Notice, Right of Inquiry & Traffic Tickets

Traffic Ticket = Notice
[courtesy Google Images]

The fine wasn’t large, but he nevertheless wanted to fight the ticket asked if I could help.

I told him to send me a photo copy of the ticket he received and I’d see if I could devise some questions to pose to the person or entity that issued the ticket. It was my hope that the “ticket” (being a Notice) would create the recipient’s “right of inquiry” (right to ask questions about the Notice) and the sender’s correlative duty to answer his questions. It was my hope that if such questions were sufficiently insightful, they might slow or stop prosecution. (For more insight into the strategy of posing questions, see the articles posted under the category “Notice” on this blog.)

I told my friend that I believed it was important that such questions be drafted and mailed to the gov-co as soon as possible.

However, he didn’t send a copy of the ticket/notice to me until the Saturday morning before his scheduled Tuesday court appearance. That’s too late to draft questions and submit them to the person who issued the ticket in time for the questions to easily play a part in the court hearing.

More, I didn’t begin to draft questions until Sunday night before his Tuesday court appearance. I completed the questions on about 1:30 AM Monday morning. We met Monday evening to go over the questions.

In the end, my friend opted to simply pay the fine rather than pose the questions. That was probably his best choice. If he hadn’t appeared at court on Tuesday, the gov-co might issue a warrant for his arrest and he might one day be stopped for a rolling stop at a stop sign, ticketed, and the traffic cop would discover that there’s a warrant for his arrest and put in him slammer for a couple nights. Then he’d be shipped from Dallas County (where he lives) to Hill County (70 miles away) where he could spend a couple more days or nights in the slammer. Then, he could fight the case in court or confess his guilt, pay a bond or fine, and be released to make his way back to Dallas County as best he could.

And then, he could drum up enough currency to pay the cost of storing his car at the Dallas County tow-truck operator’s auto-pound for most of a week.

His ultimate fine would be increased for not appearing. He might miss a week of work. The cost of towing and storing his car might exceed the cost of the fine for the offense. He might eventually lose over $2,000 in fines, lost work and vehicle storage fees if he didn’t cough up $150 for the Tuesday morning hearing. So, he chose to cough up the $150 fine.

As much as I think these traffic tickets should be “resisted,” I don’t blame him one bit. You can’t easily fight every battle that comes your way. I hate to see anyone surrender to a traffic ticket charge, but I can’t expect anyone to try to resist such charges with just a few dozen questions.

In the end, I don’t know for a fact that exercising your “right of inquiry” in response to governmental notices is a reliable strategy. I believe the strategy is reliable. I’ve seen it work several times in my own confrontations with the gov-co. I have a friend who’s used the strategy with apparent success against the IRS. On the one hand, I have some evidence to support the validity of this theory. On the other hand, that evidence is anecdotal and too flimsy (so far) to be easily relied on.

The following questions were drafted and offered for my friend’s consideration, but not used. So, I have no evidence to show whether the following questions are useful or laughable. Nevertheless, I also offer them for your consideration.

Here’s a copy of the ticket I was working from. Like Jack Webb in the old “Dragnet” TV series, I’ve removed my friend’s name and address and changed the ticket number “to protect the innocent”. (Dum-dee-dum-dum)

In retrospect, I can see grounds for a couple more questions that I might’ve asked. But I can also see how the 48 questions I’d suggested might be reduced to just a handful.

Note that the text below was not intended to be sent in its entirety to the traffic officer and/or municipality that issued the ticket. Why? Because it includes some of my personal comments and explanations that were inserted to help my friend better understand the underlying theory. I.e., it wouldn’t be enough for him to simply copy my suggested questions—especially just a few days before he might be going to court. He had to understand the rationale behind whichever questions he chose to use. Thus, my “explanations” and “instructions”.

Similarly, if anyone reads this article and chooses to try some or all of the suggested strategy, it’s not enough to simply copy some/all of the questions. You’ve got to understand the fundamental rationale behind each question because, if you have to go to court, you may be called upon to explain which questions you’ve presented. If you can’t explain the rationale for the questions you’ve presented, there’s a good chance that your questions will be ignored.

Of course, the fundamental objective behind these kind of questions is to present some questions very soon after the traffic ticket is issued (ideally, within the first days or week). Send the questions by registered mail to whomever you believe should have to answer your questions (the officer and/or the municipality)—and then wait for their response.

If the “right of inquiry” theory is correct, whenever government sends you a notice, it creates your right of inquiry (your right to ask questions about the notice). If you choose to ask such questions, the government has a correlative duty to answer those questions.

“Procedural due process” consists of 1) notice; and 2) “opportunity to heard” (actually, opportunity to be found guilty about 98% of the time in an administrative hearing). I believe that if the gov-co doesn’t give you sufficient notice (item #1), they can’t lawfully take you to the “opportunity to be heard”/sentenced without denying your right to procedural due process. If they deny you procedural due process, the gov-co may lose standing to prosecute based on the ticket/notice, and the court may lose jurisdiction over the matter.

If my theory is correct, the traffic-ticket/“notice” is not complete or sufficient until the gov-co has answered all of your relevant questions. If you don’t ask any questions (and almost no one does), the original traffic-ticket is presumed to have supplied you with sufficient notice and the process can proceed to the “opportunity to be heard”—where you’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time. But if you dare to ask relevant questions in response to the traffic-ticket, that notice will not be complete or sufficient until all of your questions are answered.

If you are astute and knowledgeable you may be able to ask questions that are so insightful or even embarrassing for the gov-co that they can’t or won’t answer them. It’s my contention that if they won’t answer all of your questions, they are depriving you of sufficient notice and thereby depriving you of procedural due process.

If you can create and introduce evidence (registered mail) that you posed your questions and they were not answered in full, then I believe you may be able to get your traffic ticket dismissed for a denial of procedural due process.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that the municipality will still find you guilty at the trial court level and you may be forced to appeal to a higher court before they recognize your procedural due process argument. You have to be prepared for that possibility.

There’s never a guarantee that a theory of the sort I’m proposing will work ever or even mostly. Nevertheless, I’m about 90% confident that the “right of inquiry” theory is fundamentally valid.

Note also that virtually all of my questions are designed to elicit a Yes or No answer. I try to avoid multiple-guess or essay-type answers. By keeping the answers as simple as possible, I try to eliminate any opportunity for the government to claim they don’t understand my questions.

However, I suspect that it might not be a bad idea to add a third “Don’t Understand” option to my Yes or No answers. If they claim to “not understand” my questions, that’s fine with me. They still haven’t answered my questions, and so long as that’s true, I have not yet received procedural due process and the court should not be able to proceed against me.

Here’s a copy of the first part of the Traffic Ticket/notice issued to my friend. It’s followed by the text of my suggested questions (and explanations). Further on in my text I’m also supplying a copy of the second part of the Traffic Ticket/notice.

If you doubt that this traffic ticket is a “notice,” read the entire ticket closely and you’ll see several instances where the ticket refers to itself as a “notice”.

Traffic Ticket/Notice
section 1

Dear sirs,

I received your Notice number TX3X3C0PMB56 (hereafter, “Notice”) dated November 27, 2013.

I have several questions based on your Notice:

RIGHT OF INQUIRY

1. Do you understand that procedural due process includes 1) notice and 2) opportunity to be heard? Yes ___ No ___

2. Do you understand that if you deprive me of sufficient notice, you will have deprived me of procedural due process in this matter? Yes ___ No ___

3. Do you understand that if you deprive me of procedural due process, you will have lost your right to take me to the opportunity to be heard? Yes ___ No ___

4. Do you understand that if you deprive me of procedural due process, the court will have lost jurisdiction in this matter? Yes ___ No ___

5. Do you understand that your Notice creates my right of inquiry? Yes ___ No ___

6. Do you understand that my right of inquiry creates your duty to answer my questions? Yes ___ No ___

Explanation: Questions 1 through 6 are based on my understanding that procedural due process consists of 1) notice; and 2) the “opportunity to be heard”.

It’s my belief that the “opportunity to be heard” is actually an “opportunity to be sentenced”. That “opportunity” may be an administrative hearing but it’s not a judicial trial. At such hearings, defendants (especially those who appear without an attorney) have about a 98% probability of being found guilty.

Such “opportunities” are somewhat like playing Russian Roulette with a gun that has five bullets in the six chambers. Therefore, I don’t want the “opportunity to be heard” because the odds lopsidedly favor my adversary and disfavor me.

I believe that the “opportunity to be heard” can be avoided by controlling the notice. I.e., they can’t take you to the “opportunity” until after they’ve first given you sufficient notice. It’s not enough that they send “a” notice; they must send enough notice(s) to be sufficient in the recipient’s opinion.

For some people, a very brief notice is all it takes to communicate sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts and law. Once the recipient has, or is presumed to have, sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts and law, he can be taken to the “opportunity” to be heard/sentenced.

But for other recipients, the original notice may be somewhat incomprehensible. Therefore, such recipients will need a more in-depth explanation if the relevant facts and law before they can decide how to properly respond to the notice.

Thus, the original notice creates a “right of inquiry” for the notice recipient. I.e., if someone receives a notice, he is thereby entitled to pose questions about that notice to the person who sent the notice. Further, the recipient’s “right of inquiry” (right to ask questions) creates the notice-sender’s correlative duty to answer those questions.

Under this hypothesis, if a notice-recipient can pose questions which are sufficiently insightful or illuminating, the notice-sender may be unable or even unwilling to answer on a public record. If they don’t, can’t or won’t answer, I believe the notice recipient has been denied procedural due process and the case against the recipient is at least impaired and possibly terminated.

If my theory is correct, the “right of inquiry” created by a notice is a powerful right. Nevertheless, that “right” is virtually unknown to most people and largely ignored.

In fact, the gov-co and associated fascists normally get around the “right of inquiry” with a pair of presumptions:

1) If the recipient receives a notice and responds with statements to the notice sender, it’s presumed that he’s received sufficient notice. I.e., only an imprudent man would make statements without sufficient knowledge of the issue at hand.

2) If the recipient receives a notice and does not respond (goes silent), it’s presumed that he’s received sufficient notice. I.e., only a man with sufficient knowledge of the issue at hand would fail to expressly respond to a notice. The recipient’s silence creates the presumption that the recipient has essentially “confessed” to the validity of whatever facts, law and claims were asserted or implied in the original notice.

Therefore, if the gov-co sends you a notice and you reply that, “You’re all a bunch of communist-Satanists destined to burn in HELL!!!!!,” the gov-co will thank you very much for having made a statement in response to their notice and merrily schedule you for your “opportunity to be heard” where you will found guilty 98% of the time.

Likewise, if you receive a notice (traffic ticket) and ignore it and therefore respond with silence, the gov-co will thank you very much, presume from your silence that you’ve had sufficient notice, and take to the “opportunity to be heard” where you’ll be found guilty about 98% of the time.

So far as I can tell, the proper and most effective way to respond to any notice is by asking questions (exercising your “right of inquiry”). Most notices I’ve seen include a statement at the bottom of the form telling you that “If you have any questions, please call 1-800-555-1111”. The notice sender thereby admits your right of inquiry, but encourages you to pose your questions over the phone.

Why over the phone?

First, because they have professional con-artists on their end of the phone who can probably deceive you into accepting the notice as “sufficient”. Once you concede that you’ve had “enough” notice, they can take you to the “opportunity to be heard/sentenced”.

Second, because the telephone call will not generate any evidence that’s admissible in court. If there is admissible evidence, it will probably be the notes (if any) kept by the gov-co employee who answered your phone call.

That’s why I prefer to avoid the convenience of telephone inquiries and pose my questions in writing by means of Registered Mail. When such questions are sent as Registered Mail, they constitute admissible evidence.

We’ve heard reports that the gov-co is no longer accepting Registered or even Certified Mail. If you send a package by Registered or Certified mail, the government will refuse to accept it and send it back to you.

Good. Great. Suits me fine.

My understanding of Certified and Registered mail is that it’s presumed to be received by the gov-co at the moment it’s deposited into the mail. That understanding may or may not be correct.

However, if I deposit an item of Registered Mail into the Post Office, and get a receipt and a tracking number, I’ll be able to follow that package over the internet all the way to its intended recipient. If the intended recipient rejects my Registered Mail (and the questions within), I will have admissible evidence that the recipient of my questions (the original notice sender) has refused to answer my questions, denied me my right of inquiry, and thereby deprived me of procedural due process. If I’m sufficiently adept at arguing that violation of procedural due process at court, the case against me may be dismissed.

Given the recent reports of government refusing to accept Certified and Registered mail, it occurs to me that I might be wise to include a statement on the exterior of the envelope that says something like, “CONTENTS AND RELEVANT RIGHTS: This Registered Mail item # ___________ includes questions posed as an exercise of my right of inquiry created by the Department of Public Safety’s original Notice # _______ dated ________ and sent to me. A denial of my right of inquiry may constitute a deprivation of my right to procedural due process and thereby cause the underlying case to be dismissed and/or cause the court to lose jurisdiction over the relevant matter.”

I’m just spit-ballin’ there. You might dream up a better description of your Registered Mail’s contents to include on the face of your envelope.

The object of providing a brief description of the “Contents” on the face of the Registered Mail envelope containing my questions is to make it abundantly clear to whoever receives and then rejects my Registered Mail, that doing so may constitute a deprivation of my right to procedural due process.

So, if I drafted such envelope and scanned an image of that envelope into my computer before I deposited the envelope into the mail, then I’d have more graphic evidence to prove that the gov-co had deprived me of procedural due process and (perhaps) forfeited their right to continue to prosecute the case.

(I’m all about creating admissible evidence.)

Note that all six of my first questions begin with “Do you understand . . . .” I try not to ask questions like “Is the earth round?” or “What is the square root of -1?” which implicate knowledge that the person answering my questions may or may not have. I try to ask “do you understand” because everyone knows (or at least believes) that they do or do not understand any particular subject.

Note that I also provide for Yes ___ or No ___ replies.

Thus, I can ask a 5-year old child, “Do you understand calculus? Yes ___ No ___” and even the child should be able to answer. I.e., even a child knows whether he does or does not understand calculus.

Similarly, even a gov-co clerk should know whether he does or does not understand questions about “procedural due process”. Yes or No? It’s easy. One or the other. I do understand; I do not understand.

I don’t offer questions that require a long, written response. I wouldn’t refuse a long written response, but I try to make my questions as simple as possible for the person who reads them.

More, I don’t care how the recipient answers most of my questions. Say, Yes. Say, No. It’s pretty much the same to me because I am using these questions to fill gaps in my own knowledge. I’m using these questions discover information that may be useful in my defense.

For example, if I ask:

“5. Do you understand that your Notice creates my right of inquiry? Yes ___ No ___”

If the clerk answers Yes, he’s just validated my right of inquiry. If the clerk answers No (and if I can prove that I, in fact, have a right of inquiry), the clerk will have just proved that he is incompetent to answer my questions. If he’s incompetent to answer my questions, then some, many, most or even all of other questions are arguably answered by an incompetent and I should not be bound by the answers of someone who is incompetent to answer my questions.

I cannot be expected to have received “sufficient notice” from a clerk that doesn’t understand the subject matter. If he admits his ignorance, I will argue my right to have my questions considered by one of his superiors or an attorney in order to assure that the answers I receive are true. If the clerk admits that he doesn’t understand the subject matter, he’s created evidence that I have not received sufficient notice and have therefore been deprived of procedural due process.

In other words, I’m probably fairly capable of receiving lemons (notices) and then using them to make lemonade.

VENUE

My next string of questions deal with “plane” and “venue”. I know that the proper name for the State of the Union where I’m domiciled is “The State of Texas”. I subscribe to the hypothesis that, in law, the words “Texas,” STATE OF TEXAS, and “TX” are not synonymous with “The State of Texas” and therefore signify some sort of “administrative state” and/or territory which is not the State of the Union whose proper name is “The State of Texas”.

Within these alternative states/territories, administrative process appears to be the rule. Within the States of the Union, judicial process is the rule. Determining whichever venue controls the case at hand will determine who (if anyone) has authority to prosecute the case, and whether the defendant has a multitude or rights or can be treated as an abject subject with almost no rights.

So, I’m essentially asking where did all of the events alleged in the traffic ticket/notice take place—in a territory or within a State of the Union?

If the hypothesis that “STATE OF TEXAS” is not “The State of Texas” is true, then the gov-co can’t make that admission without destroying their system. Why? Because their apparent system is based on a series of unstated presumptions (i.e., if you make statements, you’re presumed to have received sufficient notice). If those presumptions can be identified and refuted, the gov-co’s system may collapse.

One of the biggest and most mistaken presumptions (among the people) is that “STATE OF TEXAS” and “The State of Texas” both signify the State of the Union. Therefore, the people walk into a court of “STATE OF TEXAS” expecting to enjoy the same rights that would be available in a court of “The State of Texas”. I believe that expectation is a false and dangerous presumption. I believe that “STATE OF TEXAS” is not required to recognize the rights you would enjoy within “The State of Texas”. In “STATE OF TEXAS” your chances of being convicted for an offense may be 98% while your chances of being convicted within a court of “The State of Texas” on the same evidence might be less than 10%.

Whether you will be found guilty or not guilty in a particular proceeding will depend in large measure on the venue in which the case is presumed to have occurred. Insofar as you can control the venue, you may be able to dramatically reduce the probability of being convicted of an offense.

Therefore, if I can hone my questions so as to eliminate all ambiguity about the venue, I believe I can put the gov-co in a position where they can’t truthfully answer my questions. If I’m denied truthful answers, I’m denied sufficient notice and am thus deprived of procedural due process—and the case should be dismissed.

But, if the hypothesis concerning “STATE OF TEXAS” vs “The State of Texas” is valid, I don’t care if they gov-co tells me the truth (the venue is territorial) or lies (the venue is within “The State of Texas”). If they tell me the truth (the STATE OF TEXAS venue is territorial), I can argue that I’m one of the people of The State of Texas and not subject to the jurisdiction of “STATE OF TEXAS”. If they lie and declare that the events all transpired within the State of the Union whose proper name is “The State of Texas,” that’s great for me because it absolutely opens the door to making a defense based on the rights found the The Constitution of The State of Texas.

I don’t care what their answer is. I only care that the ambiguity between the territory and the State of the Union be openly faced and, ideally, eliminated. Why? Because it’s the ambiguity that gives rise to the false presumptions and it’s the false presumptions that give rise to most convictions.

In other words, maybe you’re within the borders of “The State of Texas” or maybe you’re in the territory called “STATE OF TEXAS”. These two possibilities create an ambiguity. You may silently presume that you’re acting within “The State of Texas” but if you don’t expressly introduce evidence to establish that fact on the record, the judge can silently presume that you’re actually acting in “STATE OF TEXAS”. The judge’s silent presumption will overrule your silent presumption and you may be much amazed to find yourself without any of the rights you assumed you’d have within “The State of Texas”.

My objective in many of my questions is to confront (and perhaps eliminate) the ambiguities that give rise to gov-co’s silent presumptions that are “hazardous to your health”.

Here’s some of my questions relating to what I believe are ambiguities about venue:

7. Do you understand that under the Act of March 30^th, A.D. 1870, at Session II of the Forty-First Congress of The United States of America at Ch. XXXIX, “The State of Texas” was readmitted to representation in Congress as one of the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”? Yes ___ No ___

8. Do you understand that under the Act of March 30^th, A.D. 1870, at Session II of the Forty-First Congress of The United States of America at Ch. XXXIX, the proper name for the member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” that is sometimes referred to as “Texas” is “The State of Texas”? Yes ___ No ___

9. Do you understand that as per the Acts of A.D. 1965, 59^th Legislature of The State of Texas, vol. 2, ch. 722, amended by Acts of A.D. 1981, 67^th Legislature of The State of Texas, ch. 291, Sect. 97, the style of all writs and criminal process shall be “The State of Texas” and all prosecutions shall be carried on “in the name and by authority of ‘The State of Texas’ and conclude ‘against the peace and dignity of the State.’”? Yes ___ No ___

10. Do you understand that as per Article 1.23 of the current Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Rule 15 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Article IV, Sect. XV of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1869, and Article V Section 12 of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1876, the style of all writs and criminal process shall be “The State of Texas”. Yes ___ No ___

11. Do you understand that as per Article 1.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Rule 15 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and Article IV, Sect. XV of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1869, and Article V Section 12 of The Constitution of The State of Texas of A.D. 1876, all prosecutions shall be carried on “in the name and by authority of ‘The State of Texas’ and conclude ‘against the peace and dignity of the State.’”? Yes ___ No ___

12. Is your Notice in this matter a writ or criminal process of “The State of Texas”? Yes ___ No ___

13. Is your Notice in this matter a civil process of “The State of Texas”? Yes ___ No ___

14. Does your Notice reference “The State of Texas”? Yes ___ No ___

VENUE OF THE OFFENSE:

Here, you’ll begin to see questions that involve “territory of the United States,” “states of the United States” on the one hand, and States of the Union and/or “State of The United States of America”.

The confederation and perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” was created or constituted by Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781. The “United States” was created or constituted by The Constitution of the United States first ratified by the People in A.D. 1788.

“The United States of America” is not the “United States”. If you read and compare the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, you’ll see that the Articles of Confederation makes is no proviso for any federal districts (like Washington DC) or territories. “The United States of America” consists only of the States of the Union.

The territories (like Guam, US Virgin Islands, TX, OK any NY) and the District of Columbia are only provided for under the Constitution of the United States. I can’t yet prove it, but I believe that the territories and Washington DC are all in the “United States” but can’t be within “The United States of America”.

The following questions begin to explore that belief.

My questions will frequently seem repetitious and overly “legalistic”. But they’re intended to nail down some fundamental possibilities about venue as precisely as possible and thereby establish, exactly, whichever venue is controlling in this matter. I have every right to know the exact venue of every aspect of this case. I don’t believe that any court will expressly deny my right to know the venue and risk having me make an appeal to a higher court based on that denial. If I were to take the issue of my right to know the precise venue of my alleged offense, cop, court and judge to an appellate court and that court agreed with my right, the whole system might have to always clearly specify the venue. If that requirement were imposed, the whole system might lose one of its basic silent presumptions and thereby collapse. Rather than risk collapsing the system by answering my questions about venue, I suspect that the system would prefer to dismiss or otherwise make its case against me disappear.

My questions are repetitious in that they ask about the venue of the place where the offense occurred, about the district where the officer is empowered to act, about the venue of the court and even of the judge. They are repetitious because the answers had better all be consistent. If the offense is alleged to have taken place in a territory like “TX,” but the court is located within a State of the Union, that contradiction will create a serious issue to be argued at court.

And what if the venue in which the judge acts is actually in the territory of “STATE OF TEXAS” but the judge or an agent for the judge lies and claims the court and/or the judge are acting within “The State of Texas”? Does a judge acting within “The State of Texas” enjoy the same immunities and powers as a judge acting in “STATE OF TEXAS”?

If not, will a judge or court expose himself/itself to greater liability if it claims to be acting within “The State of Texas”? If, to protect itself and maintain its territorial immunities, a court admitted to acting in “STATE OF TEXAS,” would the court thereby lose authority over a defendant who effectively argued that he and all of his acts took place within “The State of Texas”?

I understand that these questions can seem confusing and even tiresome. But I believe that if you can master and become comfortable with the tactic of using questions to eliminate ambiguities (and therefore eliminate silent presumptions) that it may be possible to defeat a lot of the prosecutions waged by the current “state” and “local” gov-co’s.

More, I believe that by making the effort to pose a series of tiresome but very precise questions, you can educate yourself to the intricacies of your own argument. In other words, by studying each proposed question and learning to recognize the subtle distinctions between one question and another seemingly similar question, you will educate yourself in a way that may make you a more formidable litigant if you’re forced to go to court.