Example from one of my friends.

I just want to share a small but big victory with you all in regards to a speeding fine/traffic infringement.

Ive been learning about Law/Sovereignty for approx 3-4 years. Ive never had an opportunity to put anything to practice mainly because I've never had a fine or been pulled over in this time. Recently my younger brother got a trafic infringement for speeding. I have been slowly planting seeds and talking to him about the truths of Law/Sovereignty and about the hierarchy of nature/standing of government ect and he has really taken to it. I suggested that if he is willing we could do some admistrative process and build some evidence incase it ever goes to court.

We used the KISS(keep it stupidly simple) method and had a lot of fun making the notices. I have changed the name to protect privacy. Everything was sent by registered mail. Here is a copy of our process below.


**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Notice One in response to a normal Traffic Infringement.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 

NOTICE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY

Legal Maxims:

• You ought to know with whom you deal
• He who does not deny, admits

To whom it may concern,

I am the authorized representative of JOHN DOE SMITH (00/00/000).
On the 14/08/2013, JOHN DOE SMITH was issued a notice of traffic infringement (Infringement No:SBF83430A0).

In this notice it is presumed that JOHN DOE SMITH has committed an offence and is now obligated to pay the prescribed penalty.

Our records indicate that the driver was not operating in a public capacity at the time and date of the alleged offence.

Please provide facts and evidence of one of your agents driving at the time and date of the alleged offence to support your claim of obligation.

Failure to provide facts and/or evidence to support your claim of obligation and choosing to proceed with legal action could result in damages to JOHN DOE SMITH.
Any legal determinations that damage JOHN DOE SMITH will result in seeking remedy in the appropriate court.

Please respond only in writing within 21 days of delivery of this notice with facts and evidence to support your claim of obligation or withdraw the allegation immediately.

Yours truely, without prejudice and in good faith.
____________________________ - Authorized representative of JOHN DOE SMITH.
Date: 16/09/2013

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
This noticed was responded to with a letter saying that we still had an obligation to identify the driver and that the fine was going to proceed and start incurring "enforcement" fees.

This is the second Notice in response.
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 

NOTICE OF REQUISITION

Legal Maxims:

• Gross negligence is held equivalent to intentional wrong.
• The contract makes the law.

To whom it may concern,

I am the authorized representative of JOHN DOE SMITH (00/00/0000).
On the 18/09/2013, JOHN DOE SMITH received your correspondence (Ref:SBF83430A0) in regards to our initial notice of mistaken identity.

In your latest correspondence it is still presumed that JOHN DOE SMITH has committed an offence and is still obligated to pay the prescribed penalty.

A presumption of obligation, when challenged, must be proven, otherwise it is unfounded and, if imposed upon someone without providing proof, is fraudulent and unlawful.

Please provide a copy of the lawful contract that demonstrates how JOHN DOE SMITH has been bound to the Road Traffic Act 1974.

Failure to provide proof of a presumption or claim upon demand, when such presumption or claim violates the rights of another, renders such presumptions and/or claims unfounded and unenforceable.

Please respond only in writing within 21 days of delivery of this notice with facts and evidence to support your claim of obligation or withdraw the allegation immediately.

Yours truly, without prejudice and in good faith.
____________________________ - Authorized representative of JOHN DOE SMITH.
Date: 25/09/2013

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
There was no response to this notice. We decided to be honorable so we gave them an opportunity to cure.
Here is the Third Notice.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Legal Maxims:

• Upon the one alleging, not upon him denying, rests the duty of proving.
• What is not proved and what does not exist are the same; it is not a defect of the law, but of proof.

To whom it may concern,

I am the authorized representative of JOHN DOE SMITH (00/00/0000).
On the 25/09/2013, JOHN DOE SMITH sent you a NOTICE OF REQUISITION in regards to your previous correspondence.

In the NOTICE OF REQUISITION it was stated that a presumption of obligation, when challenged, MUST be proven, otherwise it is unfounded and, if imposed upon someone without providing proof, is FRAUDULENT and UNLAWFUL.

Also in this NOTICE OF REQUISITION you were given 21 days to respond with facts and evidence to prove that there is indeed a lawful obligation.

You have failed to respond within the 21 days and have now gone into dishonour.

I will give you a final 10 more days to respond in writing and correct the record, if after 10 days you have not replied, you will be issued a notice of default.

Yours truly and without prejudice.
____________________________ - Authorized representative of JOHN DOE SMITH.
Date: 16/10/2013


**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Once again they didnt respond. Here is the notice of default.
**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Legal Maxims:

• They who consent to an act, and they who do it, shall be visited with equal punishment.

• A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved.

To whom it may concern,

I am the authorized representative of JOHN DOE SMITH (31/03/1991).
On the 16/10/2013, JOHN DOE SMITH sent you a NOTICE OF DISHONOUR AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE after your initial failure to provide proof of claim which has been requested in previous notices.

You have once again failed to respond and provide proof of claim in regards to your NOTICE OF TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENT (Issued: 14/08/2013) (Infringement No: SBF83430A0).

It is now determined that no lawful obligations exists.

Any future correspondence in regards to this issue will be disregarded.

Do not send any more notices of traffic infringements to JOHN DOE SMITH (00/00/0000).

Yours truly, in honour and with prejudice.
____________________________ - Authorized representative of JOHN DOE SMITH.
Date: 30/10/2013


**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Yesterday my brother got back from 2 weeks on holiday to find a Notice of Withdrawal of Traffic Infringement from the Western Australian Police. It was short and stated that the Traffic Infrignement has been withdrawn, anything payed would be refunded and that he would not be contacted in regards to this issue again. To top it off it was SIGNED by the Inspector of that particular police jurisdiction that issued the fine. Here is the Picture:
 

I believe that this process was so simple that it was rock solid and they would have been fools to even try to take it to court. We tried to keep it factual and to the point at hand. I believe the maxims also may have helped to demonstrate applicable knowledge of the law perhaps. I also liked the way of identifying ourselves. The title of "Authozied representative" is also a subtle way to tell them that someone with standing is behind the correspondence without been specific and identifying yourself by title of grantor or beneficiary(as these titles/capacities are private in nature).

This was one small step towards Sovereignty but one giant leap in confidence in my understandings and ability to put it to paper.

Thanks for reading guys. Its all of you that have helped make this possible.

Peace!

Now, if you try to use this as a template you WILL LOSE, this is posted as an example to learn from, this was recognized, and if you do not know exactly, yes exactly, what you are doing you may interfere with the progress of those who do know what they are doing. So read carefully, get your references out if need be an feel encouraged that when positions are expressed properly the law has a chance to resolve in the proper manner.