From: contact@beattraffictickets.

org
Subject: CLR; Belligerent Claimant Claims Estoppel, Gets Case Dismissed
Date: June 8, 2021 at 11:59 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Note: This Special Edition of the newsletter (originally issued on June 22, 2020)
is presented as a break between installments of The Ordeal series, which has
currently been suspended for an indeterminate period, in order to bring to light an
important recent development in the instance of one newsletter subscriber and
how he successfully handled his battle against the harsh and unfair hand of local
government. This Special Edition is intended to introduce a new article which has
been posted on the website, under a title espousing the connection between
concealment of a material fact and estoppel, and in addition, to tell the story that
the subscriber related to me and how the case against him came to be dismissed.

This is a long piece, and I make no apologies for it being a long read. However,
because the subject matter required a thorough telling, there was little choice but
to include as many details as necessary in recounting the story. Those who choose
to spend the necessary time reading and thinking about this account will be amply
rewarded.

Before simply accepting the legal premise upon which the subscriber presumed
the dismissal of his matter, I wanted to understand its legal basis from the
standpoint of statutory law and whether or not their courts would recognize it.
And so I began to vigorously research it in order to verify certain facts about the
premise as well as to ascertain the extent of its power to produce positive results in
light of the current system of jurisprudence practiced in America today.

Please read this newsletter edition and the accompanying article carefully in order
to appreciate what should have been the overriding concept which brought this
subscriber a dismissal of the charge against his person. Unfortunately, my opinion
about what caused the prosecutor to drop the case has changed after further review
of the facts sent me by the subscriber, which included two recordings of
proceedings that took place. I’ll explain my reasoning in a separate commentary
for those who wish to know.

Hello Friends,

This may be one of the most important newsletter editions I have ever published
on the subject of finding a remedy for a victimless traffic citation. This remedy, if
it truly is one, should be able to be used not only on victimless traffic violation
issues, but many other legal issues where the court simply assumes jurisdiction
issues, but many other legal issues where the court simply assumes jurisdiction
over the matter without establishing supporting facts on the record. Only time will
tell whether this is a valid way to get the court to disqualify itself. But the initial
evidence in the way of empirical experience suggests a much deeper meaning than
the surface meaning to the concepts about to be explained.

About three months ago (in February 2020) I was contacted by a new subscriber
who wanted to ask me some questions about the research he had done and studied
which, at least on the surface, sounded reasonable and as though it may be
relevant to challenging the plaintiff’s assertion of jurisdiction on a speeding ticket.
The subscriber was very confident and committed to the stance he was considering
taking based upon his studies, and just wanted to know my opinion about it.

During the course of the Ordeal I underwent, I came across many different yet
seemingly reasonable approaches for attempting to remedy a victimless traffic
citation. I tested virtually all of them during my Ordeal in court, and so I had a
background of experience from which to draw. The approach this subscriber
became enamored of was based upon some information he found in videos he had
viewed and studied by an Australian named Romley Stewart.

Well, I was familiar with Romley Stewart and most of the information in his
videos, and had tried out one of the arguments in his approach on the prosecutor in
one of my cases in a private meeting, only to have the prosecutor poo-poo it as
preposterous and irrelevant. In retrospect, I may have presented it to him wrong or
given up on its use too early. Which is to say I’m not certain whether having a
physical copy of the Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition with me at the time
may have been enough of an authority to sway the prosecutor from wanting to
address and rebut that issue in court.

The following information is attributed to its assertion in the Chicago Manual of

Style. If you wish to verify this information, it can be found in that book or you
can watch the Romley Stewart videos where the book’s pages are openly
displayed for all to see! Search for “the GLOSSA channel” and the “Justinian
Deception” channel on YouTube to find Stewart’s treatment of this concept.
Following are links to six of the many videos posted by Romley Stewart on this
subject along with a few relevant quotes from the material. In fairness, many of
these videos evidence an early comprehension in Romley’s understanding of the
law and material covered, therefore some of his impressions about it are rather
roughly formed. I have not tried to correct everything he asserts, but only to
clarify certain points he makes. Note: the double bracketed text is my additional
explanatory clarification of the material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Umb7gPLex8
ROMLEY STEWART - Is the ATO a legal entity 1/3 - Interview 12 (Day 3, Part
2)
Oct 30, 2015 the GLOSSA channel Time: 11:48

At the 6:00 minute mark of the video, Romley states the following:
[[talking about the ATO (Australian Tax Office)]] If you ask them who and what
they are, well they have the right and ability to just say, No it’s alright. We don’t
want to tell you. But the minute they refuse to tell you who they are, that
creates, in legal terms, the estoppel. Which means that they don’t have to deal
with you. You don’t have to deal with them. But they don’t have to deal with you
either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo4zMuD5dWw
ROMLEY STEWART - the discovery of the GLOSSA by Rohan Lorian -
Interview 16 (Day 3, Part 7) the GLOSSA channel Published on Dec 8, 2015
Time:11:41

At the 7:35 minute mark of the video, Romley states the following:
@ 7:35 A corporation has no ship. When you want to have any sort of form of
comeback or to sue for damages, you can take the ship of a ship. But a
corporation, because there’s no ship, then you can take the assets of each man
that has agreed to become a part of that corporation. It is his assets that is the
ship.

@ 8:05 So when the police officer creates a charge against you, and he doesn’t
identify himself, then he actually incites the, um, where there’s no subject matter
the charge is void. So if he doesn’t give you the identification of who he really
is, by giving you his birth certificate identification, his name, his date of birth, and
his serving address ... and if he refuses to do that, then it becomes a
concealment. And a concealment, by law, is an estoppel. That means that that
police officer, from the point that he refuses to identify himself by removing his
NAME, by removing any form of identification, then it’s up to him, the minute he
carries on, if he’s been asked to provide his personal information, if he carries on
then he’s the one that’s violating the trust.

@ 9:00 [interviewer] So the risk that they’re taking is that they have wised up to
the fact that they are personally liable and accountable and they’re trying to
the fact that they are personally liable and accountable and they’re trying to
escape that accountability. And they do that by failing to identify themselves, so
all you can say is, Well I was stopped by someone. Who was it, which officer? I
don’t know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npmRlKhpzAs
ROMLEY STEWART - Interview - Part Two (Day 1, Part 2)
•Dec 8, 2015 the GLOSSA channel Time: 11:48

@ 8:30 Because it’s a corporation, they’ve got to give full disclosure. But the
court couldn’t give full disclosure. Because I asked, well what is the language?
Rather than coming out and explaining oh that’s another language we use in the
court to trick you guys cause you don’t know how to read. And instead of saying
that, they just run away. Which is called a concealment. Or silence. And what
that does is it creates a thing called an estoppel. Which means that everything
comes to an end. Or the court or the one charging, has to pay the damage fees.

@ 9:08 But at that point I didn’t know that it was an estoppel. When a court
comes to an estoppel, or can’t carry on any further. It’s got to then pay the
damages. And I’m supposed to hand him the damage bill. Which didn’t happen.
Since then, thanks to Rohan, we’ve come to find what this is. And it’s section
11147 It clearly states that glosses in ASL (American Sign Language) “the written
language description of a sign” is of a sign which is a symbol is called a gloss.
Glosses are words from the spoken language written in small capital letters [[or in
regular capital letters]]. ... And straight after this in brackets it says: “Alternatively
regular capital letters may be used.” And I went, “Well, there it is.”

@ 10:30 That means that somehow or other, they’re using American Sign
Language on articles and on court documents. ... On anything that’s very
important that could incriminate them, they’ve written it in a foreign
language!

@ 11:00 Then it goes on to say in section 11.147 three lines here: “One obvious
limitation of the use of glosses from the spoken written language to represent
signs is that there is no one to one correspondence between the words or signs
in any two languages.” So that means ... [[a concealment of the true nature of the
communication is taking place which, because of misrepresentation, creates an
estoppel]]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq-bYpsHbiI
DECEIVED-INTO-CONSENT
DECEIVED-INTO-CONSENT
Justinian Deception Published on Aug 16, 2017 Time: 23:06

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trsqgd-zmSE
THE-REMEDY-WITHIN
Justinian Deception Published on Apr 26, 2018 Time: 32:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3va6p6q6Zc
PRESUMPTION-OF-LAW
Justinian Deception Published on Jul 11, 2017 Time: 15:15

(The Chicago Manual of Style is seen by many — including presumably

government courts — as an authority on the use of the English language in
written form, and therefore would need to rebutted by a higher authority
regarding its definition of a language foreign to English when words appear in
ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in a legal document. That foreign language would
be either a derivation of ancient Latin known as DOG-LATIN with each word
separated by a hyphen if it were to be recognized as a word in English, or as
an example of American Sign Language which is symbolic in form, or as what
is known as a wordmark or trademark, the latter of which can be registered as
copyrighted text. Capitalized words without the hyphen between the words
were not considered to have any relationship to each other and were
considered to be meaningless.

(The unauthorized use of a trademark — which can be made up of two or

more words — can be prosecuted as protected intellectual property. In the
United States, the term “wordmark” may refer not only to the graphical
representation, but the text itself may be a type of trademark. In most cases,
wordmarks cannot be copyrighted, as they do not reach the threshold of
originality. But a trademark, like IBM or 3M or STATE OF ARIZONA or
THOMAS ELIOT SMITH, can be registered in order to protect its
commercial usage. Knowledge of this information is key to the subscriber’s
point of inquiry when pressing his point before the prosecutor and judge. So
pay close attention! See one source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordmark

(The description of what follows in terms of the information provided by

Romley Stewart is one of the approaches I have intended to write about in The
Ordeal series. But I haven’t gotten to that part of that story yet. So, readers
will be introduced to it a bit earlier than I had originally planned. And
hopefully for good reason!)
For readers who are not familiar with the approach described in Romley Stewart’s
YouTube videos, he focuses on the unusual “style” that is made of the NAME
written in all capital letters in the State’s documentation. He asserts that writing in
that style can be confusing because it is based upon a foreign language (that is,
either a variant of ancient Latin known as Dog-Latin or a more recent form known
as American Sign Language; see the Chicago Manual of Style 16th or later edition
for authority, page 666) and the style of that language’s written form. He presents
a very convincing theory that a man (or woman’s) proper name in English is not
supposed to be “styled” in all capital letters unless such styling is being used to
confuse or fraudulently represent a material fact to an unsuspecting alleged
defendant (or victim).

When two or more languages are being used in court documents, that is definitely
an action that is prohibited. When this issue is brought up, it can disqualify the
document as faulty from the beginning. Not only is it unethical and unfair, but it
raises the question of fraud. Any document written in more than one language,
especially when the second language attempts to identify one of the parties, is
suspect and should immediately invalidate the purpose of the document. For
reasonable comprehension’s sake, only one language (representing one
jurisdiction) is allowed to be used in legal documentation. This is a very serious
point, and one, among others, that this subscriber was willing to stake his claim
on.

The only difference between what I had learned from the Stewart videos and what
the subscriber had seen and learned, was that he incorporated an additional
element into his approach. This element was not immediately apparent from the
Stewart videos that I had viewed, and so I was intrigued to learn more and to find
out the legal reasoning underlying why this approach may be important. By that I
mean, I couldn’t readily identify any legal significance to the approach he used
which may have caused the prosecutor (and hence, the court) to slow down and
reconsider moving forward in the matter. In other words, why would an officer be
afraid of simply identifying himself with state issued documentation?

Very briefly, the concept of estoppel is a judicial device in common law and case
law legal systems whereby a person is barred (or estopped) in a legal proceeding
from making allegations or denials which are contrary to either a previous
statement or act by that person. In other words, an estoppel may prevent someone
from bringing forth a particular claim or complaint. An example of this might be if
a second party was served Notice (given a legal warning) by a first party in the
a second party was served Notice (given a legal warning) by a first party in the
form of an affidavit of truth, and the second party was given an opportunity to
rebut the affidavit point-by-point but failed to do so within a specified time frame,
then the second party is estopped from making any claims that might reference the
specific material issues in the affidavit, which in turn may affect the validity of the
complaint.

In other words, the second party had its opportunity to bring forward evidence that
might rebut the claims in the affidavit, proving them wrong, but did not do so in a
timely fashion and therefore was estopped from making any immediate legal
claim regarding those issues. Such an estoppel is known as “estoppel by silence or
acquiescence” or estoppel by conduct. This form of estoppel prevents a person
from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier,
and the silence (or inaction) put another person at a disadvantage. Of course, it
also may be the case that the second party didn’t have any evidence to begin with
to rebut the claims made in the affidavit, thereby making that party’s initiating
claim or complaint totally spurious and unable legally to move forward.

This new subscriber, whom I’ll call Carlos, made mention in his initial email to
me that he had been studying information about the legality of the state to pursue
violations of the Motor Vehicle Code for the past six to eight years, and that the
incident (issuance of a citation) that initiated his correspondence asking for my
opinion had only recently occurred. Truth be told, not many (in fact virtually less
than one percent) of the people who contact me have researched these legal issues
ahead of the time in which they might consider using that information. That puts
them at a distinct disadvantage when the time comes, as surely it will, when they
will need to know and use such information. So I was more than happy to oblige
his request, and at the same time to gather more feedback from the front lines of
people who, like me, were willing to fight back against the legalize extortion of
the people by the state.

Carlos began by giving me a few of the facts surrounding the issuance of the
citation. Most inquiries like this don’t even mention many facts if any at all, so I
was already impressed with his grasp of the idea that one must keep the detailed
facts of what happened and how it happened in mind at all times. He wrote: “I
encountered an ‘officer’ who created a document based on my providing him a
‘license and registration’.”

Of course, the document he was referring to was the citation itself. What he may
not have known at the time was to preface his handing over of the DL with the
not have known at the time was to preface his handing over of the DL with the
statement: “This is for competence only, and not for identification.” And while
that disclaimer may have helped him to overcome the “officer’s” bias and thereby
gotten him only a warning. However, in today’s charged political climate, and
based upon feedback I’ve been receiving, it is more likely the policy enforcer
would likely have ignored that disclaimer and proceed forward based on what he
was being told to do in such circumstances. In other words, the system was telling
him to ignore and therefore break the law (by not acknowledging a valid
disclaimer) in order to obtain the dispensing of a[n invalid] citation. For those of
you who haven’t realized it yet, this is the level that the legal system in America
has sunk to!

Carlos then went on to provide me with more details regarding the facts of the
incident. He said before the officer himself signed the citation (on Carlos’ behalf;
Carlos never personally signed it!) and threw it into his car, he had asked to see
the officer’s driver license. The officer did not respond to his request, so he asked
the officer if his non-response was his estoppel by conduct. Again, the officer did
not respond. Carlos then explained to the officer that he (the officer) had given
Carlos tacit consent of his estoppel by conduct, that is, by his engaging in a
concealment through not properly providing his own identification.

When you ask an officer for his identification, they should be forthcoming and
provide it in order to provide evidence of their employer and himself as an agent
of that employer. Yet this officer was not forthcoming and therefore was engaging
in a concealment. Carlos knew from his studies that a concealment creates an
immediate estoppel. And while that may be true out by the roadside when faced
with someone who was unfairly dishonoring their oath of office, the question
remained, how was Carlos going to get this evidence into the record of the matter
before the court!

Carlos provided even more details of the facts surrounding the incident. He
pointed out that the citation the officer threw into his car was signed as the
“DEFENDANT” by the officer. The officer had placed his mark on the line
labelled “DEFENDANT X _________,” and the mark he made on the line was
“REFUSED.” So, Carlos had not signed a promise to appear. But would that fact
be acknowledged by the court? Who knows! But likely (according to my
experience) it would not!

Carlos wanted to know what my view of the significance was of an officer making
his mark / signature on the line marked “DEFENDANT” on the citation,
suggesting that it was a summons. Well, it’s quite obvious that the mark or
suggesting that it was a summons. Well, it’s quite obvious that the mark or
signature of the officer on the citation is not a valid signature of consent made by a
self-confessed or consenting alleged “defendant.” Yet, for whatever reason, the
officer didn’t want to confront the situation any longer, and simply left the scene
after throwing the citation into Carlos’ car. So far, I couldn’t discern anything that
Carlos had done wrong. And yet every dishonor that was on the record belonged
to the officer and not Carlos.

Carlos further explained his reasoning writing that although he had studied many
approaches to the “game of court,” his first inclination was to look at the accusing
document itself that was being used to bring the action to court. He wrote: “The
ALL-CAPS text on their documents is not English, or any other recognizable
language for that matter. If the all caps text being used by these highway criminals
is some sort of sign or cipher, then they must show what the definition of the text
is? To my knowledge, ALL-CAPS is an illustrative text, or art, artifice. English is
not an illustrative text, period, full stop. Prove jurisdiction, yeah?”

At the arraignment hearing, Carlos kept pressing the same issues. He wrote (and
pay careful attention to how he handled this):

“When I was at the court, a man who suggested he was the ‘District Attorney’
stated his name to me. I asked him if his identification was fact. He said yes. I
then asked him to provide me with his State driver’s license, and he said he
would not. He engaged in a concealment, then attempted to make a written
offer to me. i asked him what language the ALL-CAPS writing on the
document was. He said ‘i am not going to go there with you!’.”

“Then I was at the courtroom speaking with a man in a black robe. I asked if it
was a court of record, he said ‘yes’. I stated on the record that i was
challenging jurisdiction. I will be following up with documents during my
next special appearance. I asked the man in the black robe what jurisdiction
the court was operating under. He said he would not answer me. I then asked
him what his name was, he responded ‘you can read it, its right there’,
referring to a name tag sign on the bench with an ALL-CAPS [picture] of a
name. I asked him again to state his name, he refused. I then asked for his
State drivers license, he again refused. He engaged in a concealment as well,
which creates estoppel. In common language, he put a cork in it by his
conduct.”

If this court appearance was being recorded by an audio-visual system as it likely

If this court appearance was being recorded by an audio-visual system as it likely
was, Carlos got all of these facts on the record. Now this court, should it attempt
to go forward with the matter, will be faced with a challenge of any outcome it
arrives at based on the fact that jurisdiction was never established on the record
when it was questioned.

Carlos then made the following observation: “Being that these ‘traffic courts’ are
administrative and not judicial, I believe that title 18 of the U.S.C. §1001 applies.
This is the false conveyance of language...”

Now, if you’re like me and you’re not exactly familiar with how Title 18 U.S.C.
§1001 reads, you will look it up. And here is where the confusion can begin to set
in if you aren’t careful in reading. At the Title subsection (a) it states the
following:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter

within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the
Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully —
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a
material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to
contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the
offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section
2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Fine so far. But then at subsection (b) it states the following:

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or

that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents
submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

This subsection (b) would, on its face, seem to invalidate the accusation of a
concealment (i.e. allow the falsifications and concealments to stand in a traffic
citation that is viewed to be criminal in nature and therefore presumably held in a
judicial proceeding). Except that traffic violations are generally viewed as being
civil and not criminal. The court is an administrative commercial court that deals
only with legal fictions. Therefore, while a judge may say that you are in court on
a criminal matter (presumably under some contractual obligation), it is a criminal
a criminal matter (presumably under some contractual obligation), it is a criminal
matter being heard in an administrative court and not a judicial court!

And then reading subsection (c) this clarifies the exception to subsection (b).

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch,
subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to
the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices,
or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be
submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch;

This is why Carlos mentioned that “being that these traffic courts are
administrative and not judicial, I believe that Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 applies. This
is the false conveyance of language...” And I think he is correct.

At what was supposed to be the arraignment hearing, Carlos began asking

questions from the get go. The city prosecutor met with Carlos prior to the hearing
to see if Carlos would accept a plea bargain. Speaking with the prosecutor outside
the courtroom, Carlos asked: “Is this a criminal matter or a civil matter?” The
prosecutor answered: “This is a traffic matter.” Immediately, Carlos asked again:
“A criminal matter or a civil matter?” The prosecutor: “Traffic.” Immediately,
Carlos asked one more time: “Criminal or civil?” The prosecutor: “Traffic.”

Carlos was using an old common law trick, however without a witness, it was off
the record. When you ask a question three times in succession and your opponent
fails to provide a meaningful response to it three times in succession, a
concealment has taken place. Once a concealment takes place, an estoppel has
become established. But will these courts honor such an estopple? In many, if not
most, cases these days, they will not even acknowledge that such a thing has taken
place. What does that tell you about the integrity of this justice system?

Failing to get an answer from the prosecutor, Carlos then tried another tact. “What
jurisdiction is this court operating under?” The prosecutor did not answer; he was
hand-writing up an offer for Carlos to look over. Once the offer was written up,
Carlos asked: “I’d like to know what language this is?” Apparently, the offer was
written partially in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. The prosecutor said coyly: “I’m
not going to go there.” Carlos replied: “You’re not going to go there? What do you
mean, you’re not going to go there? You’re not going to answer the question?”
The prosecutor said, “. . . you know what this is.”
The prosecutor said, “. . . you know what this is.”

Carlos immediately stated: “I don’t know what language this is. From what I know
English is not written in all caps, sir.” The prosecutor came back: “It can be.”
Carlos snapped: “No it cannot. Never.” The prosecutor shot back: “Really” Carlos
persisted: “I’ll bring you in a book...if you want proof. Do you have any reference
to what you’re saying here? Where can I find the closure for this document?” The
prosecutor was becoming impatient: “Do you want to accept the disposition or
not?” Carlos again replied: “I’m trying to find out whats written here. I don’t
know what’s written here. And I don’t know who you are.” The prosecutor was
now beyond his patience; he tore up the offer saying: “What you’re going to do is
you’re going to go up in front of the judge. There’s no deal. And take care of it.”

Carlos immediately came back and said: “You have to prove some jurisdiction,
buddy. You work under Admiralty jurisdiction or common law. Is this common
law jurisdiction?” The prosecutor responded: “I’m not answering any questions.”
Carlos replied: “Oh. Really? What’s your name? What’s your name again, sir?”
The prosecutor: “I’m not telling you.” After a subsequent brief exchange, Carlos
asked: “Can I see your ID, then?” Prosecutor: “No.” Carlos said: “You’re
withholding material facts, sir. You want to contract with me. Why don’t you
identify yourself. Where’s the instrument that you’re using to bring forth what you
claim to be charges? Can I see the instrument you’re claiming brings charges?”

The prosecutor responded: “You were served with it.” Carlos then stated: “No I
wasn’t. I wasn’t served with anything.” The prosecutor now exasperated said:
“We’ll let the court deal with this.” Carlos persisted: "What court?" The
prosecutor said: “The one that you’re here. Now obviously you know the English
language...” Carlos replied again: “You don’t know the English language. You’re
trying to pass off false documents, sir. That’s not English. That you have on that
paper there. You know it. You don’t write English in all caps.”

From there, they entered the courtroom. The prosecutor announced: “Your honor,
this is Carl Ruiz...” Carlos interrupted saying: “No, my name is not Carl.” Carlos
then asked the prosecutor: “Sir, what is your name?” The prosecutor, still talking
said, “And we are unable to reach a plea bargain disposition.” Turning his
attention to the judge, Carlos asked: “What is your name? I challenge jurisdiction.
Is this a court of record, sir? What is your name?”

The judge stated: “My name’s right there, sir.” [pointing at the NAME plate in
front of the bench] Unphased Carlos asked again: “I asked you what you’re name
is...” The judge: “You know what, you don’t ask the questions...” Carlos
respectfully shot back: “I have questions always, sir. Always. The Sixth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives me the right to ask questions. I need to
be able to defend myself here. Correct?” The judge: “You can do whatever you
want, sir. As long as you don’t disrespect my court.” Carlos replied: “I don’t
intend on disrespecting...” The judge retorted: “Well, you already have...”

Carlos persisted: “No, I’m asking who you are.” The judge replied: “I’m not going
to answer your questions.” Carlos persisted: “Is this a court of record, sir. What
sort of matter is this? Is this criminal, is this a criminal matter? Or a civil matter?”
The judge then stated: “It’s a criminal matter.” Finally getting an answer, Carlos
inquired: “Okay. Under what jurisdiction are you operating?” The judge again
became contentious: “I’m not going to answer your questions...” Carlos persisted:
“There’s only two jurisdictions allowed in criminal matters, sir. That’s Admiralty
and common law. Which jurisdiction are you operating under?” The judge shot
back: “What law school did you go to?” Carlos, unphased, said: “It doesn’t matter.
What I’m asking you...” The judge, agitated, said: “Stop.”

The exchange went on back and forth between the judge and Carlos with each not
giving an inch, when finally Carlos asked: “Are you refusing to identify the
jurisdiction which this court is operating under?” And the judge answered:
“Columbus Valley Municipal Court, sir.” Carlos asked: “What’s that?” The judge
repeated his response, to which Carlos clarified: “No, I said the jurisdiction. You
say this is a criminal matter. Under which jurisdiction. There are only two
jurisdictions that are authorized by the United States Constitution. That’s an
Admiralty jurisdiction and a common law jurisdiction.” The judge responded:
“According to you.” And Carlos retorted: “Okay. So you’re engaging in a
concealment because you will not identify yourself. Which creates estoppel, sir.”

The judge continued not to identify himself whenever Carlos asked for his Driver
License or other identification. When the judge asked if Carlos had received the
summons, Carlos stated, “What summons, sir? I don’t see anything written on that
document. That’s a document that does not have English written on it, sir. I’d like
to have closure on the words in this document.”

At this the judge attempted to establish a fact: “Let the record reflect that the
defendant refused to accept...” But Carlos jumped in and stated: “No, let the
record reflect that the judge will not identify the jurisdiction which this court is
operating under. He will not show his ID. He will not identify himself. Ah,
someone in a badge and uniform brought a paper here with with a language that is
someone in a badge and uniform brought a paper here with with a language that is
not English written on it.” The judge: “Okay.” Carlos: “I don’t know what this is. I
don’t understand these charges.” The judge then looked over to a court officer and
said: “Will you escort Mr. Ruiz out.” The judge then scheduled a trial date, saying
“See you on February twentieth.”

By the time Carlos was back in court several days later for a hearing, there was a
different judge than the one at the arraignment hearing and a different prosecutor.
They do this to confuse people, because now, if you know what you’re doing, you
have to establish your facts all over again with the new “actors.” Ask them the
same questions and get them to create an estoppel by conduct again on the record.
If you don’t do that, they’ll walk all over you, and you’ll wonder what just hit you.

Once the original state actors have left the stage, a new offer is on the table, so to
speak, with new players, and you have to re-establish the facts from your side of
the matter that you established with the previous state actors. Otherwise you
cannot just assume these facts are established on the record of the matter being
presently heard just because you established them before with the other state
actors! When they switch players on you, the game begins anew as though nothing
before had been said. You can’t assume anything with these courts, but they can
(and do with impunity) assume all sorts of unproven-on-the-record so-called
“facts” about you! And they get away with that if you don’t rebut their
assumptions at the earliest opportunity!

At the subsequent hearing on February Twentieth, as Carlos entered the empty

courtroom, empty except for the witness that accompanied him, the judge was
apparently waiting just for him. The judge piped up and said, “Good evening. I’ll
assume this is Mr. Ruiz.” Carlos immediately asked, “What’s your name?” The
judge answered, “My name is Jim Dale.” Carlos inquired: “Okay. Who are you?”
The judge said: “I will be your municipal court judge.” Carlos retorted: “I don’t
have a municipal court judge.” The judge continued, “And it’s my understanding
that this case is set for trial.” Carlos responded, “Ah, I’m not, I’m not aware of the
matter of this case.” The judge continued, “So I’m going to refer this case to the
prosecutor...” Carlos interjected, “I don’t know anything about this case.”

At this point the prosecuting attorney chimed in, “Your honor..." Carlos then asked
again, “Is there a case?” It was at this point that the prosecutor made an
unexpected request. He said, “Your honor, on behalf of the town of Columbus
Valley I’m going to move to dismiss this case without prejudice.” The judge asked
the prosecutor for the rule under which he was making the motion, “Is that 248?”
the prosecutor for the rule under which he was making the motion, “Is that 248?”
The prosecutor queried, “Two Forty Eight is ah, speedy trial. I think.” The judge
replied, “No, that’s dismissal. 248(a). What’s the grounds for seeking a
dismissal?” The prosecutor answered, “Ah, it’s, it’s, we believe it’s the best
interest of Columbus Valley that the case be dismissed without prejudice, your
honor.”

The judge without any hesitation then said, “Okay. Now I’m going to go ahead.
I’m going to dismiss the case without prejudice.” The prosecutor said, “Okay.”
Turning to Carlos, the judge said, “Mr. Ruiz, there’s paperwork if you can pick it
up at the clerk’s office. We’d appreciate it.” Carlos replied, referring only to the
dismissal, “Thank you, sir.” The judge finished by saying, “Thank you for
stopping by.”

At this point in the process, Carlos had no intention of stopping by the clerk’s
office for any so-called “paperwork.” He knew it was bait to see if he would bite,
that is recognize the NAME of the party on the paperwork. He knew better than to
fall for that trick. When Carlos walked out of the courtroom and back into the
adjoining hallway, the policy enforcer who issued the original citation tried to
serve him with a “summons.”

The officer handed Carlos the summons, and Carlos asked, “What is this.” The
officer replied that it was a summons. Carlos then asked the officer, “Who are
you? Can I see your driver’s license?” The officer refused to respond. If someone
(like a purported state employee) wants to do business with you in your legal
capacity they must provide their state identification if you ask for it. Their identity
is a material fact if they wish to contract with you in the capacity of your legal
person. Otherwise it is a concealment which creates estoppel.

Carlos threw the summons on the counter and said, “That is yours, not mine.”
Then he left the courthouse. He refused to recognize their faulty paperwork. That
was the last card the State had in their hand to play, and it failed. Carlos walked
out of the courthouse a free man.

It is interesting to note that throughout the whole process — from the traffic stop
by the side of the road to the attempted intimidation by the judge and prosecutor in
the courtroom — Carlos never identified himself with the ALL CAPS name, and
he never entered any paperwork into the court. Those are two important points
that every reader should take away from Carlos’s experience. This is what it takes
to become a belligerent claimant. These administrative traffic courts will rarely
give an inch. They want to steal your money, legally that is, by tricking you into
give an inch. They want to steal your money, legally that is, by tricking you into
incriminating yourself. That’s the game they’re playing! And they’re very good at
it!

If you truly wish to learn from Carlos’s experience, you should go back over this
newsletter slowly and carefully, thinking critically and realistically about every
idea and concept that is being brought up. Take the time to view the Romley
Stewart videos linked to in order to grasp the concepts disclosed in them, and take
them seriously. While attempting to use this approach may not be for everyone,
learning about the concepts of law brought out in this experience is basically
indispensable and priceless! If you don’t know how lawfully to hold your
oppressor accountable, you are at his mercy and basically defenseless!

For additional information about the concept of concealment of material facts and
how it can relate to an estoppel of legal process, please read the following new
article — Concealment Of Material Facts Triggers Estoppel — which expands and
explains this concept in more depth.

I did a follow-up debriefing correspondence with Carlos afterwards, and the points
he brought up regarding how he handled himself were very insightful. It also
provided me with an opportunity to correct some of his misunderstandings based
upon my experience and research. I will be writing a separate commentary about
this debriefing which will be available only to those who are seriously studying
these matters and who write to me asking for it.

The commentary will explain my revised take on what happened in Carlos’s case,
and why I see it that way. Initially it seemed to me that the threat of estoppel by
concealment might have been the deciding factor leading the prosecutor to ask for
a dismissal. I thought it might be the kryptonite we have been looking for that
might have discouraged the court from proceeding any further. However, after
listening more closely to the audio recordings of what happened in the courtroom
and reading Carlos’s explanation of what he did, I no longer fully hold that view.

That commentary will be well worth people’s reading and consideration. So if

you’re interested, please send an email to me with the phrase “Send me the
debriefing commentary” in the subject line, and when I’ve finished it, I will send it
to you.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy
BeatTrafficTickets.Org