Lesson 4

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

Some have condemned the fact that I call this an Affidavit of Truth but I have seen unscrupulous attorneys use affidavits to lie. It is a common fact in legal circles that it is permissible under necessary circumstances to get around minor legal problems and errors. Thus the double implication here is that it is an Affidavit filled with truth, so be sure it is all truth. If you are one of the nit picking cotton pickers, then just call it an Affidavit. Definitions and Examples The State of Washington is precisely what the Washington Constitution calls for all process to be. To show that we follow that Constitution we call the plaintiff exactly who it should be. Notice it isnt, STATE OF WASHINGTON as the ticket says the entity is that is serving process. In other states you are likely to find the same abuse of process and I believe it is intentional as the judges hate to see this as they know the truth. We know this for a fact because we presented a judge an order to sign in about 1994 with The State of Washington written in the caption and he hit the ceiling, yelled and said emphatically that he would not sign an order with that name on it. If it didnt mean anything, why would he object, refuse or make mention of it? He obviously knew that we knew the process they were using was dummy process and an outright fraud. So do always use exactly what your state Constitution calls for all process in the courts to be, in the same case letters as in the Constitution. The court reasoned and concluded that what the city did was done not in its governmental capacity -- an exertion of the police power -- but in its "proprietary or quasi-private capacity," and that therefore the city was subordinate in right to the corporation, the latter being an earlier and lawful occupant of the filed. The difference in the capacities is recognized, and the difference in attendant powers pointed out, in decisions of this Court. Vilas v. Manila, 220 U.S. 345; Russell v. Sebastian, 233 U.S. 195; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437; New Orleans v. Drainage Commission, 197 U.S. 453; Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co., 206 U.S. 496, 508. Los Angeles v Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, 251 U.S. 32, 39 (1919) I maintain that the states and their subordinate municipalities operate most of the time by pressing the People with code in fraud in that
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 1 of 14

proprietary mode and they know exactly what they are doing. Once they think we know by bringing the process in the real Constitutional name of the state, they drop it like a super hot potato because they dont want to take the chance on getting burned over it. There can be no doubt that the state has a police power to regulate traffic and to protect the People but not to use the roads like highway men to extract revenue. This is a very modern protection racket. While safety is an obviously good government function, what safe function is intended in most traffic stops? To stop a drunk who is driving on the wrong side of the road is admirable, to stop someone for not coming to a complete stop in the middle of the night on a deserted road is nothing more than revenue generation harassment. The whole process is a fiction of proprietary taxation or necessity operating in emergency conditions to supply revenue. In other words it is a Wizard of Oz smoke and mirror trick but far more oppressive than the good Wizard put on for he had a heart and mind. In this deception the state and its highway gang of criminals actually work in pure deception to enslave the People in most cases. Now, in light of the Natural Law of Creation, see what the court says: therefore the city was subordinate in right to the corporation, and there can be no denial that when we act, we have superior rights and all governments are subordinate, and if they are subordinate in proprietary acts to corporations, they fall at the extreme bottom in all rights and interests. The court no longer talks about this condition, but in light of the facts of what happened about this time period, it would be to their advantage to keep this information as quiet as possible. All courts know this and only a stupid judge will not dismiss the case by sweeping it under the carpet. In the caption you will notice <sic><misnomer> which makes reference to the name on the ticket. Sic means misspelled generally and misnomer means wrong name generally. So, in essence you are saying it is not only misspelled but the wrong name because it appears in all caps. You dont sign your name in all caps, nor do you print it that way, and you have a right to be called what you want and not what they desire because you are the Superior Sovereign. Also note that The State of Washington is the government organization and it appears that STATE OF WASHINGTON is the corporate quasi-private or proprietary entity which can do virtually no wrong. Thus your name, John Doe is also converted to another form in the ticket, that of JOHN DOE and I dont believe it isnt for good reason, just like if I am a cop, I can slap you around but if you slap me
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 2 of 14

around you will be in jail for a long time or in other words this is the big bully syndrome. Misidentification is a cause for dismissal. The term sui juris in most cases, simply means you are an adult, have legal capacity and competent in all ways to testify to the facts of the case. This says you are over the age of maturity, mentally sound and of good reputation, such that your word means what you say. There is no real magic to this word like some want to prescribe to it as you can be sui juris and a public servant as well as illustrated in Umbehr. Justice Scalia dissenting said in condemnation of the court (sui juris) subverting the Constitution, going on to name recent cases, Each major step in the abridgment of the people's right to govern themselves is portrayed as extremely limited or indeed sui juris. Board of Commissioners v Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 709 (1996) In adopting the restrictions, Congress was not imposing restraints on a class of persons who were sui juris, but on Indians who were being conducted from a state of dependent wardship to one of full emancipation, and needed to be safeguarded against their own improvidence during the period of transition. Smith v McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 466 (1926) Here we see in Smith that those under wardship are protected because they are not legally responsible. Now go and read file AG.txt in L.zip. Arent you treated as legally incompetent when you obtain a license and registration? Arent you reminded to obtain new tabs, license before the expiration of those? Arent you told you can have an attorney appointed by the court (court now uses your power of appointment for you) to make sure you are protected? These are points to ponder a little to see how playing the STATE game leads you to a Father Ward relationship. The French term nom de guerre literally means War Name kind of like what we call Terrorist or Insurgent, but specifically a name used which gives some necessity for the government to make war upon the People which is called mixed war. The governments have no right to make war upon their own People because that is called anarchy or lawlessness, akin to biting the hand that feeds you. The terms, politic or corporate make reference to office obviously either corporate or political. This is the body subject to the code.
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 3 of 14

As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies politic. Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) municipal corporations and private ones were simply two species of "body politic and corporate," treated alike in terms of their legal status as persons capable of suing and being sued. Cook County v U.S. ex Rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (2003) Both before and after the time when the Dictionary Act and 1983 were passed, the phrase "bodies politic and corporate" was understood to include the States. "Every sovereign State is of necessity a body politic, or artificial person" (Brennan dissenting) Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Of course, the United States were not bound by the laws of the State, yet the word "person" in the statute would include them as a body politic and corporate. Sayles, Art. 3140; Martin v State, 24 Texas, 61, 68, also Stanley v Schwalby, 147 U.S. 508 Joinder, literally to join in the cause can be forced by the court but must be done by open and notorious declaration of the court. If you appear specially without joinder and not admitting to the jurisdiction of the court, the only recourse is for the court either to force joinder or dismiss the case. I have never seen the court force joinder however that doesnt mean it doesnt happen. Special Appearance is an appearance only to challenge jurisdiction. If you make any motions other than motions to dismiss or quash, you join in the cause. If you join in the cause, you have to defend or acquiesce by default, even if you stand there and say nothing. This was defined in Lesson 3 however it bears some repetition as it is often misunderstood and is closely related to Joinder. Demurrer is where you admit to the facts but challenge the sufficiently of the process or law. Demurrers are motions to dismiss, motion to suppress evidence, motions for lack of service, due process, valid complaint, proper official office and powers, constitutionality and special circumstances like the officer lost sight in the chase or was outside his jurisdiction as well as common law defenses to the act complained of such as intent or lawful defense. For instance a clear case of demurrer is when Charlie came to me with a ticket for assault after he was found standing over the man he decked who was bleeding from the mouth. Charlie hit him alright but
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 4 of 14

not till Charlie was threatened with being hit and slammed up against a brick wall. 10 others saw it and wrote statements in support of Charlie but the prosecutor still moved against Charlie. Under the common law if you dont want to be touched and someone touches you, it is assault and Charlie had obviously done it. The common law however recognizes defenses to assault and says that if you perceive a threat (real or imaginary), you are in a place you have a right to be (sidewalk in this case), you can stand your ground and counter the threat with necessary force. The wicked prostitutor of law, moved till the time we submitted the jury instructions with the defenses to assault in them. Had Charlie not put those jury instructions in the record, he would have obviously been found guilty of assault unless he got a honest judge (there was nothing honest is this little town court). Once the jury instructions were in place the prosecutor moved to dismiss. Charlie walked out of the court with an attorney there for another matter and he told him that he had a perfect case of false arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. Traverse is where you have facts necessary to prove you werent the one doing the act. Examples here are mistaken identity, alibi, inability to do the act, statistical probability and circumstantial evidence. The main reason to explain demurrer and traverse is because there is a really serious mistaken saying in patriot circles that you never want to traverse, always demurrer. While this might work when demurrer is the logical thing to do it is not wise to shun traverse because each has a place in defense of your cause. This is a serious flaw in legal reasoning on behalf of many who profess this error. To demonstrate how serious this flaw is, lets say you are accused of theft but you didnt do it. You are arrested and they wont believe your testimony that you had no knowledge of any of the facts they present to you. Now, everyone knows a common criminal defense is to lie and they think you are evading the questions with your claims of innocence. They have a description of the bandito and his car and sure enough you and your car fit that fit that description, they put you in a line up and you are identified by the only witness. But how do you prove it wasnt you, they have found you guilty without a trial and are threatening you with lots of jail time unless you sign a confession and plea bargain with the prosecution. Your whole life is a mess because they dont believe you. You have also had this crazy thought placed in

Lesson 4

Affidavit of Truth

Page

5 of

14

your mind not to traverse in the case, so you try to get your case dismissed but your demurrers just dont work. You shun the perfect traverse because you have always been told not to traverse. You paid for a new shirt with a check, showed your drivers license two hours travel from the crime scene and not only the clerk knows you from previous purchases but a friend was with you as well. Finally you decide to go against the bad advice you were given and you file an affidavit from your friend and one you made up and asked the store clerk to sign as well, then you traverse to the charges with your alibi. Now the prosecutor goes to the cops and asks what gives here, and why didnt you check it out? They say, Well he was picked out of the line up, his car matches the description and you know all crooks lie, it wasnt worth our time to check out what appeared to be a lie with the solid facts we had in the case. The prosecutor calls the clerk at the store and sure enough he says it was you in the store and you have been buying there for years, he knows you on sight and the prosecution obviously has the wrong man. The prosecutor goes in and makes all kinds of excuses for the cops but in the end motions to dismiss the case because he knows when the two witnesses get on the stand and testify against a stranger who picked a stranger out of a line up, he knows who the judge will believe. If you remember nothing else, remember: There is a time to demurrer and a time to traverse and many times an opportunity to do both. In the default we will do both. Later I will show you how you can have a little fun with this concept during any trial. Standing Armies can make mixed war upon the People and the founders knew all too well how they could be used to force obedience to any command so it was necessary to limit funding for Armies to two years as no conflict should last more than two years. For today, it should only be two months if you use Iraq for an example. The purpose of the minutemen Militia was to provide trained Men who could be called up on a minutes notice to defend the nation. Only a Navy had permanent appropriations as needed to protect our shores and shipping interests. Article 1 (Bill of Rights) 24 of the Washington Constitution is designed to back up that proposition in a meaningful way. Washington founders wanted to make sure there never were any standing armies by making sure the government didnt have weapons and armies.

Lesson 4

Affidavit of Truth

Page

6 of

14

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Since all states are basically subject to this common law principle, the same application to Washington of these limits is applicable to other states as well under the restriction of standing armies principles. Notice how opinions of judges compare the laws of other states. See the AGO (opinion) in Prohibitum.zip in the files section of the lawwork group homepage. Thus you can safely use this for your paperwork. In your affidavit of truth you might want to affirm the facts of the police arrest (stop=detention) by notice that the cop wore a gun and was armed with other weapons (MACE, shotgun in patrol car, billy club) of war as well. How You Come Before the Court Pro Se means you are representing yourself, so why do you need to represent yourself, if you are yourself? This makes absolutely no sense unless you are a lawyer called before the bar to defend yourself. The attorney for the Plaintiff may want to call you pro se but it matters little as you have already made it plain you are not a party of the body politic or corporate and you are indeed a Man taking care of your own business. Dont let yourself be drug into a go nowhere argument, and when you are right there is no need to argue anyway. A cheap trick is for the other party in a suit to lead the arguments off the track and get you engrossed in something utterly senseless. Just because they call you a worm doesnt mean you ARE 20x longer than your diameter, round and pointed at both ends? Dont fall for cheap tricks of the attorney, stay on point and dont move off solid ground. Stay on track and let him make a fool of himself. You have to ask yourself, does this really make a difference in the issues before the court? If you can answer no or it is outside the pleadings, dont make an issue of it. Pro Per means in your proper person which is getting a little closer but what is Person as we have previously explained and defined in lesson 2. This is also a dangerous term to use as it is ambiguous. Unrepresented Man (Woman) means you are without legal representation and you are a Man not to be confused with Person under the law. This term leaves no doubt as to your real and true
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 7 of 14

character and your legal capacity to take care of your own business in or out of courts. Aggrieved Defendant as used in the Affidavit of Truth is self explanatory, however it needs to be emphasized that you are injured in the stop and citation of unlawful conduct. The conduct was likely not unlawful for a Man (or Woman is indicative at all times as matter of fact, which means if I leave out the Woman it is implied in Man) because of status. When you are arrested in your travels you have just lost life, liberty and property and threatened to loose more by being unlawfully summons to defend you life, liberty and property. In other words, Life is doing what you want to be doing (govern yourself) and not what someone else thinks you should be doing. Life, Liberty and Property or Pursuit of happiness are all so intrinsic as to be almost one in the same. Liberty is closely related and inseparable, in that you lose the liberty to proceed to travel to your intended destination in the time you intended. Liberty interests are or should be most cherished above all other temporal interests. Property is rights and your property interests (rights) are taken from you at this point under threat of severe penalty for failure to stop upon signal of the powers that be. Part of property is the right to use your property (car) as your needs require, on the rights of way (property) dedicated for that purpose. Property, constitutionally implies the pursuit of happiness and if anyone enjoys a traffic stop they are masochistic. In that particular case, give them back at least the plates from your car, so they will stop you more often. Preparation of Affidavits All facts are expressed in first person experience with all the W words, what, when, where, who, ect, writing only facts relevant to your case. Do not draw any conclusions from your facts. Upon information and belief can be a basis for facts that are not concrete on their face. In other words, I have searched the law for penalties and have found none, so upon information and belief, I dont think a penalty exists. Recusal Affidavit for Those Unruly Judges

Lesson 4

Affidavit of Truth

Page

8 of

14

Sometimes you may have cause to fire the judge and you do this with an affidavit that essentially says you can not get a fair trial with this judge because of his bias and prejudice. If you have good reason you should include them, such as: He is named in a suit that you are involved with, has personal knowledge of the facts or is a material witness of the case, has expressed an opinion of the case or has been council for either party in the past. He has a conflict of interests of any kind, such as you personally know or have known him, he has represented you in the past, he has common friends, his law business has had commercial dealings with you in the past, you have the same last name even if not related or he or a relative have some kind of stake in the outcome of this case however remote. You believe he has some bias or prejudice against you, which could be racial, business related, even general misdemeanor or any condition where "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See Liteky v U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994) and your state court rules annotated. The judge himself, if he feels he cant be impartial or there is a conflict of interests known even only to him, must recuse himself. At one time, I had a minor citation before I ever became involved in law and the judge told me that he had known me as a teenager and we had associated together. I didnt even remember him but he remembered me for some reason. He said, that he would step down if I wanted him to, but I declined. The next time I came in his court, I was mad and he knew it. I demanded he produce the warrant that I was arrested on, he recused himself and threatened to throw me back in jail. I turned around and walked out. He had issued the first warrant and then recalled it because I had written him a letter (stilz.txt in L.zip) over the issue that the complaint failed to charge a crime. A second judge had then taken up the ball and reissued the summons and I again challenged the courts jurisdiction and again I only appeared by paper specially and a second defective warrant was issued. This warrant, I made no effort to quash because I figured it would sooner or later move to a showdown with a false arrest which I could sue on in Federal court. Generally per the rules of the court, you have to file the affidavit of prejudice before any hearing or motions are made. Not every judge
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 9 of 14

will step down but it is a point of contention if he doesnt. If he doesnt step down, then just move on, after objection. Now, lets take the Affidavit (AFT.txt) one bite at a time and explain the contents: district court of Thurston county The only name here is Thurston which is why it is capitalized and all the rest is descriptive of an artificial body belonging to Thurston which is the name of the People collectively. Of has special significance in law, it is indicative of ownership. Thus you would say this is the house of Jack or Jacks house. A citizen of the United States is owned by the United States, where an American Citizen is described as American, the name of the People collectively living in the USA. The State of Washington (government capacity) is the small p plaintiff as it is inferior to the Superior Sovereign, listed as Aggrieved Defendant (all cap first letters). Your Name in the Caption is as written on the ticket which is in all caps. The rest of the caption is self evident. The venue of the Affidavit is defined by the next few lines to wit: The State of Washington The county of Thurston ) ) ) ss.

This represents the venue where the affidavit is signed and sealed (witnesses, notary or other official of competent authority) The first paragraph of the body contains, declares and affirms which are powerful words for several reasons. As a Superior Sovereign you have a right to declare and you can affirm without an oath. Affirmation is an oathless statement of truth to accommodate those who are admonished not to swear by religious belief. In the first fact you identify yourself in the manner that Christians normally do and state who your Creator is and your capacity as a flesh and blood (leaves no doubt) Man or Woman. This is to counter any presumption that you appear as an artificial entity subject to law. You then state for the record that you are not the all caps entity which has been invited to the court, which is a misidentification. Three, you state you have never been known by that name to further support misidentification.
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 10 of 14

Four, you declare your Creator and the law you are subject to by inference. Five and Six, establishes you have no contract or agreement which could form an equity court and give the court discretion. Seven, breaks any assumption that you are any kind of public servant subject to the law as a body politic or corporate. Eight, breaks any presumption that you have voluntarily joined in the cause. The court now must either force joinder or dismiss as there is no personal jurisdiction till you are joined. See your court rules on joinder. This comprises the bare necessities of the Affidavit in its simplest form. At this point it is not necessary to express more unless you want to play, or are expecting to have to go to trial. If you have reason to express something special, for instance to support a motion to dismiss on say for instance the cop lost sight in the chase it might be better to do that later in the motion by verification if the case is not dismissed. You might say: I have read and understand Yick Wo v. Hopkins in particular the plain words of the first paragraph on page 370 which says: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. By affirming your first hand experience you can introduce law into an affidavit just as you would affirm anything else, however it would be an error not to speak in the first person from fact on the issue. Only very general applications of law and few should be put in the affidavit if at all. Further Affiant saith naught concludes the body of the Affidavit and prevents any further additions to it. The Jurat follows as your affirmation that the facts are true and correct. Seal" is positive identification which you might want to use if you have been fingerprinted. It is your right thumb print over the end of your signature. This seal is always with you and can demonstrate
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 11 of 14

proof on the spot if need be. It adds a BOLD touch to the document showing clear intent and positive motive. De Jure Soli, Sanguinis, Coronea These terms are Citizenship specific which defines your right to immunities. De Jure literally means real. Soli means born on the soil or natural born. Sanguinis means born to Citizen Parents anywhere in the World. Coronea means you are of royal birth by virtue of being Sons and Daughters of the King of Kings. near (98589) Is a way to use the zip code which breaks any possible presumption that you live in a federal area defined by such numbers. Putting the number is prentices or brackets, effectively keeps it outside the document or isolates it. You generally live on private property not within the confines of any government property unless you work for such government and have housing on government property. Under the common law, you could have witnesses acknowledge your affirmation and signature. This has the same effect as a notary but you can use a notary in leu of witnesses. Where we lived we had meetings a couple of times a month and in these meetings we would pass the documents around the room for witness signatures. It turns out looking like the Declaration of Independence with all the signatures upon it. Indeed every one of these witnesses would appear in court if necessary to attest to the fact that you signed it and you were who you said you were by personal knowledge of those facts. While two signatures by disinterested parties are all that is necessary, many signatures shows power in numbers. When those same parties walk into the court room with you, it is impressive. In some cases it scares the Hell out of judges, like seeing someone taking notes among the People waiting for their case to be called. Having a large number of witnesses also intimidates the judge into thinking about what he is doing, taking him out of his comfort zone. After the witness signatures is the challenge to rebut and time for rebuttal. In this example they are given 15 days. If you are really pressed for time to complete the default, then you would give less time, but never less than 10 days generally. Dont procrastinate here as it can mean the difference in winning or losing of course, get your paper moving. Stipulation means they accept it as true. joined the true party of interest Now remember there are two capacities for government which is one party and you are the other party. You and the government capacity are not the all caps representation they have prescribed to you and it and you have made
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 12 of 14

this clear as well as you positive status. You and it have not voluntarily joined and therefore the court must join you per the rules. So, it appears as there are no parties and if there are no parties there is no case and it is a void proceeding. sua sponte for failure to join an indispensable party, rule 19, rule 12 (b) (6), and as such relieves the court of jurisdiction over the parties under rule 12 (b) (2). When the court acts on its own accord it is called sua sponte. When the court sees it has no properly identified and joined parties it lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss by its rules. The last paragraph is a protest of the way the traffic court acts upon the people generally in mixed war with summary judgment in proprietary manner and capacity, akin to a dictatorship. suae potestate esse is Latin and means the lawful competent power exists herein with reference to the signer or literally his power exists. In other words the Superior Sovereign. Lesson 5 Motions to dismiss, a way out for judge.

The motions to dismiss are primarily to give the judge an easy way out of his mess without attaching a smell to himself. They are additive to, but not an absolute essential part of the default. Your homework assignment is to read rule 19 Joinder and rule 12 Jurisdiction. The best place to look is the rules annotated, generally found in a law library, which will give you some cases relating to the rules and a greater understanding of them. You can look under the rules for your courts of limited jurisdiction or the Federal Rules of civil procedure to give you an idea of what to look for and where to look if you cant find them in your local court rules. Additionally, read your state constitution and see what the prescribed process name of the state is. Then determine if they are following the constitutional process by specified name (exactly in words and spelling case). You might need to look for a traffic ticket, not on the road hopefully, but ask your friends if they have a copy of one for you to look at. If you are in a group, that might be the best place to ask. If worse came to worse you could take your digital camera down to local police station and ask them if they would show you an example for you to photocopy. This will give them something to talk about for a long time and ponder why you are interested. Please dont tell them
Lesson 4 Affidavit of Truth Page 13 of 14

the secrets you know, it is better for them to be dumb as a post, as they obviously are. If you cant find another way, when you see a cop in a reduced speed zone or school zone, just step on the gas, be sure to squeal your tires if you can or honk the horn if you have ABS brakes so you get his attention and you will get your own copy of one. Make sure there is no one who can get hurt when you do this however. A safer way would be to take off your plates, drive to the local police station and park crossways in the middle of the road straddling the yellow line and blocking traffic in both directions. Honk you horn from time to time or activate your antitheft alarm and wave an American flag out your window to get those inside to look out. Be sure that the back of the car faces the police station for maximum effect. This should also give them something to talk about around the water cooler for some time to come.

Lesson 4

Affidavit of Truth

Page

14 of

14