The Notorious "Dog Case"

No one likes or wants a neighbor’s dogs to do their business in his yard. Oh, some are more tolerant than others. But one particular neighbor was absolutely intolerant, and understandably so.

Facts

Back whenever it was — 2016? 2017?...Perhaps because this was a “difficult” neighbor, things didn’t go well the day he tromped over to my door and complained about my two jindo dogs who sometimes wandered outside of my yard. Admittedly, I might have been a bit more watchful, and when called to account, more cooperative and understanding. But I wasn’t, and so he complained to the animal control authorities of Montgomery County, Maryland.

As I recall, I received three tickets per dog. In their coming onto my neighbor’s property, each dog had apparently breached three, separate regulations. It seemed that each infraction carried a penalty of $100, so the grand total came to $600. Obviously, because I was the owner the supposed liability fell onto me. How was I to deal with this situation?

Eventually, I marched over to my neighbor’s house and I apologized to him. I admitted that I handled the whole thing badly and assured him that I would keep better control of my dogs. In retrospect, I probably should have offered him some cash to seal the deal, but instead I asked that he refrain from offering testimony on the appointed trial date. He didn’t seem very open to that suggestion, and I never did find out whether he testified or not.

As an afterthought, it occurred to me that the act of clobbering another person with the rule of law (even when the law is administered by a debilitated “corporate STATE”) has the salutary effect of bringing one who is by nature “law abiding” to his or her proper senses — and this it did: I was careful from that point onward to keep my dogs from running free in this neighbor’s yard. That is, I was careful to respect his personal and property rights, having had to “learn the hard way” to be better attuned to the Golden Rule!

My Stance as a “Defendant”   

Based upon my knowledge of the nature of the STATE and its enforcers, I handled every shred of paper I received from the county in the following way: I wrote upon it, “I do not wish to contract,” and I returned it to the sender within 72 hours. This expression is a simple statement that indicates in order for there to be any recognition of their authority over me to enforce a penal statute, I would need to contractually accept these county actors as holding legitimate authority. Acceptance can be inferred from silence; but my affirmative rejection of their “offer to contract” has the effect of “rejecting that contract.”

Thus, I wrote “I do not wish to contract” on each of the citations I returned, the notice of trial, the notice of default judgment against me and the notice to have me appear for some sort of accounting via deposition.

The STATE, through its county actors, deals with such “subversive activity” by ignoring it. Instead, they continue on with the pretense that they remain in a position of lawful authority and pretend to prosecute their “case,” going through the motions of showering me with paper as described in the preceding paragraph.

About a year ago I received a form letter from the county prosecutors’ office. The letter indicated they wished to levy on their judgment of $100. I found that to be odd, given that that amount was significantly lower than the original $600 and didn’t seem to include any court costs or the typically added statutory rate of interest that typically accrues on actual judgments. I dispatched this letter back to them promptly in the afore-mentioned way.     

On January 15 of the new year, 2021, a sheriff’s deputy appeared at my door. Through the windows of the unopened door I saw that he was holding a summons. Even though I am a patriot writer who clamors in my published writings against the kind of socialism that now runs rampant in Montgomery County, I couldn’t imagine that it involved anything other than the notorious dog case.

Not being in a particularly hospital frame of mind at the time, I essentially asked the deputy a few questions and he implored me to open the door because he couldn’t hear me (i.e., so he could serve me). I finally told him to get lost, to which he blurted out, “Oh, so you want to play that game! Well, I’ll be back!” (I could hear him just fine.)

Of course my mind dwelt upon the matter in the following days. I regretted that I didn’t respond in a more appropriate, civil, more Christian manner, and I made up my mind to compensate for my lack of hospitality when he did return.

The same deputy re-appeared on Jan. 25. I apologized for my prior lack of hospitality and then accepted service, asking as I did so whether this was, once again, about that “notorious dog case.” He said he didn’t know. I stepped onto the porch to look it over in the sunlight, but (as he reminded me) I needed my glasses to examine it closely. I saw that it was a notice of Contempt. Note: Contempt proceedings, which were at one time not considered to be criminal prosecutions, are no longer within that category. Compare In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895), with Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968).

He told me I better appear this time or I’d be subject to arrest! I told him that from the start of this case I had clearly stated that I “do not wish to contract” and asked him, “do you know what that means?”

He said, “No, I’m just a process server.”

I told him, “I understand. I used to be a process server too — to which he responded, “I know. And I also know that you are a lawyer.”

Finally I just told him that he should check with the sheriff as to what “I do not wish to contract” means. Then I asked him for his name and he told me, after which he walked away…back to his patrol car (with its blue and red lights on) that was blocking the exit of my driveway onto the street. I think he sat there for a while writing things up before leaving me in peace.

I did with the contempt notice what I did with the others—I sent it right back inscribed with the appropriate verbiage.

After mulling things over, I decided to send the sheriff a copy of my first book, 23 Skiddoo (2016), which contains an abbreviated explanation of the “I do not wish to contract” stance. I included the following note to the sheriff on the back of my business card: “In the spirit of the CONSPOA [Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association] I present you with a courtesy copy of my first book.” 

Well, I hope that my gift was accepted graciously, as intended, and taken as informative (from the patriot point-of-view).

Analysis

What the STATE is being challenged with here is my apparent “cognitive dissidence.” I am a living and breathing person and not a subject of the corporate entity; that is what my statement, “I do not wish to consent,” means. The sheriff, as the chief executive who is constitutionally mandated to protect the public from excesses of corporate government, should by now be on notice of this fact.

It should be apparent that what is really going on in the courts when one is charged with a penal offense. First, it should be apparent that penal is not the same as criminal. Secondly, although the county is acting “legally”, i.e.,with “the color of law,” it has no lawful authority when put on proper notice via a non-“strawman’s” declaration that there exists no contract between himself and this corporate entity.

Thus, the issuance of these “dog” tickets went something like this:

   On the pretense of a complaint by a neighbor, a police officer, acting essentially as a lawyer’s minion, goes out of the way to solicit business for his master, the prosecuting attorney for the CITY OF CORRUPTION or the COUNTY OF TYRANNY, both of which are corporate instrumentalities of the STATE OF CONFUSION.

   This solicitation of business for the lawyer by the police officer is called champerty. Champerty is, or at least used to be, a tort and a crime at common law.

(Note: Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., defines “champerty” as a bargain between a stranger and a party in a lawsuit by which the stranger pursues the party’s claim in consideration of receiving part of any judgment proceeds [in this instance, the STATE received ALL of the proceeds]; it is one type of “maintenance,” the more general term which refers to maintaining, supporting, or promoting another person’s litigation. “Maintenance” consists of maintaining, supporting, or promoting the litigation of another.)

It is never too late to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. Real flesh and blood persons can always do this, particularly if they are acting from just cause, and they do not mistakenly and unwittingly subject themselves to the faux jurisdiction of the STATE corporate entity.

Corporations are not and can never be SOVEREIGN. They are not real, they are a fiction and only exist on paper. Therefore, all laws created by these government corporations are private corporate regulations called public law, statutes, codes and ordinances to conceal their true nature. Do the Judge and your lawyer know about this? You bet they do! Since these government bodies are not SOVEREIGN, they cannot promulgate or enforce CRIMINAL LAWS; they can only create and enforce CIVIL LAWS, which are duty bound to comply with the LAW of CONTRACTS. The Law of Contracts requires signed written agreements and complete transparency! Did you ever agree to be arrested and tried under any of their corporate statutes? For that matter, did you ever agree to contract with them by agreeing to be sued for violating their corporate regulations? Enforcement of these corporate statutes by local, state and federal law enforcement officers are unlawful actions being committed against the SOVEREIGN public and these officers can be held personally liable for their actions.

Note: Excerpted from The Great American Adventure by Judge Dale, retired; also see, Our Government is Just Another Corporation, Al Whitney (2013) https://anticorruptionsociety.wordpress.com/is-our-government-just-another-corporation/

Thus, by this simply-stated stance I challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. By rebutting the presumption of the contract (“I do not wish to contract”) I am tacitly shifting the burden of proof as to the District Court of Montgomery County having proper in personam and subject matter jurisdiction over me in this “case.”

Yes, as preposterous and outrageous as it may sound to the uninformed, the courts today are courts of maritime jurisdiction enforcing maritime contracts. Under maritime law the judge acts as the master of a ship; his word is law. No constitution binds him or her; juries are but simple window dressing whose verdicts can be controlled in whole or in part by the court’s directed verdict—a bald substitution of a judge’s ruling for the People’s actual jury verdict. (Of course, through covert abuse of the process of voir dire and erroneous instructions to a jury by a judge, improper juries can often be empaneled who are innately biased or swayed to be biased in favor of the STATE.)

The bottom line is that this (now former) dog owner never consented to any contract existing between himself and this court of presumptive jurisdiction.

Let’s consider other presumptions:

Is it presumed that my body is a “vessel” under 18 U.S.C. 7(1)?

 

Is it a presumption that the Social Security insurance contract has bound me into the “special maritime jurisdiction”? 

      That is, if I signed up for Social Security, should I quit complaining about the unjust court system and pay up? If I contracted myself into it, don’t I owe the fine? — only IF the STATE can prove its maritime jurisdiction when the presumption is rebutted; specifically, if the contract is found to be valid, with full disclosure, consideration, the meeting of the minds, the parties competent to contract — things like that. If so, then bring out that contract so I can challenge its validity.

 

Knowing the nature and cause of the accusation is the key to knowing enough to challenge the standing and the jurisdiction. All admiralty and maritime causes require a contract of some kind. In this notorious dog case, where is the contract?

I have rebutted any notion of a contract by my continued, asserted stance; I have rejected the presumption that proper, lawful authority and jurisdiction exists. Hence the burden is on the STATE’S prosecutor and the judge to find it. Whatever they are presuming to be the contract or obligation, whether it be the Social Security application that I signed, if at all, when I was 14 years old, the STATE Driver’s License, the Birth Registration, the Voter’s Registration, Marriage License, or something else, the STATE’S burden is to find and put it into evidence so that I can challenge the validity of the instrument, whatever the instrument is presumed to be.

If the Montgomery County prosecutor wishes to enter into evidence some sort of adhesion contract signed, if at all, then I suggest he or she follows through with its presentation. Would not that action then beg defenses such as fraudulent concealment? Fictitious plaintiffs? Unclean hands?— Or unfair bargaining advantage, duress, and coercion founded upon the STATE being in the position of imposing slavery and debt bondage?  

If this “defendant” chose to, he could participate in this legal charade; he could shift the burden of proof by admitting a simple affidavit into evidence of the case stating that the defendant denies that he signed any contract or other obligation that binds him to the maritime or admiralty jurisdiction; that the defendant did not convey any interest in or right of himself to the STATE. If these facts are properly admitted into evidence, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecutor to prove the existence of the contract or other obligation by admitting the original into evidence, and this must be done by the real party in interest, whoever it is.

When a prosecuting attorney brings a cause of action to court accusing some poor soul with a crime in the secret maritime jurisdiction, he (or at least his client) needs standing to sue. All cases in law, equity, admiralty or maritime, are now classified as “civil actions.” Civil maritime and admiralty actions require a contract between the plaintiff and defendant for the plaintiff to have standing to sue. For the plaintiff to have standing and for the court to have jurisdiction of the subject matter, there must be in existence a bona fide contract binding the accused into the criminal maritime jurisdiction and the STATE’S lawyer had better be able to get it properly into evidence. This is the foundation of the venue jurisdiction and the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Under the doctrine of “clean hands”, relief will not be granted to a party, who as an actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, if such party in prior conduct has violated conscience or good faith or other equitable relief. One seeking relief cannot take advantage of one’s own wrongdoing.

The attorneys for the plaintiff are prosecuting the suit in maritime jurisdiction without evidence entered into the record of the contract binding the Petitioner to the maritime law. Without such contract the trial court is wholly in want of subject matter jurisdiction and venue jurisdiction. The doctrine of “unclean hands” applies to the attorneys for the plaintiff.

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States mandates that all the judges of every State are bound to the supreme Law of the Land and all judicial officers shall take an Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution. The office of judge is an office of public Trust under the Constitution and this “trust” creates a duty and obligation on the judges. From this perspective, every judge in every local, State, and Federal court is in breach of the duty to reveal the nature and cause of their quasi criminal, maritime penal charges that they are misrepresented to the people to be crimes in common law. 

If, on being unable or unwilling to admit the contract or other obligation into evidence, the prosecutor refuses to withdraw the claim and the judge refuses to dismiss the case they will be proceeding without subject matter jurisdiction. With no subject matter jurisdiction they have no official or judicial immunity.

Further Analysis: Slavery and Debt Bondage

If the STATE claims some right, or interest in the people, it means that the STATE is treating the people as property; when people are treated as property, they are slaves.

Debt bondage or peonage is a form of slavery and slavery is against the law. Slavery violates the 13th Amendment. Slavery violates federal law at Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1581 and Title 42 U.S.C. 1994. TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 77 - PEONAGE AND SLAVERY Sec. 1581. Peonage; obstructing enforcement (a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. (b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a). SOURCE (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 772; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104- 208, div. C, title II, Sec. 218(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-573.)

 

TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS SUB-CHAPTER I - GENERALLY Sec. 1994. Peonage abolished. The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void. -SOURCE- (R.S. Sec. 1990.)

It should be apparent, even to lawyers, that the plain language of the corporate entity’s statutes make contracts of both voluntary and involuntary peonage null and void and punishable by up to ten years in prison.

The Supreme Court discusses the issue of slavery and peonage quite succinctly in the case of Alonzo Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, (1911). Suffice it to say that the court held that contracts of peonage may be breached by either party at any time with impunity because contracts for peonage are unconstitutional. This is a landmark and very important case which is worthy of study.

All forms of slavery including debt bondage and peonage are prohibited by a number of treaties forbidding slavery to which the United States is a high contracting party. The mention of only two of these treaties of which the United States is a party will suffice to make the point:

AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS “PACT OF SAN JOSE COSTA RICA” (22 Nov. 1969) – Entered into force on 18 July, 1978. Article 6. FREEDOM FROM SLAVERY. 1. No one shall be subject to slavery or to involuntary servitude, which are prohibited in all their forms, as is the slave trade and traffic in women.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948) Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. The language of the treaties should be clear even to the most incompetent of lawyers, that slavery, in all of its insidious forms, violates the well established, universally recognized norms of universal law and the international consensus of nations.

The corporate governments of the UNITED STATES and the various STATES are rogue states that violate their own laws and the laws of nations. As such they are managed, essentially, by pirates. These rogue states ignore their own laws and the international laws of nations by making their own people slaves.

The most egregious thing that our tyrannical government does is the enforcement of the death penalty in maritime causes. The authors have no objection to the execution of a man clearly guilty of a heinous axe murder, rightfully and lawfully convicted. What is rightfully objected to is the fact that the “offender,” even if guilty, is not executed for the heinous act, whatever it might have been, but he is executed by a corporation, a fiction, for breaching one of its contractual maritime penal rules.

If the corporation can make a rule requiring the execution of a man convicted of murder in a maritime court, it can make a rule to execute a man for spitting on the sidewalk (or for letting his dogs run free!). If the man executed is later found to be innocent, too bad. The corporation made a mistake, they are sorry, but there is no one real man to be held accountable. All the acts required to accuse, convict, and execute the victim were done by licensed agents acting on behalf of a corporation, and no one is accountable. They were just doing their jobs.

In recent times, the only other thing that the government has done that compares with this Draconian intent of oppression of these maritime executions, is the massacre at Waco. Was it presumed that they were engaged in interstate commerce and thus coming within the (unwarranted) purview of the (corporate) federal government? That too, was done under an admiralty or maritime jurisdiction on the presumption that the people murdered were nothing but property under a maritime contract wherein they agreed to be tortured and murdered.

In standing up with a “cognitive dissident” stance, We the People are the bulwark, voices-of-truth in a tangled place of Darkness that only masquerades as exemplifying the righteous and legitimate Rule of Law. Time is presently running out for all of the pirates of the world, as the city-state corporate capitals of their New World Order have come apart at the seams and are currently falling into irrelevance. My "dog case" is but a microcosm of their lawlessness. 

“Lord, come quickly and forgive them not, for they know what they do. Amen.”