that you will hold him harmless throughout this entire lawful process.

5-All responses must be sent exclusively to the following contacting name and location:

XXXXX-XXXX
c/o Post Office Box XXXX,
at xxxx, non-domestic

Any further attempt to send any correspondence to any entity who is not the author himself as indicated above, which incurs on any further insults, misdescriptions, titles of nobility, and/or anything else which diminishes the author’s capacities as well as his lawful and natural standing , and therefore is noticed to be inviting the author to commit fraud and/or perjury by tacit acceptance, is hereby denounced and will be refused for fraud and returned to sender, inexorably.

6- Furthermore all responses to this Notice, must be sent by you and none of your agents, nor principals, nor subordinates; given that the record proves consistently that these corporate enties have been unable, unwilling and/or incompetent in bringing any and all the outstanding matters of law to a proper and lawful clarification and further resolution. The envelope itself must also be clearly and unmistakably identifiable whereby the name of the man or woman sending it under full and unrestricted liability, must be legible and clearly written, to avoid further deception, fraud and/or perjury, as well as any remote chance of a later claim of plausible deniability on your behalf.

The author trusts that you ought to be able, willing and competent to lawfully respond to all lawful questions and inquiries.

The author greatly appreciates your immediate and undivided attention
Most respectfully

-------------------------------
John-Paul
All rights reserved, without prejudice and without recourse
Not a commercial entity, nor a government employee, nor a person-legally-speaking, nor a juristic person, not a creature of statute, nor a creature of policy to the best of his first-hand knowledge

******************************************************

Now after sending this to the mailing location on the piece of paper you were handed... you wait 10 days for their response... which will not come. After which you send a reminder notice... give them another opportunity to "prove their claims" and then a final notice which is below:

******************************************************

Allegedly, the Seventeenth day of the month of December of the year Two thousand and twelve, A.D.
To: XXXXXX XXXXXXXX
acting as ‘debt management’ agent or principal
for the dead In Law corporation known as Xxxxxxx Regional Council
xxxxxxx Street, at xxxxxx East
xxxxx – 3xx6

Judgment by default
“Tzedek tzedek tirdof lema’an tihiyeh…” Dvarim 16:20
“Justice justice will you chase after, (only) for that purpose you will live…”
Deuteronomy 16:20

1- The author has not seen nor been presented with any substantial evidence, nor fact, that shows that you have lawfully responded to his Notice of refusal for fraud and surrender of your documents, dated on the alleged Eight day of the month of October of the year Two thousand and twelve A.D., and delivered/sent to you on the same day; even though you have unconditionally accepted receiving said document, and having read it, and being knowledgeable of its contents against which you have not raised any dispute, as expressed by you recently on or about the first week of the month of December, during a phone conversation, as per the author’s recollection of events.

2- The author has not seen nor been presented with any substantial evidence, nor fact, that shows that you have lawfully responded to his Reminder notice of refusal for fraud and surrender of your documents, dated on the alleged Thirty first day of the month of October of the year Two thousand and twelve A.D. and delivered/sent to you on the same day; even though you have unconditionally accepted receiving said document and having read it, and being knowledgeable of its contents against which you have not raised any dispute as expressed by you recently on or about the first week of the month of December, during a phone conversation, as per the author’s recollection of events.

3- Findings of evidence, subsequent facts and subsequent truth:
a) The record shows that you failed to confirm that you “accept full and unrestricted liabilities” in regards to all relevant lawful matters, and
b) The record shows that you failed to “confirm that you will hold ((the author)) harmless throughout this entire lawful process”, and
c) The record shows that you failed to confirm that you are able, willing and competent to lawfully respond to any and all lawful questions;

Expressum facit cessare tacitum. What is expressed renders what is implied silent. (Maxim of Law)
therefore:

I) You accept that you are not performing in good conscience i.e. not with bona fide intentions, and
II) You accept that you are not willing to confirm that you will not hold the author harmless and that you indeed intend to harm him, and
III) You consider that you are unable, unwilling and/or incompetent in the discharging of your lawful obligations;

4- The author considers that the only applicable parameter of justice that must apply to all lawful matters pending to be resolved is that: Every man or woman is completely responsible and therefore liable for his or her actions and omissions, In Law; Notwithstanding, any alleged public service capacity or incapacity, under which such man or woman may claim to be acting; given that you have made allegations and claims and: Semper necessitas probandi incumbit qui agit. The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him. (Maxim of Law)

5- Given that the author intended to establish a non-violent line of communication with you, and yet due to your failure to present any and all lawful excuses, the author has no alternative but to issue this Judgment by default, given that the evidence and the facts show unequivocally and without controversy, your acceptance of all the points raised in the above named documentation as per paragraph 1- and 2-.

And given that:
Expedit reipublicie ut sit finis litium: It is for the public good that there be an end of litigation. (Maxim of Law)
Then the necessary lawful determination is:
With regards to all the matters as above described you have been found guilty of fraud and guilty of failing to maintain proper records.

6- It is the author’s unequivocal and unmistakable understanding, that due to the fact that:
a) there seems to be a total and complete absence of a properly established “Superior court of public record” upon this land, besides his own, nor
b) a “Grand jury of his peers”, which could otherwise serve as a point of reference for a Declaratory Judgment, therefore
this Judgment by default in the current format as it is accepted throughout the author’s community, conforms with and supports The Law, and has its own inherent jurisdiction as already established by default, and it is therefore non-appealable.
Respectfully In Law
----------------------------------- John-Paul
All rights reserved, without prejudice and without recourse.
Not a commercial entity, nor a government employee, nor a person-legally-speaking, nor a juristic person, not a creature of statute, nor a creature of policy, to the best of his first-hand conscious knowledge.

**************************************************

Now after going through this process and getting them to judgement by default (because they have agreed without objection to everything you have stated) then you re-open your business and should you get a notice to go to court... simply go to the court with all of your documents, certificates of mailing... etc...

Tell the judge "Your honor, I respectfully refuse the charges for cause, based upon the grounds that I have attempted to clarify the terms of the contract whereby the plantiff has elected to remain silent.

As you know, a court is for the mediation of conflict. It is indisputably shown that plaintiff has agreed to the presumptions of law in my correspondence. This frivolous action should be dismissed with prejudice based upon the grounds that a court of record has already been held and a judgement by default has already been entered."

A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes
and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate
designated generally to hold it, and proceeding
according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings
being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass.,
171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y.
406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.

However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or Supreme Court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on the entire world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

NOTE: This is experimental and we should have the results very shortly. There is someone who is already handling a contact with a public servant in this manner. If you choose to also do the experiment... obviously the worst that can happen is you would have to pay/discharge the fine and shut down your business.

By all means however... do not just take it lying down. I'm not advocating for violence in any way. If we are not able to question as to the grounds of their presumed jurisdiction... at the very least they would need to admit they have none... and that they rule not by law... but by force alone.