From: contact@beattraffictickets.

org
Subject: CLR; Debriefing Commentary On Belligerent Claimant’s Estoppel Defense
Date: June 8, 2021 at 9:08 PM
To: 1quarantined1@gmail.com

Hello Michael,

The subscriber, Carlos (a pseudonym for privacy), contacted me by email sent late
at night after having been to court earlier that same evening. Apparently, the
municipal court he was in holds a night court session. The next morning I saw his
email and responded to it immediately. It will be informative and educational if I
fill in a few details he imparted to me about the atmosphere of the court setting
before getting into the debriefing commentary.

He mentioned that “at this ‘public’ courthouse, access to the actual courtroom is
restricted. One must go into a waiting room and then, in order to access the
courtroom, you need to enter a room (where DA is sitting in wait) between the
actual courtroom and the [greater] ‘waiting’ room. Complete intimidation effort,
cops with backup outside, 8-10 in this small courthouse in middleton, tasers, billy
clubs, guns, the whole 9 yards. For ‘TRAFFIC’, i mean commerce, lol.”

“Anyhow, i finally get into the courtroom with the next friend of mine as a
witness. Different ‘judge’ than was at the ‘arraignment’, different ‘prosecutor’ and
the cop, who started it all was not in my face inside the courtroom this time.”

One of the smart things that Carlos did was to bring his own witness with him.
That move sometimes wakes up a magistrate to be more careful because now the
victim (i.e., presumed defendant) has a witness who can testify to any unfairness
in the proceedings. Especially when Carlos gets to the part where he is asking the
prosecutor, the judge or anyone else in the vicinity for their ID! You need a
witness when they commit their criminality.

He summed up the approach he had taken by saying that he had studied several
methods and thought based on information he was able to find on the Internet.
“Seems to me that the name set in all caps is our property, our conduit to
commercial affairs. . . la la land, lol. i feel most comfortable using a majority of
Karl Lentz’ knowledge and mixing in the rest. i feel that staying outside the
statutes and with equity or common-law seems to be the best.” For those who are
unfamiliar, Karl Lentz advocates staying on the common law side of the matter
and not recognizing the statutory side, meaning that one does not recognize any of
their opponent’s complaints or arguments. Nothing wrong with that as long as you
can actually do it.
can actually do it.

Depending upon what he meant by asserting that the all caps NAME “is our
property,” in my reply I attempted to set him straight about that entity based upon
what I had learned in my own research. The all capitalized NAME (legal name,
that is), which is obtained from the state issued birth certificate and which is
applied as a personal identifier to every other government issued document
thereafter (such as the Social Security card, passport, or driver license, to name a
few); according to information that I came across, that NAME represents the
person’s estate that the government is having each individual hold in trust for the
government through the Social Security card program.

But more than that, I pointed out that because the NAME was created and issued
by the government, jurisdiction over that corporate person (NAME) resides with
the government in terms of it’s being the designation for an artificial person
subject to the jurisdiction of both the appropriate state and the United States
[incorporated] governments. And I confirmed as correct his assumption that the
NAME is the conduit being used by the corporate world to conduct one’s
commercial affairs. However, unless we have permission to use that NAME in
commerce, it cannot be defended by a man or woman in one of the government’s
commercial courts. (More about how to gain that permission in a separate article.)

After Carlos made the statement about feeling the best approach was staying
outside of the statutes and with trying to press for the magistrate to designate
either an equity or common-law court, he made a statement which introduced a
concept that I had not come across in quite that same way in my own studies. He
said: “While being able to change capacity at any moment and require that if
another wants to do business with you, they must provide valid state i.d.,
otherwise, it is a concealment, which creates estoppel.” The statement made me
stop and think as I endeavored to figure out what it referred to and what he had
done right to get the prosecutor to be eager to drop the charges.

Although I was familiar with the two concepts of “capacity” and “estoppel,” I had
not come across the idea of using the term capacity in terms of differentiating a
law realm as opposed to a color of law realm (color of law realm). Meaning,
asking the question of within which capacity is one operating, one of substance (as
a man or woman under the common law) or one of insubstantiality (i.e., a legal
fiction under private statutory law). By that I mean to compare the difference
between a world which deals in real substance (such as gold and silver as money)
as opposed to a world which deals with fabricated or fictitious substitutions for
as opposed to a world which deals with fabricated or fictitious substitutions for
reality (such as fiat paper receipts backed by nothing of substance, which
substitutes as money). However, a substitution for the real thing is not the same as
the real thing, and can only be conditionally accepted by reasonable people. One
cannot, under actual law, be forced to accept “legal tender” in payment for a debt,
unless one is dealing with the U.S. federal government which compels such
acceptance, and then all bets are off!

The commercial world, in which government services have become enlisted as

henchmen and enforcers, deals not with representations of reality such as gold or
silver certificates, as substitutions for money, which provide access to the real
commodities of gold or silver, but rather with pieces of paper intrinsically
worthless in themselves, yet representing a contractual obligation to the user if one
should use them without attaching a condition to their use. This is one view as to
how these commercial courts gain jurisdiction over people without the people
becoming aware of the contractual nature attached to legal tender. Yet this is
leading to a conjectural side issue, and we don’t want to go off into the weeds
through its pursuit. I mention it here only as a subject for your personal thought
and investigation should you decide to pursue it further.

Now, returning to our main focus, if you think about it, a change in one’s capacity
could mean the difference between what has come to be the [insubstantial]
commercial world in which we transact business and the real [substantial] world in
which we all actually live. To put it more bluntly, what Carlos wanted to find out
was: is the officer coming at him in the capacity of a commercial policy enforcer
using Merchant Law, or was he coming at him in the capacity of man seeking
redress for an alleged trespass using common law. The former of these two
capacities is typical of non-positive [meaning nonconstitutional] law while the
latter is typical of positive [constitutional] law. That’s why Carlos was asking for
the officer’s [and judge’s and prosecutor’s] identification, so that he could make a
determination in which capacity he (Carlos) wanted to act within.

Without that information, Carlos would have been at the mercy of his accuser’s
prejudice, which presumed that Carlos was acting in the capacity of a legal fiction
and therefore within the world of commerce, where a claim of substance finds no
standing. At that point, a contractual obligation [or offense] would have to be in
play in order to establish jurisdiction. Yet keep in mind that non-positive law,
which is unconstitutional and therefore applicable only under certain limitations,
does not convey any obligation on a person minus an explicit or implicit contract
or agreement being in place.
In a closing statement to that email, Carlos wrote the following, which in my
subsequent opinion, foreshadowed the winning tactic that allowed him to prevail
in the matter. Now, keep in mind his observation was made after the prosecutor
made motion to dismiss the matter, which the judge went along with, and before
he had a chance fully to digest what had occurred. Can you identify that tactic?

i am not sure if i have a victory at this point, but i feel i am on better footing
than i previously was. Even stranger, the whole time, i did not identify as the
all caps name, and i did not tender any paperwork to the “municipal
court”...hmmm. . . . They may be trying to refile in county court.

Carlos was afraid that they may continue to come after him from another venue,
and he was wanting my opinion on the matter. I told him I didn’t think it possible.
Municipal jurisdictions don’t cross over jurisdictions to hand one of their cases off
to another jurisdiction unless there is a good reason for doing so. Or at least, I
have never come across such a happenstance involving a private policy enforcer
attempting to get the victim to recognize his private jurisdiction. Besides, the
policy enforcer (policeman) was an employee of the municipality and not the
county. That’s why (I’m speculating here) there are two differing courts with
different commercial jurisdictions, municipal city as opposed to county justice
court.

Getting back to the tactic that Carlos used to obtain the dismissal, that tactic was,
of course, the fact that he never identified himself with the NAME. And, and this
is a very important and, he ONLY asked questions. He never once responded to
the questions being ask of him. He wanted to find out with whom he was dealing,
and kept asking those coming at him who they were and would they please
identify themselves to him. The two prosecuting attorneys grew tired of dealing
with him, and handed him over to the judge who they hoped would gain
jurisdiction for them.

Additionally, Carlos never acknowledged receiving a valid summons. He

maintained that the document (citation) he was given was written (at least
partially) in a foreign language which disqualified its validity on its face and
which neither the officer nor the prosecuting attorney were willing to translate and
provide closure for him. In addition, Carlos was willing to bring a book to court
[the Chicago Manual of Style] proving the authority of his interpretation of
English grammar that he was asserting. The prosecutor, when asked, could come
up with no authority behind what he was asserting. Therefore, Carlos was, in his
up with no authority behind what he was asserting. Therefore, Carlos was, in his
mind, never served with a valid complaint!

When the state officers wouldn’t identify themselves (show their papers) to
Carlos, they created an estoppel by their conduct, foreclosing the state actor’s
ability to proceed any further with the alleged matter. That’s one way of viewing
what happened that night in court. And quite frankly, that’s the explanation I
initially wanted to believe was true until I listened to the recordings a second time.
Of course, the possibility remains that the estoppel issue may well have
contributed to the prosecutor’s desire to dismiss the matter, but we may never
really know for certain.

What we do know, and what was evident on the recordings, relevant passages of
which I have shared with newsletter readers, is that Carlos maintained his stance
all the way through the process that the state actors put him through. He never
wavered once. He stayed on his toes and kept asking question after question. At
one point, he even interrupted a judge who was attempting to make a statement for
the record, and Carlos made his own statement for the record that the judge never
questioned or tried to rebut afterward. The person with the last uncontroverted
word on an issue stands. And Carlos’ rebuttal of the judge’s opinion was the last
word in the record at that point, done at his earliest opportunity. Had he let that
opportunity slide by without refuting the judge’s attempted assertion, things might
have gone different. It was a gutsy move, and one that helped cast his position in
stone as far as the prosecutor was concerned. Had the judge rebutted Carlos’
statement, Carlos would have had to immediately turn around and rebut the
judge’s statement in order to maintain his position on the issue.

While I would like to think that the claim of estoppel by conduct was a major
factor in the dismissal, based on my own court experience where every lawful
objection I put up against the plaintiff was either ignored or denied outright, and
reading between the lines of the actual recording of the events in Carlos’ matter as
they happened in real time, I have come to think that the main factor contributing
to the dismissal of the case against Carlos was by reason of his being an intelligent
belligerent claimant, never giving in, never recognizing anything that they were
doing, and never identifying himself with the NAME all the while asking them
questions which they did not want to respond to. He made coming after him so
difficult that the prosecutor eventually threw in the towel! And in addition, like I
mentioned above, he brought his own witness.

In our subsequent emails, Carlos went over with me some of the concepts he had
learned in his studies which related to the approach he used. He had studied many
learned in his studies which related to the approach he used. He had studied many
of the same sources that I had studied. I have to say in looking back at what he
wrote, he brought up many fine points of law, a few with which I was unfamiliar. I
was looking for more clarification about the basis for the tactic he used in asking
for the officer’s ID and how that might be an Achilles’ heal of weakness for state
actors. My first clue came when he mentioned one very seemingly insignificant
yet striking point: “It seems that the commercial nature of the fictional world has
certain rules that can qualify or disqualify one from participating in commerce.
Concealment of material facts is one of them it seems.” Now, keep that point in
mind as we go through some of the other concepts he described.

Directly after having made this observation, Carlos proceeded to look at the word
TRAFFIC. I was, of course, aware of where he was going with this. He pointed
out that according to Black’s Law Dictionary the word “TRAFFIC” was defined
as pertaining to commerce. I had tried unsuccessfully using the commerce
argument in my own matters as stated in the federal U.S. Code Title 18 Section
31(a)(6) which defines the designation “motor vehicle” stating: “The term motor
vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or
drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways
in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.”
Using that definition, there was no proof on the record of any of my matters that I
was using the highways for a commercial purpose, and therefore my actions
should be exempt from the code. The court I was in was not agreeing with my
reasoning.

The difference between the way I was using the commerce argument and the way
that Carlos was using it was novel to me! Carlos explained:

They use a document known as the “MODEL TRAFFIC CODE” in [the state
traffic code] to steal from man. The knowledge of DOG LATIN is very
important and grammar in general. The word “TRAFFIC” can be one of three
types of text that i am aware of, A.S.L. [American Sign Language], ancient
Latin, or legal english. i am not licensed to use legal English terms, but i am
able to look up their meaning in Black’s...and it defines the word “TRAFFIC”
as commerce. Therefore, a reasonable man would know that this “code”
applies to those doing commerce. Policy officers are authorized to regulate
“TRAFFIC” on the roads and highways. This was my reasoning for asking for
the driver license, then declaring the cops estoppel by tacit consent because he
did not answer when i asked for it.
Remember the statement that Carlos made above? “It seems that the commercial
nature of the fictional world has certain rules that can qualify or disqualify one
from participating in commerce. Concealment of material facts is one of them it
seems.” Now despite the fact that this may seem to be highly nuanced, the only
connection to a disqualification concept (i.e., estoppel) I could make out from it
was: because the officers refused to identify who they were when they tried to
contract with Carlos after he asked to see their identification thus withholding a
material fact, they were estopped from making any commercial complaint against
his person! That seemed like a novel approach to me, one that I had previously
never come across.

The way Carlos expressed this was the following. Pay close attention to his line of
reasoning in terms of being able to differentiate between the man and the legal
fiction attempting to do business with him.

“First off, if one wants to engage in commerce with me, i require valid state id
so that i may know that the man in front of me can be held commercially
liable, and i can hold him liable through a common law claim should some
harm or injury come to me or my person. i know that it is merely an office
standing before me, a fiction, with no life behind it until a man breathes life
into it. i know that the man acting in a corrupt office will not tie himself to
actions he takes clothed in a fictional robe. i require the id in order to force
him into estoppel, thus giving up his right to complain in a court of law.”
And further: “The id request is my effort to signal to them that i will hold
them liable for their actions as a man, both legally and lawfully. Also, to
push them into estoppel, as their identity is a material fact if they wish to
contract with me in the capacity of my person.”

Yet, what he did was to combine the estoppel by conduct objection with the
objection to the ALL CAPITALIZED words on the charging document which in
English grammar had no meaning at all! As Carlos later pointed out again: “There
is no jurisdiction between two languages mingled on one document.” In other
words, each language has reference to its own specific jurisdiction. You cannot
combine more than one jurisdiction on a legal document! It was that combination
of conceptual objections, the latter of which he was willing to back up with
authoritative proof of his assertion about English grammar, that seemed to stop the
prosecutor cold.

As so many sources on the Internet explain, these government courts are all
commercial; they only deal in commerce and commercial offenses. So why not
approach them on their own ground using their own rules against them. The more
I thought about it, the more this approach made sense to me. Do I think that this
approach alone is the hammer we need to get these paid mercenaries in
“government service” to back down? I don’t know; by all rights it should be. But
after it was all over, even Carlos was hesitant to say what was effective.

He wrote: “As i previously stated, i am not sure which tactic exactly worked as i
used three, challenge jurisdiction, ask to see the driver license of anyone who
wished to contract with me or my artificial person, and i pointed out the foreign
all caps text on their documents as not being English.”

And then Carlos made an unusually prescient observation. Referring to the fact
that I pointed out to him about the NAME on the birth certificate being the legal
property of government, he wrote: “i comprehend your assertion that the
government owns it. i cannot say for sure, as i am not that far along in my
practical use of these methods, but, i know government to be mind control. The
question is: Who is in control of the mind?”

With this observation I think he has just made a very important point. By the time
you come to be standing in front of a judge and a prosecutor, everything going
forward is all mental! It becomes a matter of who, mentally, is better prepared to
do battle. You or the prosecutor. Because the judge is only there to side with the
prosecutor. The prosecutor is the one bringing the charge, so he is the one we need
to be focusing on breaking down. If there is no prosecutor at the arraignment
hearing, then the judge is our focus. Treat them both the same: as commercial
vendors preparing to make you an offer they think you cannot refuse. But before
dealing with them, get them to identify themselves to you with proof of their
identity and to define their terms (i.e., provide closure on the meaning of the terms
in their documents written in a foreign [ancient Latin?] language).

Another point that Carlos brought up was something he learned from his exposure
to Karl Lentz’ work: “[He] helped me to sort out how to handle living in the skin
of a man on the philosophical plane. One of the important concepts i learned from
him is that a man lives by law, does not cause harm or injury to fellow man ever,
and a man’s court is always in session. He helped me to learn that a man’s rights
are his property, this is why one never signs them away at court or anywhere
else, unless he has closure on the terms. The closure part came from David-
Wynn: Miller.”
With regard to closure, Carlos explained: “Everyone wants ‘disclosure’, they
[meaning the prosecutor] will give you that all day long, but will they give
closure on the language they use in their documents?!?! disclosure = dis [and]
closure [which means] no closure!!! They are glad to give you disclosure [no
closure], how ever you wish!!! Lol. Closure Brother! We need Closure!!! . . .
require that they provide closure on the documents they gave you. Demand that
they define all of the terms they have used in their papers! Can they?!?! Even if
you sign [their documents], if there is nothing written [on them] or two different
language on the document / contract, it is void! Truth says that English is not
written or type set in all caps! Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition, [section]
11.147. i have the book, thus i have the book of law! Just ask them to define the
terms they used in their documents, closure = one word, one meaning...”

My observations of Carlos’ matter is colored by my experience in the court I

attended. And the court I attended was almost has bad as it gets. If you go in
expecting the absolute worst to occur, then you will prepare for the worst. That’s
why in my early communications with Carlos I wasn’t very optimistic about his
chances of prevailing through that experience given the approaches he was
mentioning that he wanted to take. Yet, you can never underestimate a person’s
determination and drive to succeed, or the opposing actor’s frustration at not
getting what he’s trying to get: the alleged defendant to recognize the identity of
the other party to the matter on their documents.

While it’s just my opinion, it seems to me that the prosecutor cut bait and moved
on. Maybe he was also a bit concerned about the estoppel by conduct being on the
record and therefore an appealable issue, but we will never really know for
certain. These courts never want to openly admit a person’s winning strategy!
They want to keep their victims confused. Mind control!

And so it was a breath of fresh air when Carlos wrote back that late evening in
February about the prosecutor having motioned for dismissal. It came as a
complete surprise to me, and so I wanted to hear all about it, every detail. Maybe
there was something he had used that the court was forced to recognize. Whatever
it was, I wanted to find out so I could pass it along to my subscribers. In the end, if
you could listen to the recordings that I listened to, in my opinion it came down to
Carlos being a belligerent claimant and sticking to his guns and not moving off
point. Not everyone can do that.

Endeavoring to figure out the practical aspects of what happens and why it
happens in these government courts can be slippery and fraught with frustration.
No two courts operate exactly the same (which is to say that no two judges use
their discretion the same way), despite the fact that they are presumably
adjudicating the same law. Justices, like all people, are not cut from the same
cloth, and finding an honest judge in today’s highly charged political climate is
like trying to find a needle in a haystack. If you really want your own first hand
insight into how these courts work, then set aside some time to visit your local
justice court and observe what takes place there. And don’t just visit once, visit
several times, like at least a dozen times or more. Because you’re never going to
see the reality that people like me see without seeing the unfairness occur up close
and personal.

Pay particular close attention to those people who are objecting to the process and
who are “defending” themselves. They’re the only ones worth observing. Because
everyone else is just a sheeple, there to be shorn, and you’ll soon grow tired of
watching them anyway. While I’d like to think that pointing out facts and rules of
law (like the concept of estoppel by conduct) to a judge carries any weight, it is
more likely that being able to intimate to them that you will hold them personally
liable, for any injury or damage they may cause you, will carry more weight than
not.

And one final observation with regard to my experience in court vis-à-vis Carlos’
experience. I was fighting three separate tickets in three separate cases, principally
for driving without a license, among other lessor things. Carlos was cited for a
speeding violation, the citation of which he never signed. Which of these two
offenses do you think a court thinks is more serious in terms of public relations. . .
err I mean public indoctrination? Think about it. Which of these violations might
the court (its prosecuting personnel in this case) be more likely to give a break to
or to cut loose?

By the time my first case ended at a trial in June of 2018, the judge was well
aware of my stance with regard to the state’s lack of jurisdiction over driving
outside of commercial usage. That same judge was involved in the two follow-up
cases against my “person.” The court wasn’t going to accept that commercial
usage argument no matter what, despite the lack of evidence entered in the record
of personam jurisdiction. The second citation was issued on April 13, 2018 as I
was on my way home from meeting with the court appointed attorney, who I was
unsuccessfully attempting to pump for any information that might help me
understand how the court worked. I eventually asked that attorney to withdraw
before the matter went to trial because, among other things, he lied to me about his
before the matter went to trial because, among other things, he lied to me about his
strategy for a defense, which I learned was bound to fail. In other words, he was
setting the defendant up to fail.

The court I was in was never going to be seen publicly signing off on the idea that
people who don’t operate in commerce are exempted from the licensing
procedure. And neither was it going to allow me to reacquire a license without
undergoing a process of extortion (which they whitewash their criminality by
calling it a “fine,” but which in reality is nothing more than “unjust enrichment”).
In addition, there was never a chance that the court would act impartially in the
matter. After all, its [meaning the court or judge’s] employer was the plaintiff
STATE OF WHATEVER! There’s no conflict of interest to be seen here, is there?
I would think that this would be grounds for a void judgment ruling from a higher
court, but so far I have not been able to discuss this with anyone who might be
able to verify that for me!

Opening this commentary up as a dialog, if you have any ideas, questions or

comments, pro or con, they are welcome. I will endeavor to share my response to
your questions and comments with the other subscribers who asked to see this
Debriefing Commentary in a separate correspondence addressing all your
concerns together so that we may all benefit from each other’s input.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy
BeatTrafficTickets.Org