[Phoenix]

Continued text . . .



LEARNING CURVES

Further analysis of his "rap sheet" shows Mr. Nagol received
five of his eight convictions, $870 of his $1,095 in fines, and his
30 day jail term, during the first five months of his two year "crime
spree."

After that first five months, however, Mr. Nagol's legal
expertise improved considerably. During the next twenty months, Mr.
Nagol was charged another twenty-three times, but convicted only
three times (Interference With Officers, Disturbing the Peace; and
Handicapped Parking), and fined a total of $235. For that last twenty
month period, his win ratio was 87% - not perfect, but clearly better
than most lawyers can provide.

Obviously, after his first five months of convictions, fines,
and jail sentence, Mr. Nagol learned something about the law,
especially about the driver's license and auto insurance
requirements. He claims that knowledge is embodied in his two
following writs.



ESSENTIAL STRATEGY?

I'm not sure, but I believe the fundamental strategy behind
these writs is this: Under normal circumstances, if you are ticketed,
the "law" under which you are charged is legally presumed to be
Constitutional; if you disagree, you must prove the law is
unconstitutional. For a number of practical reasons, it's extremely
difficult for a pro se litigant to prove a law is unconstitutional,
i.e. the case will not be finally decided until it's heard by the
U.S. Supreme Court. If that court refuses to hear your case, you
arguments will be defeated even if they are true.

However, if you file one of Mr. Nagol's writs as a sworn,
properly documented affidavit that says you don't need a driver's
license, insurance, whatever, that affidavit is legally presumed to
be true. Later, if you are stopped and ticketed, the State is
obligated to overcome the presumption that your affidavit is true.

By preempting the State's ticket with your own affidavit, you
reverse the adversarial roles. In order to gain a conviction, the
State must first prove that you are lawfully obligated to have a
driver's license, etc. Instead of trying you as a defendant for
failure to obey the driver's license law, the State becomes the
"defendant" and must first be "tried" to see if the law under which
you are charged is, itself, Constitutional.

I suspect that, ultimately, in order to convict you, the State
must get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, confront the
evidence, and rule that all the arguments in Mr. Nagol's writs are
false. Assuming Nagol's arguments are lawful, the Supreme Court has
no more interest in confronting those arguments on behalf of the
State than they do on behalf of the civilian defendant.

In short, rather than rule publicly on the lawfulness of the
driver's license laws and set a precedent that might destroy the
entire driver's license "system", the courts will usually dismiss the
case against the civilian defendant. The courts' refusal to hear
these driver's license cases implies that Nagol's right, and
government is knowingly running a driver's license scam to unlawfully
control, tax, and exploit the People.

These writs aren't "loopholes"; they're opening shots in the
second American Revolution.



WHY PUBLISH?

At first glance, Mr. Nagol's writs might seem to offer nothing
but "loopholes' to help criminals to "beat the rap". By publishing
writs, I'm probably making some "law-abiding" citizens uneasy since I
probably appear to be teaching the same kind of scurvy tricks for
which lawyers are justly famous and despised. Some of that criticism
is justified.

But if Mr. Nagol's writs were based on nothing but "loopholes",
he might be able to out-smart the local authorities once or twice,
but then they'd learn his "tricks", get ready for him, and the next
time they caught him, they'd send him away for a long time. But they
don't. The police, prosecutors, and judges are unable to counter Mr.
Nagol's "tricks", and are, so far, unable to use the Law to punish
him.

Maybe they're not "tricks".

Maybe Mr. Nagol's "defiance" does not constitute defiance of the
Law, so much as defiance of the government. Maybe the government
can't convict Mr. Nagol because (despite the appearance of his rap
sheet) he's not breaking the law. Maybe he's learned the Law and is,
in fact, obeying it. Maybe a lot of people who regard themselves as
"law-abiding" are just "government-abiding" and don't have a clue to
the true nature of the Law or of the government. Maybe Mr. Nagol has
learned some of that truth.

But if Mr. Nagol's success is truly based on his knowledge and
obedience to the Law, what exactly is the government obeying? If
Nagol knows the Law so well he can't be (easily or falsely)
convicted, then it's clear that either the authorities don't know the
Law, or they are intentionally marching to the beat of a different
(unconstitutional) drummer.

See the point? No doubt some crimes have been committed. But
what were the crimes? Was Nagol's unruly behavior truly "criminal"?
Or were the government's repeated arrests "criminal" because there
was no injured party?

After all, why continue to arrest the man if you can't lawfully
convict him? Isn't that harassment? If so, this suggests that the
authorities are knowingly, intentionally breaking the law, knowingly
charging and trying to convict a free man for "crimes" that don't
lawfully exist (these are exactly the kind of government crimes the
Constitution was intended to prohibit).

Moreover, if government can't convict Mr. Nagol for driving
without auto insurance, how is it that they can still convict you?
If there is no true "Law" that requires Mr, Nagol to have auto
insurance, what "Law" compels you to have it?


WHY, INDEED?

It's not my purpose to encourage people to carry firearms or
drive without insurance. Most of us (including me) would prefer to
live in a more orderly, law-abiding society. But an "orderly, law-
abiding society" includes a government and judicial system which does
not operate in secrecy, demand special privileges, or discriminate
based on gender, race, or income, and routinely break the law.
However, such is not the case. We don't live in a "law-abiding
society" and there's no reason to suppose we will as long as one of
the principal law-breakers in our society is the government, itself.

Auto insurance and carrying deadly weapons are not the issues,
nor are they the point of this article. The point is that if auto
insurance "laws" don't apply to one man, they don't apply to anyone.
Further, if a solitary pro se in New Mexico can figure it out, then
surely the legal geniuses who run our government already know. And
that implies our government is knowingly breaking the Law to exploit
the People.

That's the point of Mr. Nagol's writs. That's the point of Mr.
Nagol's knowledge. If Nagol's writs are righteous, our government is
to some extent a criminal fraud and our courts aren't built on Law so
much as on deceit, deception and lies.

This article is not about Mr. Nagol, his writs, or auto
insurance. It's about government corruption and abuse. Mr. Nagol is
merely an illustration, a living proof of the government's criminal
behavior and the power of the Constitution to stop those government
crimes.

I present Mr. Nagol's writs as educational devices. I believe
you can learn more Law from Mr. Nagol's writs and from his living
example, than you can from a dusty, dry lawbook. I believe that
through Mr. Nagol's writs and personal example, you can:

1) learn to recognize the crimes committed by government,

2) learn to defeat those crimes,

3) learn what a lawful, Constitutional government really is,
and

4) learn how to restore a lawful, Constitutional government
to this nation.

That's why I run these writs.



INSTRUCTIONS

According to Mr. Nagol, "The generic driver's license/
registration/proof of insurance writ is to be signed in front of a
notary, the original is to be kept in a safe place, and only copies
surrendered to competent authority upon demand of driver's license or
registration or proof of insurance."

"Once so submitted, it becomes part of the official record and
cannot be suppressed from evidence in that particular case (assuming
the Officer is foolish enough to issue a citation)."

"Contained within this very document are the instruments that
destroy the prosecutor's case. In light of this generic driver's
license and Common Law Response, no one should ever have to pay a
fine or be incarcerated for these pretended traffic crimes."

Remember, these writs must be studied, their cites must be
confirmed, and their underlying strategies should be clearly
understood before you attempt to use these writs on your own behalf.

Continued in Next Post . . .