




                      GENERIC PLEA, CRIMINAL II

                   by Alfred Adask & Richard Nagol

[Reprinted with permission from The AntiShyster magazine, P.O. Box
540786, Dallas, Texas, 75354 -- annual subscription $25. This article
appeared in Volume 3, No. 1 - Jan/Feb 1993]

     Rick Nagol's first version of "Generic Plea, Criminal" was
published in the June, 1991 AntiShyster.  Since then, he's added
another writ concerning the need for drivers license, registration,
proof of insurance, and a (slightly) "new and improved" version of
his original "Generic Plea, Criminal".

     Mr. Nagol's writs are interesting documents.  You can read 'em,
and perhaps they make sense to you, but just as likely they may
impress you as magical "incantations" that you'd like to believe in,
but can't quite trust.

     After all, just because someone in New Mexico has taken the time
to prepare another pro se writ, doesn't mean it'll work, no matter
how nicely it reads.  That's the problem we have with almost all of
the writs, pleas, whatever, that we run in the AntiShyster: they
sound good (sometimes great), but who wants to risk going to jail to
find out if they work?

     However, in this instance, Mr. Nagol has also provided three
pages of photocopied court documents which indicate that his writs
are not just flights of fantasy or theoretical notions, but pragmatic
documents that have been tested and refined in repeated
confrontations with the government for over two years.

     According to the court documents, during the 25 month period
between August, 1989 and September, 1991, Mr. Nagol was arrested nine
times and charged with 31 offenses, including: No vehicle insurance
(6x), Carrying a Deadly Weapon; Carrying a Deadly Weapon and Use of a
Deadly Weapon; Carrying a Deadly Weapon and Negligent Use of a Deadly
Weapon or Explosive (2x); Processions; Improper Turns (3x); Following
Too Close; Bench Warrant for Failure to Appear on Summons;
Interference With Officers (7x); Reckless Driving; Direct Contempt of
Court; Battery; No License; Assault; Disturbing the Peace; Disorderly
Conduct; and Handicapped Parking.

     Mr. Nagol leads a somewhat colorful life, but before you jump to
the conclusion that Mr. Nagol is a habitual criminal, consider that
he was only convicted on eight of his thirty-one charges: three times
for no auto insurance; twice for processions; and one each for
improper turn, interference with officers, reckless driving, and
disturbing the peace.  That's still a lot of convictions, but they
aren't particularly serious offenses, and none of them indicate much
more than a tendency to rowdiness.  Of the remaining twenty-three
charges -Twelve were NOT PROSECUTED: No insurance (2), Interference
w/ Officers (5), Disorderly Conduct, Following Too Close, Carrying a
Deadly Weapon, Carrying a Deadly Weapon and Negligent Use of a Deadly
Weapon or Explosive (2).  Eight were DISMISSED: Battery, Assault, No
License, Carrying a Deadly Weapon & Use of a Deadly Weapon, Improper
Turn, No Insurance, Bench Warrant for Failure to Appear on Court
Summons, Interference w/Officers.  On Two, he was found NOT GUILTY:
Interference w/Officers (Officer & Defendant ordered to avoid each
other), Improper Turn.  One (Direct Contempt of Court) was OVERTURNED
ON APPEAL.

     According to Mr. Nagol, "These clowns here in Deming (N.M.) are
persistent, you gotta give that to them, but to no avail. The
Constitution still works but you gotta use it.  The 'Common Law
Response to a Criminal Accusation' will protect an individual's
rights."

     "As you can see [from the court rap sheets (which are not
included here)], I have never paid a fine or court cost, and in most
cases, they never even motioned me into court -- the "Common Law
Response" is on point and it does work!

     "When I was sentenced to 30 days in jail, I spent only three and
would have been out in only hours, but I had the entire judicial
system of Deming working against me, including the District Court
Judge, doing their best to defeat my appeal process.  I am now suing
them in Federal District Court at Las Cruces (Civ 92-0131-HB).  I was
ambushed by three lawyers, i.e., the Judge, the city attorney, and my
'counsel'.  This case was overturned and the Judge was suspended for
two months."

     "I have now distributed hundreds of the 'Common Law Response'
throughout the country, and so far, only two judges got stupid.  Both
of these cases are into Title 42, Sec. 1983. Of the scores of people
I have processed through the courts here in the Deming area (and
elsewhere), no one has ever had to pay a fine or has gone to jail."

     That's impressive, but it's no clean sweep.  Mr. Nagol still
owes the courts $1,095 (perhaps he's avoided payment by declaring
himself to be a pauper), he spent three days in jail, and there's no
telling what price he may have paid in personal anxiety and
inconvenience over regularly confronting the authorities.  Mr. Nagol
is not yet a judicial Yoda and his knowledge of the law does not
include the fabrication of 100% pure "silver bullets".

     Still, it's clear that the authorities want to convict him
(badly), but succeeded only 29% of the time (even then, Nagol paid
almost no tangible penalty).  On the other hand, Nagol "won" (found
Not Guilty or charges dismissed) ten (33%) of his cases in court, and
he wasn't even prosecuted on twelve charges (39%).

     In sum, during his 25 month confrontation with the authorities,
Mr. Nagol and his magic writs have an average win ratio of about 75%.
Not bad.  Mr. Nagol knows something about the Law.



                           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.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =





                 JUDICIAL NOTICE / DEMAND FOR RIGHTS


Know all men by these presents, that I,________________________, do
travel upon the highways and roads of these United States as a matter
of asserted Common Law rights.  That I assert my full sovereignty as
a free and natural person under the Common Law of the Constitution of
the United States of America, to wit:

1. "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and
transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental
right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be
deprived."  Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22,
66 ALR 834.  Ligare v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46, 28 NE 934.  Boone v.
Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 AM JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163.

2. "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and
to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage. or
automoblle, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or
permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."  Thompson v. Smith 154
SE 579.

3. "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen
cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125.

4. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda
v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 491.

5. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489.

6. "Our system of government, based upon the individuality and
intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him,
except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all
that only affects himself."  Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-6O.

This statement has been submitted upon demand of a driver's license,
registration, proof of insurance, and, therefore, is part of the
official record of any ensuing action and must be introduced as
evidence in said action.  It will be  noted that willful suppression
of evidence is a felony.  Any cause for action will result in action
under Title 42, Section 1983 U.S.C.


In Propria Persona
Signed by:_______________________________

STATE OF ________________________

COUNTY OF ________________________

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day
of _________________, 19___, by ______________________________.

My commission expires: ______________________________

Notary Public: ___________________________________


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =






                           FOR THE RECORD

                         COMMON LAW RESPONSE
                       TO CRIMINAL ACCUSATION


Accuser: ________________________________

vs.

Accused: ________________________________

Charge: _________________________________

Ticket/Case No.:_________________________


                       COMES NOW THE ACCUSED -
                      INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES:

1. I,______________________, the Accused, Invoke my full Sovereignty
under the Common Law of the Constitution for the United States of
America.  I demand all of my rights at all times.  I waive none of my
rights at any time, and this includes my time.

2. The Accused demands the Common Law right of 'Sua Sponte'. The
court will inform the Accused at every stage of the proceedings of
the Accused's rights, whether Federal, State, or Local, and in a
timely manner.  If the Court fails to observe this free and natural
person's rights in every respect, the court becomes renegade to the
Constitution of the United States, and loses all jurisdiction over
the Accused.

3. The Accused understands that the courts usurp jurisdiction
primarily through deception.  The Accused denies jurisdiction to the
court in all matters before the court.  The Accused comes before the
court only because of the abuse of its power to arrest and
incarcerate.

4. The Accused understands that under the Common Law, one does not
commit a crime unless one willfully damages another real person by
depriving said person of Life, Liberty, or Property. The Accused will
require in the courtroom at trial, as provided for under the Sixth
Amendment, the body of a real person as a damaged party and not the
alleged representative of said party.

5. The court will receive this document in the stead of arraignment.
The court will notify the Accused by certified mail or personal
messenger as to hearings, held consistent with the demanded rights of
this document, allowing the Accused reasonable time to prepare a
defense.  Any attempt to create a fiction of law or to usurp
jurisdiction over the Accused by Issuance of an arrest warrant in the
absence of demanded rights, will be dealt with before a Federal
Magistrate under the Common Law of the United States.

6. The Accused is aware that when the court denies a demanded right,
it loses all jurisdiction over the Accused.  The Accused understands
that rights are bestowed by nature's God and secured by the
Constitution for the United States.  The Accused has studied,
understands, and will enforce every point of this document through
the Justice Department and the Judicial Review Board.

7. The Accused recognizes the need for and greatly desires Counsel
but has no monies for that purpose.  And since it is common knowledge
that court-appointed Counsel is either incompetent or beholden to the
Accused's adversary (see Burgett v. Texas 389 U.S. 1O9), the Accused
requests that the court makes monies available so that the Accused
may find competent representation on the Accused's own, in whom the
Accused may have confidence.  In the event that these requested
monies are not made available, the Accused will stand before the
court in propria persona without Counsel, and under the foregoing
conditions, only the Accused can speak for the Accused (Chandler v.
Fretag, 348 U.S. 3; Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806). The Accused
understands that one cannot be incarcerated by the court unless one
has Counsel at trial.  The Accused will not sign a waiver to Counsel.
The Accused will engage Counsel only under the aforesaid conditions
(see, Argersinger v. Hamlin et al).

8. The Accused demands the rights enumerated under the first precept
of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States.
The Accused will require an indictment or presentment by a show cause
jury or Grand Jury.  The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled
in Mackin v. U.S. et al that any crime for which a person may be
incarcerated is an 'infamous crime.' The Fifth Amendment provides for
indictment in all infamous crimes.  The Accused understands that any
attempt at prosecution of this free and natural person in the absence
of said indictment constitutes a willful violation of United States
Constitutional rights by the court, and/or its officers.

9. The Accused demands trial by a twelve-person Common Law jury as
provided for under Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 3, and the Sixth
Amendment to to Constitution for the United States. The court will
take notice of Frank v. U.S. 395 U.S. 147 U.S. (1969) et al, in which
the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, "...all
sentence must be suspended when jury trial is denied the Accused."
The Accused is aware that an attempt to enforce a fine by threat of
illegal incarceration, constitutes extortion on the part of the court
and/or its officers.

10. The court will take notice that the Accused's time is personal
property and cannot be consumed by the court without the intention of
the court to comply with full due process of this free and natural
citizen's constitutional rights.

11. Any cause for action will result in action before Federal
Magistrate for willful violation of United States Constitutional
rights, this action pro se under the Common Law and Titles 18, 28 and
42 USC.  The Accused is also aware that as little as a phone call to
the FBI will start an investigation against a public official for
violation of a citizen's civil rights and that this investigation
must be pursued until found without merit.

12. The Accused will require the return of any and all bail monies,
evidences, fingerprint records, photographs, and properties seized in
evidence at the conclusion of the proceedings.  HAVE A NICE DAY.

"CONSTITUTIONALLY YOURS IN PROPRIA PERSONA"

___________________________________________
(Signature)

STATE OF:____________________, COUNTY OF:______________________

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this____ day of_____________ 19___, by:_________________________

My commission expires:____________________

Notary Public:_________________________________

Extra copies sent to:

    Judicial Review Board -- State Supreme Court
    U.S. Supreme Court -- Washington, D.C.

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
