If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck… its probably a duck…

If any of those three elements are missing you have probable cause that you are not dealing with a duck. If two of those elements are missing we lack reasonable suspicion to say that its not a duck. If all of those elements are missing we have no cause/reason to conclude its a duck and the controversy is a moot point.

Figuring out where to start when you are sifting through the mountains of case-law, hundreds of commentaries on the jurisprudence of the law, and the volumes upon volumes of procedural rules and handbooks can be very overwhelming. An easy way to decide what materials are the most relevant to your situation is to think of a duck.

If it looks like a duck, we are probably looking at a question of status. If it quacks like a duck; it is a question of jurisdiction. If it acts like a duck; (and this is the most important element) We are dealing with a question of the law of the case itself. If we have a case-law question, and it can be established that the case holds firm over the issue; then we can conclude that the appearance and the quacks are there. If we cannot determine if the case holds sway then we cannot argue that the other elements matter.

Does it look like a duck?

Status-changes affect how the courts will identify if you are bird of their feather. A porcupine is generally very unappealing to a hungry dog if a chicken is nearby: However, in the absence of anything better to eat; A dog will certainly chew on a porcupine. Status changes your appearance before the law but not the substance of your quacks or your acts.

Status is a lot like camouflage in nature, or a police uniform on a person. It invokes the presumption of authority at the beginning of a situation; but, if you run around and scream no amount of camouflage will mask you. No fancy uniform will protect a person from a band of angry peasants with pitchforks, that are looking for you. [efn_note]In the unfortunate case of Charles Stewart, King of England, his status held up; unfortunately they were able to steam-roll him because he started arguing the case.[/efn_note]

Does it quack like a duck?

Jurisdictional arguments are very language dependent. A Japanese man who doesn't speak English, will not likely be tried in an American court for a French infraction of the law. Because the law of the court, the language of the law, and the party at fault; do not speak the same language. In the absence of a common language, a court (if an agreement between one court and another already exists) will transfer a case in one language to a court of the same language; if no court exists with that language, the case is generally dropped. The languages of the court, law of the case, and the law the parties speak must comport; if they do not, no jurisdiction exists for that case. If you talk like you understand what they are asking, then it can be assumed you know what you did wrong. Duck justice is for ducks, not for porcupines. [efn_note]In the interesting Syntax-Case of Bank of America v. Lebreton its a rather illustrative case of how jurisdiction, can make or break a case. [/efn_note]

If you argue on jurisdictional elements; make sure the words you say doesn't make you quack like a duck.

Does it act like a duck?

The single most important element in the hierarchy of elements is the act. Actions speak louder than words; it is true in life and law. If you act like a duck; it will make you look like a duck, consequently it will make you sound like duck when you speak. You can wear cheetah spots and talk like gazette, but a duck can't help but act like a duck. Acts are best seen in how you preform and how you respond when something is presented to you. If someone hands you a bill and you scream you will not pay… chances are you incurred a debt. If someone hands you a bill and you go silent and run as soon as you see it… chances are you are evading the debt. If someone hands you a bill and you pay it off… you act like person who is taking liability for the debt.

Ducks do duck things; if you do not want to be treated as a duck do not act like a duck. If you are walking into a statutory court, and you want to prosecute someone, act like a prosecutor. If you are being charged with duck crimes; don't act like a duck, really pay attention to what is being asked of you and inquire of those things that you do not understand. Do not assume and act with mindful intent. The courts will see how you act even if you do not. [efn_note]It is not just a question of law but of common-sense; actions always speak louder than words. If you do an act it always overrides your status and jurisdiction; see In Re Self v. Rhay, Wn 2d 261.[/efn_note]

Ducks waddle into the unknown, ducks nitpick little pebbles on the ground, ducks squawk to squawk with no objective in sight. If you don't want to be treated as a duck by the court and served to a fate best avoided; just remember as you study this question: is this document talking about acting, quacking, or looking like a duck?

As always do your own research. We can present the information, but only you in the end can act on it; because you are the law in your own matters. If you want to learn how to be free of entangling contracts; then you need to study and learn to act as a freeman would.

For membership information please visit our JOIN PAGE HERE