Virgil Cooper wisely counseled:
> I have been jousting with the "system" in Arizona since 1981. Arizona
> the Hot Spot for antiestablishment activities in the 1980s. Anyone who
> challenged the "system" be it traffic tickets or court process was
> labeled an
> "Arizona Patriot." The Arizona Supreme Court started holding training
> sessions for judges in the various courts and coordinated the training
> the Attorney General's office. A manual was developed called "Dealing
> With the Maverick." It is treated as a secret document with controlled
> distribution to presiding judges in the various courts - municipal,
> superior, and appellate.
I got one of those, but I forget if it was by that name. I got it as a
computer file from the internet somewhere. I'll see if I can find a
copy but most likely it was destroyed when my computer was hacked. As I
recall reading it, it did make some things more difficult but could not
damage actual rights demanded and not waived.
> A few years ago, a Senator Wayne Stump served two terms
> in the Arizona Senate. He was known as the "ultraconservative senator"
> because of his being a constant stickler for demanding that
> legislative bills
> be constitutional while he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee
> during his second term. This made the "who cares about
> crowd (the majority) mad as hell. He always was on the losing side as
> "lone voice in the wilderness". The mad majority always managed to
> overrule his demands that bills in the hopper be scrutinized for
I used to use a letter from Wayne Stump in my huge case of materials I
used to carry around to be ready to fight my case on the hood of a
> The mindset of the majority was to let anyone who
> wanted to challenge the constitutionality of an enacted law do so in
> the courts - later, after the fact, downstream.
That's to make all those democracy lovers happy. Everyone knows half or
more of what the majority wants is unconstitutional, and that they don't
care if it is.
> All that he was able to find out about
> "Dealing With the Maverick" was that it provided instructions to
> judges and prosecuting attorneys on how to keep moving forward
> complete with detailed instructions and case cites.
Yes, it is a nice manual. There were still hurdles they could not get
> The training conferences for judges are held every six months at
> various locations around Arizona.
And Nevada, I have heard as well. A local class was held on how to deal
with me and some friends of mine. I can't say it was a bad idea.
> These conferences have been held since
> approximately 1985.
Before we that. We exposed an agent involved with that in 1983, and it
was old hat to him then.
> The training includes "Keywords" that a "Maverick"
> may verbalize or include in papers filed with the various courts. This
> "Keywords List" includes such things as "Oath of Office", the "Money
> Issue" (what is a constitutional dollar?), challenging the
> jurisdiction of the
> court or agency, standing, State Citizen vs. federal citizen,
> traveling vs. the
> privilege to "drive" on the public roads and highways, demanding to
> the jurisdiction of a proceeding, demanding to know the "Nature and
> Cause" of an action, demanding to know all of the elements the State
> must prove.
In other words, old outdated concepts with known cut-off dates in the
public educational system that no longer hold force or effect since
"everything changed" on 9-11?
> In the case of traffic tickets, especially moving violations
> speeding tickets, the JP courts and municipal courts have become
> accustomed to a practice called "Preponderance of the Elements."
> That's a
> joking take-off on "Preponderance of the Evidence" where various
> elements of a moving violation are as a standard practice "presumed by
> State" to be taken for granted as established fact.
99% of the time they are established out of the mouth or over the
signature of the accused.
> The "Dealing With the Maverick" binder is updated by
> the Arizona Supreme Court based on feedback in the
> 6-month conferences and from other sources. The binder
> is a "cookbook" or "how-to book" on how to block,
> sidestep, or overrule a "Maverick" by lecturing a defendant,
> by threatening contempt of court,
Threatening is different than actually proving when contested. I've
been threatened with it for merely speaking in turn. Overruling is to
be assumed. Blocking and sidestepping are fair game for making note of
in the record for appeal, or maybe even the meat for a writ.
> or by specifying things
> that the court or agency will not allow to be raised as
> "frivolous" or "nonsensical" arguments which are wasteful
> of the court's time.
Santa made my dog eat it! I would demand anyone claiming my arguments
are nonsensical to admit that they just may not be capable of holding
such complex concepts due to their own failure to achieve the first goal
of a public servant.
> The idea stressed throughout is to
> "keep moving forward" - meaning to presume waiver at
> every critical step of the process.
Of course, is this new to anyone?? Failure to object timely is fatal!
Silence is deemed consent. If the person now claiming some right knew
he had it in the Initial Moment Of Confrontation, why didn't he object
timely then? The reason is most likely he didn't know he had it, but
someone else told him he did because someone else did. Some people
think that if one person has a right, they have it too. They may be
oblivious to the fact that they signed the right away on a piece of
paper last year.
> The lowly traffic
> cop or highway patrolman is aware of the protocol mindset but probably
> may never see the "Dealing With the Maverick" book. When he makes a
> traffic stop and asks the driver for his "state papers" - driver's
> license, registration, proof of insurance.
Unless he already knows the "driver" doesn't have them or need
them...then why would he ask for them?
> Upon failure to produce any of these, the
> policeman can have the person's car towed on the spot and impounded
> for 30 days.
I'm glad it was "CAN" and not "WILL", because some people CAN actually
THINK and respond to interrogations in a friendly manner without waiving
any rights and at the same time communicating new ideas to others that
they just may not have considered before. Not every topic has been the
subject of a supreme court case. Yet.
> Asking too many questions at the scene of a stop can result
> in being cited for "obstructing the function of an officer."
> Frog Farmer describes tactics that may work for him in California,
> but in Arizona these "anti-system" arguments have been studied
> and cataloged by courts and prosecuting attorneys and the AG's
> office and "defenses" have been designed and structured to make
>it extremely difficult and unlikely that they will prevail.
Please note that my tactics come right from the state's own documents.
Reading my state's laws was where I got the ideas in the first place.
> These "defenses" are designed to bring "contempt of
> court" charges, or some other excuse to jail or otherwise muzzle the
> raising of "novel" arguments.
That's quite a conspiracy you're alleging. I'll believe it.
> In the twenty or so years that the State of
> Arizona has been "dealing with mavericks", so-called
> "constitutionalists" and "pro se or pro per litigants",
> the State has systematized and structured its
> responses to all kinds of such challenges.
> IMOC (in the moment of contact) will stand
> an increasing likelihood of being cuffed or tasered
> given the current escalating attitude toward anyone
> who is considered to be "noncompliant."
I invented the acronym and do not equate contact with confrontation.
There can be contact and agreement. It's the confrontation I take note
of. I agree, the likelihood of being cuffed or tasered has certainly
risen post 911. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
> Now that
> the country is in a long-term "state of war against terrorism" (an
> undeclared war) and the Patriot Act is still around,
Don't worry about the fact you can't make war against a concept, any
"ism". Look how they did against communism! How about a war against
hypocrisy or arrogance?!
> along with the
> increasing militarization of police agencies, bucking the system is
> becoming increasingly dangerous and confrontational.
Belief in "the system" is dangerous as well as delusional. There is no
system. There are many systems and they are not all integrated, except
in the minds of the deluded.
> Police are beginning to adopt the attitude of "shoot first
> and ask questions later."
Why do people even consider Dr. Kavorkian when police-assisted suicide
is almost a sure thing? A water pistol is cheaper than a plane ticket!
> Nowadays, the first words uttered by a policeman at the scene
> of a traffic stop are:
> "Step out of the car." No more polite discussion with the driver
> seated behind the wheel of his car. Now the police want "instant
> they want, they demand, proper ID, and state papers.
They should if the car has state plates! It's different for some other
> If you ask the
> policeman who pulled you over, what was the probable cause, or
> reasonable cause, or reasonable suspicion, or even "an idea conceived"
> you are in trouble for asking too many questions.
Really, how many is the correct number? Is there a list of approved
topics? Arizona sounds like Naziville. Are people fleeing the borders
as we speak? Come out to California, the weather's great!
> The correct attitude
> produce the requested papers, answer the officer's questions, say
> Sir", sign the ticket, and pay the fine. Policemen are schooled in
> maintaining control. They ask the questions. They have the gun, the
> or taser gun, and the handcuffs. Meekly complying -- that's doing it
> right way. That's complying with the government's "revenue enhancement
Law be damned eh? Rights were legislated out of Arizona, the state of
Barry Goldwater? Wow! How about a moment of silence....
> There is no doubt in my mind that we are moving incrementally, day by
> day, closer to a state of undeclared martial law police state...
> Arizona has entered the "Twilight Zone" of Kafkaesque-Dom.
> I would like to believe that Frog Farmer's methods and
> tactics would yield a favorable outcome here in Arizona.
> I'm afraid that here in the "wild west" they have seen
> us coming - for the past 20 or 25 years.
Remember, I'm just offering them the chance to obey the laws they told
me they were enforcing. I didn't make up any "anti-system" tactic
because I don't recognize any system. I use what they give me, and if I
were in Arizona I'd be reading Arizona law in the light that best suits
me. Too bad the national constitution no longer applies there. The
Soviet republics disintegrated at different speeds during their
dissolution, no reason it should be any different here.