Good advice from Kenneth Wayn
Law schools teach their students that they should never ask a question in trial that they do not already know the answer to. This is good advice for anyone involved in litigation even at the administrative level.
“Know the Law”. This knowledge is not for the propose of telling your adversary the law. They are already presumed to know the law. Knowledge of the law will allow you to formulate questions of your adversary that will lead to your opponent having to assert the very position you want the record to reflect. Since your adversary has now asserted your position you now simply agree with your adversary and win. Scripture teaches “Agree
with thine adversary quickly”, so does law.
A few simple examples:
A person that your reasonably certain is representative of one of these municipal corporations contacts you and asserts that you need to contact them to obtain a license or permit. We respond and agree that if we have an obligation to get such a license and permit we should certainly do so. Then we ask that person to identify themselves and specially identify their principle. Is it the republic or the municipal corporation? If the republic we want to see the constitutional delegation of authority to compel involuntary association and servitude. If the municipal corporation we need to know if they are acting in a governmental capacity, a proprietary capacity or as a corporate services vendor. If in a governmental capacity, we need to be informed of the constitutional delegation of authority to compel involuntary association and servitude. If in a proprietary or commercial vendor capacity we need to see the underlying contract upon which the obligation lies.
A person that we can be certain is a representative of one of these municipal corporations contacts us and asserts that we have an obligation to collect from others and return to the governmental or municipal organization sales or income taxes from other people. We respond and agree that if we have an obligation to collect and return such a tax we should certainly do so. Then, we ask that person to identify themselves and specially identify their principle. Again, is it the republic or the municipal corporation? If it is the republic, we want to see the constitutional delegation of authority to subject us to involuntary and uncompensated servitude as a tax collector. If it is the municipal corporation we again need to know if they are acting in the governmental capacity, proprietary or as a municipal services vendor. If in a governmental capacity, we again need to know the constitutional authority to subject anyone to involuntary and uncompensated association and servitude. If in a proprietary or commercial vendor capacity we again need to see the underlying contract upon which the obligation lies. When the agency representative asserts that they cannot produce proof of the underlining obligation we may simply agree with them that no evidence of an underlying obligation exists and that their original process fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We must also, in addition to knowing the law, be well disposed to use it.
If we are forced to litigate to correct records created when the representative presumed a claim, we can easily get summary judgement base upon the fact that the agency through its representative has asserted that they can produce no evidence of a lawful claim. We agree that there is no lawful claim, there is no controversy therefore summary judgement is the correct remedy. Once the fact of no obligation is established by summary judgement then appropriate orders can be given to correct records, reviving seized property, or otherwise correct the wrongs resulting from the representatives erroneous presumption of an obligation. To accomplish this we must study and understand the rules of the court in which we will litigate. The rules are binding upon the court and its officers and provide if properly administered most functions of the court are ministerial and not discretionary. If the action is significantly adverse to the status quo the trial court is likely to make errors. These errors can be addressed on appeal or collateral attack and if substantive may provide grounds for holding the officers of the court responsible for the damages based on the breach of their oath or affirmation contract required by Article 6 of the federal constitution.
(Presented by Kenneth Wayn, Institute of National Seminars, November 14−15−16, 2003, Salt Lake City, Utah)