Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Secret yet ac-"count"-able voting

This is a kind of short version of the post.
There is a simple way to fix our election process to almost completely remove fraud, count it quickly and make it easy for anyone to review and check the counting of the votes.  Computers can be used to assist in adding columns of numbers by using well-known common tools like Excel yet with personal and public oversight of every single vote.

Here's how its done:

  1. Print up each ballot with a random number that is long enough to not easily be memorized yet short enough to conveniently write down.  It only has to be non-repeating for the precinct and for that vote.
  2. At the polls count the ballots by entering into a spreadsheet the ballot random number and how the votes were cast for each ballot. 
  3. Do this with as many (at least 3) independent backup counts as desired and simply compare the spreadsheets by saving them as .csv files sorted by ballot random number and then comparing the .csv files using a standard diffing tool programmers use all the time to note changes in files.
  4. Once all the spreadsheets jive (all discrepancies have been resolved among the various counters), post one of them for the precinct up on a website which the county uses to show everyone the votes for each precinct.  The entire spreadsheet is posted along with a summary of the counts that is easily verified by summing the appropriate columns in the precinct spreadsheet.
  5. These summaries are in turn entered into another spreadsheet to add up all the precinct votes for the county.  This summary spreadsheet is posted as well on the same county site.
  6. Do the same thing for the state and federal levels by having them simply copy the summaries from the lower level sites and summarizing those as needed.
Now what you have is a public record anyone can double check in as much detail as they might like.  The physical ballots would be stored at the county level and anyone can go and check that they jive with the precinct spreadsheet publicly posted online.  Any voter who decided to write down their random ballot number can verify their votes were entered correctly online and can call the county election people to report anything that doesn't fit with what they remember voting for.  There could even be a way to electronically report any discrepancies you see with either the sums or your personal voting record.  If multiple people report problems with the same random ballot number - we know somebody screwed up.  If many people find the sums aren't right, we can fix that pretty easy.
A recount can be done very quickly and check to any depth at any time by anyone with little bothering the government at any level with the exception of viewing the original ballots.  Even these could each be scanned into an image file for public scrutiny while the physical ballots are kept safe to verify the images are correct.

With such a system, we can't necessarily correct all errors but we can know how many there are and can quickly get statistics comparing precincts to know when fraud is likely.

Also, all absentee ballots should go away.  It is of critical importance that all votes be made on the same day in person with ID required and at a local precinct where most voters will be recognized.  

Anyone that knows they can't make it to the poling place can simply grant a specific power of attorney to another individual who can use that and the IDs of both the voter and his/her proxy agent with the desired votes noted on the power of attorney letter which must be signed and notarized for acceptance.  Dead people will never be able to vote if this is enforced.

This is so simple and it is so efficient and "transparent" - I hope we can make this a reality.
Pass this on if you agree -especially to your representatives at the city, county, state and federal levels.

Monday, October 31, 2016

"The most dangerous superstition" by Larken Rose: a retort

An anarchist friend of mine highly recommended the book "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose.
This will be a difficult argument to make because we live in a world with so much ignorance concerning rhetoric and law that few are able to work around the numerous pitfalls we all face.
I believe Larkin's definition of "Authority" is more accurately termed "Unlawful Authority".  The concept of lawfulness is something we have lost almost entirely.

So let me try to describe a lawful form of "Authority" first.

I believe there are only two types of lawful authority:

  1. External Lawful Authority - the authority derived from the simple maxim of law that states "The Creator is greater than the Created".  This defines private property.
  2. Internal Lawful Authority - the authority derived from a promise.
To understand External Lawful Authority, one must accept the primary maxim that some intelligent and powerful force or person created all that we see.  If this is not accepted, there simply is no basis for External Authority.  Specifically, External Lawful Authority is derived from the Torah laws from God himself - or you could call it the natural morality written on men's hearts.  If you don't except the concept of a creator and you don't accept his right to make the rules for what he made, then you will never be able to justify private property or the maxim that gives us External Lawful Authority because it must come from a creator to be self-consistent.

To understand Internal Lawful Authority, one must simply agree that promises are worthless unless they are kept.  This is actually derived from External Lawful Authority because we accept that God keeps his promises and thus so should we.

If you don't except either of the above premises, you can stop reading here.  There is nothing I or anyone else can say to convince you that any kind of "Authority" is legitimate.  But before you leave this blog article, consider what mankind will have if a promise need not be kept and private property doesn't exist.  This is the anarchy people fear and it is precisely these two things that civilization, even a small clan, cannot exist without.  I doubt even Larken would oppose private property or keeping promises as these are the foundations of what his Utopian idea of anarchy would use to operate.

So lets build on this a bit with some basic examples:

Parent-Child Authority

Clearly the parents are the direct creators of the life of their children.  They are not the ultimate cause, as this gift of reproduction was given to them by their creators and on up the generations to the first man who was created by ???.  A baby clearly does not have the ability to even survive without someone around to feed, clothe, nurture, house and otherwise take care of it.  This parent-child relationship is probably the most obvious, most universal example of external lawful authority one can find.  It even translates to the birds and the bees.  Only in the case of cell division or parasitical reproduction is the child immediately an independent and fully responsible being with no dependencies on its creator.
Though our current society would like to pervert this into the extreme opposite of "reproductive rights" the consequence of doing this for all people is extinction.  If one values death over life then one would not want external lawful authority to exist.

Private Property

My body is under the sole authority of my mind and spirit.  My will is exercised by invoking neural commands to my body to perform actions that effect my world.  Without this ability to exert my will unhindered upon my body I would instantly die (from not breathing among many other possible causes).  When one exerts labor to create a tool of any kind or to secure a resource, this extends my control beyond my body to whatever it was I created or secured.  This is very simple until two people both want the same resource.  This is where property rights end and where some external collective structure is needed to decide who gets the resource.  Without such a collective structure, violence or complete dominance of one party is almost assured.  
Larken would argue this is not true.  That the collective structure is far more prone to exert violence than the two parties trying to control the resource.  
How ever the collective structure determines who gets what, there needs to be some kind of enforcement of the decision, else the contest for dominance simply continues with another challenge or one party clearly dominates, not by right but by might.  How ever you color it, the stronger party wins, and the more a stronger party wins, the stronger that party gets, till you eventually have a single party with all the power and everyone else his slave.  This is what happens when you have no government (collective structure) to decide and enforce such things.  War becomes a constant at all levels.
This is what makes government such a useful servant but a fearful master.  The collective structure must have enough power to do its job and no more.  It must constantly be watched to prevent its growth outside of the desired limits - this is exactly what the founders of our constitution understood.
They were, however, faced with the same kinds of wrong ideas that Larken points out in his book. I agree with Larken that the acceptance of unlawful authority is a very true bane to freedom and keeping this collective structure useful.  Those that have given some thought to the maxims of law will understand how we can create and maintain such a proper level of government and not get burned.
We lost control of our government probably within 20 years of its creation in the United States.  It is now so far out of its box it does not resemble the servant blessing our fathers gave to their posterity. This happens so quickly because of the maxim that all men are naturally evil - something most atheists and Larken don't accept.
Without an external collective structure there is no way to keep any boundary in place or to have private property without violence or at least the immediate threat of violence.  Larken would say that this is fine - and it is true with or without government, but limited government minimizes violence when restricted to lawful authority. See my articles on this blog on the Micro Republic/Jury governance for one possible solution to this very difficult problem.

The Contract

This is simply the structure of a pair of promises.  Lets say I have a fence that needs to be built and I hire someone to built it.  I obtain the materials needed (through other contracts of course) and my worker agrees with me on an exchange of his labor for a price.  
The promise is in place but not yet consummated.  We have expectations accurately set but not yet met.  This is the precarious situation that determines how strong a civilization can be.  If the character communication skills, and integrity of the parties is strong, the odds are very high that the promise will be consummated completely by both sides and the transaction completed within a short period of time without even the threat of violence.  The longer the time period of this precarious situation, the lower the probability is that it will be completed.  If one side of the transaction is completed, the longer the time is that the other side is completed also increases the probability that the entire transaction will not complete.  When we have a half-breach of a promise we have a damaged party to deal with.
Presumably, such a promise is made with an eye to a win-win situation, where both parties benefit from the transaction, otherwise why would such a contract be created in the first place?  Thus, most contracts will result in the production of wealth overall and this is how society grows.
If no transaction is ever completed within a society, that society simply does not exist.  It is a collection of isolated individuals working independently and from scratch on every goal they may have.  It is near impossible for a person to live on this earth without any cooperation from someone else for very long.  Thus, such a society would be extremely likely to be dead in a short period of time if it didn't make and honor its promises.
The bigger the promise the harder it is to keep and large societies depend regularly on huge promises being kept all the time.
During this intermediate period of time, we have a lawful internal authority of each party upon the other to perform what they promised to do and when they promised to do it.  Recognizing this authority as a society strengthens every contract made and thus the society itself - simply by peer pressure.  This universal authority of the promise is what authorizes the use of force by others if necessary - it is in a real sense, a self-defense right of the society to enforce the promise and thus support its own existence.
Now governments almost always get in the middle of this and extort fees, taxes, regulate what promises can be made, and generally interfere with this whole process that creates wealth for society.
Our constitution holds the right to contract as an absolute right - which has been violated almost constantly even before the ink was dry - but is really the core of social progress and the most precious right we can have.  All other rights derive from the right to contract.
As a side note, our constitution created a limited government and the ratification of the people of the constitution was evidence of the consent to the contract - but the minute government breaks one tiny piece of that contract - the whole promise is broken.  This we have failed to realize, rather wanting to keep things as they are (recall this point in the declaration of independence) we allowed the promise to degrade over time into the despotic socialist empire we have today.  Really, the minute government breaks any of the requirements of its constitution, is the minute it must be considered to no longer exist lawfully and thus a new one must be made to take its place immediately or the offence corrected and its re-occurrence made more difficult by adjustment of the system.  We in fact live in a de-facto rather than a de-jure world so lets not condemn the entire idea of government simply because this is so today.

Punishment by incarceration is not useful

We have a very confused idea that somehow incarceration is the way to correct behavior to prevent future crime or to isolate an offender to protect society.  This doesn't work because it is itself a crime against society because it creates a burden with no compensation to those paying the bills to execute incarceration.  It is an unlawful form of punishment on its face.
I have written in this blog about two types of punishment that actually solve the problem - restitution and death (or exile) of the offender.  Restitution attempts to "right" a wrong by compensation - and this must be compensation that satisfies the victim.  It must be sufficient that the victim is happy to repeat receiving the offense over and over along with the compensation.  This could include indentured servitude which is sometimes necessary to fulfill this requirement for some crimes.
A crime, by the way, is a contract broken by one party to the agreement.
Death or exile simply removes the offender from the society so it cannot cause more harm.  This is less desired than restitution but nevertheless is a legitimate solution for crimes that simply cannot be restored by compensation. It is also a very strong behavior modifier in itself.  This would be the point of violence by a lawful authority over another party without their consent that Larken so detests.  It is only lawful to do such violence when restitution cannot be made and it must be done lawfully at all points of the process.
The common law creates a process where a conflict is resolved by allowing a "fair fight" between the parties without the need for raw violence.  This has been completely lost in our litigious society of lawyers that use unlawful tricks usually based in mala-prohibita color of law.
Remember law is not law if it was not both created and administered lawfully - and that simply boils down to not violating any contract in the process.


I heartily agree with Larkin in that unlawful authority is of no use at all.  But unlike the anarchist, I see lawful authority as absolutely necessary to the survival of mankind and thus the necessity of some government (that is lawful) is absolute - no matter how difficult it may be to create and keep one that is limited sufficiently to allow the right to contract and private property to go unhampered.
It is our abandonment of the concept of a creator that is creating this trend towards anarchy.  Without the acceptance of a universal lawful authority, society will fragment into chaos and mankind will perish.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

My experience in a Cayman Jail

Something you may never see in the Cayman Islands - Justice.

This audio testimony I recorded shortly after an incident I suffered in Cayman Islands in the spring of 2012.  I just rediscovered this recording and decided to publish it here.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Justice is broken for sure

I was able to connect with my friend Steve Pidgeon again (he is a very busy man!).  I was asking him for some guidance on a perjury issue.  He said perjury means nothing.  The court's don't care about the truth.  He also shared that judges in both King and Snohomish counties (in Washington) have told him he will no longer receive any fair judgments by them.  Steve can exaggerate at times but from my own personal experience with judges I can believe this.  Look at Kent Hovind going to Jail for 10 years for "structuring" (i.e. for the heinous crime of paying his employees daily in cash) and look at how the IRS uses the penalty of perjury to bind us to testify against ourselves while criminals like Obama and Hillary get completely off.  This is strong evidence of corruption to the core and is, as I keep saying, our chief problem of the day.  It greatly saddens me that I have no remedy to my own issues through the courts.
My recommendation:  It is time for the church to step up and begin to mobilize the body of Christ to begin "doing Justice" as commanded in Micha 6:8.

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Saturday, July 23, 2016

All mala-prohibita laws are pre-crime

I think it really is a true statement.  I'm not just talking about smoking pot either.  Speeding, Drugs, Alcohol, Concealed Carry, building permits, vehicle registration, osha requirements, handicapped parking, jay walking, failure to file, forced education, hate speech, forced insurance, sign ordinances... it goes on and on and on.
A mala-prohibita crime is really any crime that isn't listed in the Torah, or basically has no tort or trespass. If you do no harm and are presumed innocent until proven guilty, anything is lawful so long as it doesn't hurt someone else or violate the basic laws of 1) tell the truth, 2) keep your promises and 3) mind your own business and stuff.  The law of love (Do good to others as you would have done to you)  is really all we need to have a happy and safe world.
Our situation comes from the long growing idea that being responsible for yourself is not necessary. All of these mala-prohibita laws came about because some individual caused real harm in the course of doing something else that only had the potential of causing harm.  Because our justice system does not use biblical restitution, it has failed to appropriately punish true crime while at the same time punishing non-crime.
Heck breathing could cause potential harm.  Once you accept ANY prohibition that is outside true harm and intentional mallace as a legitimate idea, you have given the state complete power over you. This idea has slowly and completely perverted our justice system.
At the same time, it is probably impossible to codify every possible crime.  It takes a common sense jury of peers to sort out true evil from accident from non-crime and it takes consistent justice to train people to be good jurors.
Let's fire the lawyers and get back to self-government via jury and remove the shackles.   It will be a shocker for many, but it is the road back to sanity and freedom and happiness.

Without personal responsibility for your own behavior
 you cannot be free.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Thoughts on Memorial Day 2016

Thoughts on Memorial Day 2016
I almost didn’t write this.  It was too depressing.  It was so depressing that it might seem like commercializing the holiday.
Many have fallen for the cause of freedom.  These men and women were for the most part innocent casualties of the human condition of sin.  They played a valiant role in a rigged game and for that they should be honored and remembered.
But what the holiday reminds me of is the fact that almost all the wars of the 20th and 21st century were started by false flag operations:
WWI – The Lusitania
WWII – Pearl Harbor
Vietnam – The Gulf of Ton-kin
Since those wars we now enter wars that are simply to support oil interests or other private parties like:
Afghanistan – Control of the opium crop
Korea – Military Industrial Complex weapons sales
The Arab Spring – Control of oil pipelines
Now we are in multi-national global wars:
911 – The mother of all false flags, practiced at OKC, supported by multiple interests for multiple reasons, executed with high tech experimental weaponry for and by the Military Industrial Complex, Used to launch a host of aggressive actions and more wars, Used to justify massive intrusion into our privacy and lives, and the ultimate psy-op leaving so many people so confused that they have completely given up on watching or trying to figure out what is going on.
The men and women that died in all these wars died senselessly in most cases when you know the bigger picture.  They died to make someone money or give someone power.
This is not new but the scale is.
Memorial Day should be the day we shoot a random government official as a payback for playing patsy to special interests hiding in the shadows.  Every single war has been caused by governments, not by the people – but the people pay the price while the shadowy oligarchs, whom we will never know, collect their massive paychecks.  All the blood is being shed with no effect for good.  It is very depressing indeed.
I hate to end on such a negative note.  These men were innocent and courageous and somehow we want to make them heroes simply because they were pawns with no choice and no way out.  We love the underdog.  God forgive us and grant us relief from this perverse generation.  Let us honor the great creator who will somehow make all things new and right and who gives us hope to live through another Memorial Day intact.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Fighting another traffic ticket

This was a very cheap shot where I turned right onto a highway and didn't quite come to a full stop.  I was cited for a $90 ticket.
I have a policy of fighting every ticket.  It can greatly delay payment of the fine, will cost the authorities to process you, is an excellent education in the courts and law, and what the heck, I might even win or get a break!
My initial intent was simply to beg for leniency and lay out my reasons why I see the whole Motor Vehicle Code as a scam.  I figured I could at least warn the Judge that he will someday himself be judged by God.
My preliminary meeting with the prosecutor was delayed about 1.5 hours from my time to appear and I hadn't noticed that I never signed the ticket - technically I was under no obligation to appear.  I told the prosecution I would be pleading not-guilty and contesting jurisdiction.
A few weeks after this meeting I read a traffic citation package that said how to beat any traffic ticket.  It was based in CA but I figured I should read it and see if there were any arguments I could make.
It pointed out that the CA civil procedure does not allow a party of the case to serve a summons.  I tried to look for the ID equivalent rule but had a hard time searching it - they purposely format the rules in a way that is not searchable or easily navigated - it really makes understanding it difficult but looks like its all laid out for you.  This trick appears to be done by all the states.
I found the ID equivalent of the CA rule and went back to the clerk and gave her a written letter asking to see the Magistrate on this ticket matter and made the argument I found in the ID rule.  She denied my request without explanation so I asked her to write on my letter the gist of her response.  She said she wasn't comfortable with doing that so I just asked her to write down that she had read it and date it.
With this I felt I had a pretty good chance of wining based on the traffic packet's info.
Well, when I got to trial I brought this up and the judge said that an infraction is done under the criminal code.  That was interesting... something changed since that packet was written.
Not knowing the criminal code at all threw me and I was on my own.
I then pointed out that there was no damaged party, not tort and no trespass so this cannot be a crime.  The judge said I was under obligation, having a driver's license, to obey the traffic laws - throwing it into a civil matter.  I pointed out that my driver's license was entered into under duress and thus that contract was invalid.  He said that this was a criminal matter and that the argument was not applicable.

So there you have it.  An infraction is one of those sneaky in-between things where the judge can play whichever side he wants to to get you.  If you argue no crime - it becomes a contract issue.  If you argue under duress, it becomes a criminal issue.

Although I had a lot of things I wanted to say to the judge, mainly from a common sense argument from conscience I could see this was a laundry room and not a court and my dry throat would be wasting its efforts.  The judge nor clerk would allow me to submit the written argument due to it not being formatted properly.  To read it aloud would have worn my dry mouth out and the judge was already prompting me on the stand for factual points of the incident - he cared not about the law and its proper application.

I was toast.

I paid the fine and am wondering if its worth trying to appeal.
After the trial I investigated a few things.  I could not find the same technical argument in the Idaho Criminal Rule or the Idaho Infractional Rules that I found in the Idaho Civil rules.  The appeal process also appeared quite daunting.  I have 42 days to appeal so I will sleep on it for awhile.  Before leaving the court I asked the clerk what forms I needed to fill out to appeal - naturally that was considered legal advice and she said I needed to look it up on the internet for myself - thanks for all that help madam!

What drives me mad is that the infraction fine is just low enough to make it not worth your while to fight these things.  I know every ticket can be beaten - I had a wonderful lawyer in the Seattle area that did so for me and many others and won every time.
On principle I feel I should fight this but is it really worth all the grief?
It's just like a game of chess, except the game is stacked against you and full of traps.  You can pay the fine or you can pay the lawyer or you can really feel the pain and try to figure this crap out.  They will never help you in any way and they will change the rules midstream to trip you up.

My head hurts.

Just for the record, here were my written arguments:
Statement of defense for infraction 5908
This statement is my defense against the charges leveled against me in this court.  It is a witness against the court, the law and its enforcement that I wish to express to the court.  It is my hope that this statement will grant me some leniency from the court concerning this infraction.

My Plea

My plea for this case is “Not Guilty” mainly because making a plea to this court is the only way to contest this infraction and I realize that doing so admits jurisdiction of the court over me and this infraction.  My real plea would more accurately be labeled as “The Emperor has no clothes”.  I would normally ignore this petty infraction, which I never signed, and let it sit, but the state would further hassle me with higher fines and attachments to my driving record that would cost me more in required insurance costs and possibly eventually get my license revoked, so under duress, I appear before this court and grant their pseudo-jurisdiction over me so I may explain why I hold this whole charade in low esteem.

Technically guilty as charged.

The allegation of the officer is correct.  I did, by accident, fail to stop at the designated location of this charge due to distractions at the time.  I was observing my speed and the traffic but due to the nature of the preceding intersections, the darkness of the evening, and due to distracting thoughts in my mind at the time, I failed to notice the stop sign or perceive that I was passing through it till I was half-way into the intersection.  I therefore kept going to get out of the intersection and proceeded safely towards my destination.

Why this charge should not be enforced

No crime was committed

No tort or trespass was involved in my actions and therefore no damages caused to anyone by them.  The prosecution itself has termed this as an infraction which would appear to be a technical term falling outside the definition of a true crime.  Indeed IRCP 2 states that all actions take the form of a “civil action”.  This implies a violation of contract which I have no knowledge of being a party to.  Since I did not sign the citation (nor was asked to) I submit there is no contract involved here to support a civil action.

Denial of rights

Denial of due process

IRCP 4(c)(1) (By Whom Served) states:
Service of all process shall be made by … not a party to the action.
Since the officer consists of the sole accuser, witness, and prosecutor he is a party to this action and cannot be the server of the summons.
Upon discovery of this error I immediately came to the court to attempt to resolve this with the magistrate.  I asked the clerk if I could see the magistrate to resolve this matter and was denied the ability to do so.
See Exhibit A for proof of my communications with the clerk.  I asked the clerk to write on my letter her response refusing to grant me access to the magistrate.  She said she was “uncomfortable” with stating her response in writing and did not give me any explanation as to why I was not allowed to see the magistrate.  I did manage to get her to note that she read the letter.  If the court has a problem with this being sufficient evidence of my being denied access to the magistrate on this matter, I would like to call Deputy Clerk Nicole Kinzer to testify on this matter.
This is a further violation of due process.

Denial of jury trial

The ticket I was given clearly states that I am denied a jury trial (although a sign posted on the clerk’s office window states that traffic violations can have a jury trial).  No reason is given for this but it is presumably because the value of the fine ($90) is insufficient to warrant one.  The constitution states that a jury trial will not be denied for issues in excess of $20 but because of the perversion of our currency (using Federal Reserve Notes rather than lawful gold and silver as legal tender) it is no longer easy to determine where that true $20 value line exists.  Further we know that congress has officially set the price of gold far from the natural market value (See public law 92-268 ( ) where congress authorized the US Treasury to value gold at 38FRNs/oz which would make $20 in gold = $640 in FRNs) so this further blurs the line.
The jury is one of the most powerful of instruments devised by the people to keep a rogue government in check.  The policy of denying the right to trial by jury is evidence that the court is not interested in upholding the rights of the accused but rather in its expediency in processing cases.
The true common law Jury has jurisdiction over determining both the validity of the law and the facts however, because the law cannot be judged until a guilty verdict is reached, it is rare that a jury issues any statements concerning the validity of a law.  An acquittal may mean that the law is in fact in error, but again, as far as the case is concerned, the point is moot.  Thus over time the jury has been reduced to only concerning itself with the facts of the case.  Further, through procedures such as voir dire, the jury is typically gutted of all thinking individuals and should some sneak through to hear a case, courts routinely restrict what the jury is allowed to see and hear so as to further corrupt the purpose of the jury – that is, as a check on the court and law itself.  Thus even in cases granted a jury, the process is far from the common law ideal that produced juries in the first place.
It is very simple to logically show that a jury, being a sampling of the people, has an authority that outranks that of the judge – even in matters of law.  Our courts are established by the constitution (either state or federal) and the constitutions are established by “we the people” and so by the simple maxim of law that the created can never be greater than the creator we can clearly see that the authority of a jury exceeds that of a judge.

Denial of the right to travel

It has long been argued that travel is a fundamental right of men because we are a communal creature that must cooperate with each other in order to live.  Men simply cannot survive completely independent of each other and so methods of both communication and transport have been devised to allow for the necessary commerce between men.  In this case I was traveling in a private capacity, serving the community on a volunteer basis as a chess coach to Kamiah High School.  This forces me to use the public right of way often.
The state sees the roads as it’s domain and thus it’s property (usurped) and uses this as one of the arguments to gain jurisdiction over traffic violations such as this infraction.  The argument goes that public safety is important to the public and thus justifies regulating travel.
Regulation is by definition a pre-crime type of idea and has no place in a truly free society.  Like the hypocritical pharisaical traditions of bible times, it attempts to prevent harm by building a fence around the true law of God and enforces it with fines and punishments, creating a behavioral modification program for its subjects.  By doing so it often steps over the line of what is really state business in an effort to enforce regulations designed to prevent harm or true crime.
The constitution grants the state the right to regulate commerce.  This sounded good to the signers of the constitution but the minority that refused to sign that document soon after produced the Pennsylvania minority report (see the Anti-federalist papers or ) which listed this clause as a door to tyranny.  In their words “… we .. found it to be .. surrendering up your dearest rights”.  Our bill of rights directly came from this report but the commerce clause was not purged from the document by those amendments.  The commerce clause is the nexus of much of our current system’s pre-crime laws.
In order to accomplish it’s regulatory goals the state has devised several ways to force its citizens into its jurisdiction.
Registered Automobiles
The first method is to force car dealers to surrender the bill of sale, the only evidence of true private ownership, to the state in exchange for a certificate of title which constitutes a declaration of mutual interest between the state and the new caretaker of the automobile, now designated a motor vehicle, which is a commercial legal term.  This is the owner’s only allowed proof of ownership by the state and such regulations constitute theft by the state of private ownership on its face.  This can be bypassed by building your own car or by resurrecting a car no longer considered as viable and thus free of this state title status but doing so is tedious and costly.
Thus I am denied private ownership of a non-commercial automobile by state policy.
Notice of Vehicle Registration
The state requires that all registered vehicles have license plates on them which uniquely identifies them, granting law enforcement the information needed to identify the likely driver even before taking action.  It can require this because the automobile has been registered with the state as stated above.  This is a violation of our right to privacy on its face as this license plate number is associated with the registered owner whom a law enforcement officer will presume to be the driver per SOP.
This license plate also openly declares to all that the car being operated is an interest of the state and immediately places its operation under (presumed) state jurisdiction.  I am thus denied the right to privacy by state policy and denied the right to privately travel outside of a commercial status.
Driver Registration
Now that the state has obtained a near-forced interest in the automobile it requires that its operators become drivers and obtain a driver’s license.  A license is permission to do something that is normally illegal and thus driving a commercial motor vehicle must be a commercial activity which the flawed commerce clause gives jurisdiction to the state.  Clearly if “driving” was not a commercial term but a common law equivalent of “traveling” then it would not be the state’s business how I travel so long as no trespass or tort arises. 
Showing a law enforcement officer your driver’s license now becomes declaring to him that you are using a commercial vehicle under a commercial license, further granting evidence that you are operating under commercial law and thus applying statutes based on the commerce clause to your activity.
However, should I not obtain a driver’s license or refuse to surrender it to the officer, I will be guilty of not cooperating with law enforcement and will likely be hassled and possibly charged with more serious offenses than an infraction.  So now I am being forced to testify against myself via my commercial documents.
Driver’s licenses in the past were clearly marked as commercial entities, then just abbreviated as a CDL and finally completely omitted from the document as being essentially commercial in nature.  This is evidence of fraud in that it hides the nature of the document I am carrying and must sign when obtaining.
Thus I am under duress when I obtain and sign my driver’s license and give it to the officer.  This renders the document void as a contract.  I am denied the right to claim private travel rights because I am forced into commercial contracts by state policy.

Perversion of the law

The law in this case is clearly perverted in the following ways:

Confused language

Legalese is a term often used to describe the language of lawyers.  Law dictionaries are available to help understand this language but they have changed significantly over time giving clear evidence of perversion of the language.  Also the law itself will frequently re-define its own terms internally and so the meanings of sometimes very common English words will have entirely different meanings depending on its context within the law.  Add to this the fact that section titles of law are not to be construed at all as part of the law and we have another instance of deception foisted upon the un-initiated reader.  Thus just understanding the true meaning of law requires computer or legal assistance in many cases.
The language of the motor vehicle code is clear on its surface but vague when trying to identify jurisdictional issues.  The definitions of such terms as “driver”, “vehicle” and “operation” have changed significantly over the years to hide the commercial character of the law and its true source of authority.

Copious volume of the law

The sheer size of the code, even locally, often requires large volumes to contain.  State and federal statutes and regulations fill a library.  It is nearly impossible, even for lawyers, not to specialize because knowledge of the whole law is now virtually impossible.

Public availability obfuscated

While doing research for this case I came across the public website containing the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (IRCP).  I was trying to find where it says a party of the action cannot be the server of the summons as sited above.  Because the site breaks up the code into sections and subsections it becomes difficult to search.  Even section references within the code are not cross-linked.  This formatting also makes it difficult to navigate and understand.  Luckily, search tools on the internet allowed me to bypass this obfuscation – with some difficulty.  I left a note at asking if there was raw text of the code available for searching but received no response.  I was unable to find a raw text version of the code on the internet.

Denial of interpretation

A common statement from the bench in pro-se cases like this is I am not allowed to give legal advice.  This is often confused with legal information which is typically what I would ask of a judge but often am denied.  I have actually asked judges questions such as “what is the cause and nature of this charge?” and have been told that answering this question constitutes giving legal advice and am denied a simple quo-warranto response which is one of the main purposes of having a judge in the first place.  This denies the questioner an interpretation of the law in the context of the case from the bench and thus forces the burden of understanding the law’s true meaning and applicability onto the pro-se defender.  Because it is illegal for anyone but a Bar Association approved lawyer to give legal advice we have a forced monopoly on understanding and using the law – denying its full usage by the people, the true creators of the law.

The use of private code

The law is so perverted that the courts routinely use “the code” as if it were the law rather than the true law which are the statues at large as written by the legislature.  The code is actually a private interpretation of the law published under copyright by private institutions such as West Law and are not in themselves law at all, yet the code is routinely sited by government officials as if it were the law. 
The code became necessary due to the law’s corruption.  The existence of the code is further evidence of the law’s corruption and the failure of the legislature to publish law in a form easy for the courts to use.

Perversion of the court

Collusion between officers of the court

Because all lawyers and judges are members of the “Bar Association” and because both defense and plaintiff attorneys are considered officers of the court, all three parties have a vested interest in the process of fine extraction being maintained as is.  Their loyalties to their clients take a back seat to their loyalties to the Bar Association and to the system as a whole.  Seeking truth and justice or even restitution is no longer a priority with the court because of this collusion.

Loss of separation of powers

Some statutes now do not allow a judge to grant any leniency on the fine of an infraction.  This removes the independence of the court from the legislature and its ability to independently judge the law for the case and determine a just punishment for the crime.
Most officers of all three branches are members of the common Bar Association further eroding a true separation of powers.

Which law am I under

Because the court shows evidence of operating as a part of the judicial branch, it would appear that I may be under the common law in a case.
Further, court rules are typically issued by the legislature which would make it appear that the court is under the jurisdiction of the legislature rather than a separate branch of government.
Because the court shows evidence of being under the legislative branch, it would appear I am being tried under statutory law applicable by the commerce clause as an administrative action.
Most courts show a gold-fringed flag in their courtrooms which is defined by title 4 of the U.S. Code as not a flag of the united states but is in fact used for military jurisdiction which implies that the court is acting under the control of the executive branch.
Because the court shows evidence of operating under the executive branch, it would appear that I am operating under admiralty law.
Because I have typically been unable to get a judge to declare to me which law I am under (common, statute or admiralty), I am denied knowledge of the nature of the charges which is fundamental to forming a proper defense.

Not doing justly

The true definition of justice is the ability of the weak to hold the powerful accountable to the law and to obtain restitution from the offender to repair the damage done by the crime.
Because the courts are routinely involved in enforcing regulations and statutes instead of dealing in the common law, and because fines and incarceration are the typical form sentences take, and because of the expense and time involved in winning a case via lawyers, true justice is not being served.
When I lived in the Seattle area, I had a lawyer that I could pay to get me off of any and all traffic infractions.  She never lost a case and I used her probably a dozen times over a 20 year period.  I watched her at work one time successfully dismiss 50 some cases within an hour using various technical arguments or creative negotiations.  It is clear to me that with sufficient legal resources all of these motor vehicle statutes can be beaten.  We often see clear and public high crimes go unpunished by our highest officials and yet have thousands of people in jail right now under punishment for mala-prohibita classes of crimes (ie: pre-crime) sometimes receiving decades of incarceration for issues that caused no one any harm.
On the other side of things, I have people that have robbed me personally of very large amounts of money by fraud and negligence.  I have found I cannot get justice from these people.  Prosecutors are corrupt and the system has no interest in helping me to obtain redress – it is only interested in getting your money.  Some cases of crime are big enough to warrant the expense of lawyers and they can result in some compensation but more often than not, the lawyers take all the money and both sides lose.
Our current justice system thus provides neither restitution, nor the ability of the poor and weak to truly use it.  It is the primary reason for the existence of government and it is the least well done aspect of most governments.

Taking bribes

I did some investigation on a previous case that showed that our counties typically obtain the lion’s share of their fines from traffic infractions.  I can produce what I found for Latah County on request but was unable to obtain this same information for Lewis County in time for this hearing.
I do not know the exact course that these fines take but I suspect that both law enforcement and the judge’s retirement would be adversely affected if all traffic violations were dismissed by a court.

Perversion of law enforcement

No longer under local control

Today our law enforcement is no longer locally controlled.  Homeland Security typically funds much of what our police and sheriffs officers use.  All money received from this and other government agencies outside this district have or will have strings attached.  This constitutes a foreign influence on our local law enforcement personnel. Law enforcement is thus not really free to obey their oaths of office and protect the rights of individuals.  They have been co-opted into becoming enforcers of the will of entities and interests outside of their proper jurisdiction.

Typical violations of rights by policy

I am pretty sure that my confession to the officer of my guilt concerning technically not stopping at the stop sign was recorded electronically without notice and will likely be presented by the plaintiff as evidence.  This is another typical policy of law enforcement that violates our right to privacy and engages them in getting us to testify against ourselves even before being placed on the stand in court.
This country is in near-riot state over issues such as police brutality and it can be easily shown from internet testimonials (see  for an example) that police officers commonly lie in court all the time in order to get convictions.

But what will happen if we just let people drive crazy?

I got a chance to have a private conversation with the officer that gave me the citation for this case.  He expressed a point which I am sure most law enforcement officers have.  That being that people out there are crazy and if we didn’t stop them, people would be killed and property damaged.
Officers rarely realize that a collective right is derived from and not higher than an individual right.  We are raised in public school from a very young age to give credence to the idea that democracy is good and that we are in one.
But a group such as say the Bar Association has no more right to tell me how to handle my own affairs than do I to meddle with its internal affairs.  Just because the government is one of the largest collective agents there is does not grant it rights superior to any individual’s.  It is only through contracts like constitutions and voluntarily signed permits and licenses that we grant rights to others over us.  This was how this fundamental violation of equal protection under the law was breached.
If proper restitution were used as the punishment for real crimes, the consequences of our actions would be made clear and the public would be allowed to mature into people that can govern themselves and thus be free.
Something that is practiced all the time in our society, yet never open labeled as such, is involuntary servitude – like when you pay your income taxes.  This is a just and good form of restitution for crimes that are so bad that restitution is otherwise impossible yet it is not used for that purpose.  If this were used properly, if you commit a crime, you could become a slave, even for life.  Granting the power to the victim to give or restrain mercy is where mercy belongs.  Should the slave fail to obey, the crime becomes a capital one.
I have driven in the Philippines and I know what it is like to see people traveling free of regulations and insurance.  It may be very scary to a typical American that is used to everything being regulated from cradle to grave but these people are freer and much happier than Americans are.
I believe the fact is that if you hold people accountable for their actions and properly administer justice with restitution to the victim and mercy from the victim you will have a free people with much more respect for one-another and overall you will not see so much collateral damage caused by allowing people to simply be responsible for themselves.
The crime of running a stop-sign by accident has no victim.  Thus there is no restitution to be had and there is no crime.  Once an accident happens, the sign becomes additional evidence for who was at fault and presents a character witness against the offender.  This is when restitution is due and the sign becomes a factor in the judgment of the crime.

What you can do as a judge

I understand your situation.  You are paid to conform to the statutes and use the code.  You are restricted in what you can do by the Bar Association and by your superiors.   However I believe there is something you can do.  You can call a jury, fully inform them of their power to judge both the facts and the law, and you can even ask them to suggest a solution by way of restitution in the case of a guilty verdict.  You can then issue that sentence under the authority of the people and I believe you would be acting well within your proper authority under the common law.
You would of course eventually be fired but you would be demonstrating to the people the publicly pretended idea that the people own the state and not the other way around.  You could then become a productive citizen with your conscience clear and your future bright, if not in this world, then certainly in the next.


The state has become a tyrant using perverted language, law, lawyers, legislators, courts and law enforcement to wield power that routinely violates the rights of citizens.  Standard operating procedure includes routine violation of the rules of procedure such as the officer being the sole witness, accuser, prosecutor and server.  The state is striking fear into its citizens by issuing copious regulations and fines to maintain control.  It is no different a situation than what the Declaration of Independence described of King George.
There is however a final judge of this world and at the proper time He will call all things into His courts and will meet out true justice.  He will not be mocked nor will the unjust go unpunished.  I appeal to the God of Abraham and Isaac and Israel and I know that ultimately all will be made right. I witness before this court this day, that what is being done here is wrong and I give warning – what you are doing will not go unpunished.  Indeed, you are perverting justice which perverts your very own community and ultimately reduces your own happiness and freedom.
I pray that the court will consider these offenses and compensate me for this harassment by dismissing this case or at least waving all or part of the fine if possible in the interests of true justice.

Sanford Staab