Thompson News

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

The Two Most Deadly Questions

I am appalled at the condition of our alleged "judicial" system. Most of us grew up learning that the Constitution for the United States is the law of the land. However, as many in the so-called "Tax Honesty" movement have found out, our judicial system, if you want to call it that, appears to be operating in something totally foreign from the principles of God's law, Declaration of Independence, and other foundational documents.

However, for this piece I'm going to focus on what I think are the two biggest problems in dealing with the "courts." While I'm not going to get into all the technical reasons why this occurrs, I do want to focus on just two things that can happen to anyone if they are not careful when confronted with any "charges."

Since the primary issue is taxes, I'll focus on cases that I have seen transcripts of and where the trap lies to lure the uninformed litigants down the slippery slope into a legal vortex that is almost impossible to overcome given the current conditions of the legal system. Attorneys and judges are the biggest culprits in that their job is to protect the system at all costs. The judge works for the state, the prosecuting attorneys work for the state, the defense attorney is an officer of the court, so he works for the state, and the bailiff works for the state. The defendant, who has hired an attorney has now made himself a ward of the court or a ward of the state. Buy submitting oneself to all of this, it is no wonder a man cannot get a fair trial with impartial decision makers.

However, this legal system depends upon the consent of the defendant. Each and every step in this legal process, consent seems to be paramount in order to get the man to hang himself using his own rope.

Deadly Question #1

I'll be using the Dick Simkanin case as an example of what is happening.

Judge: Are you Richard Michael Simkanin? Or the judge might say, "Please state your name for the record."

Respectively, the answers will usually be, "yes" and/or "Richard Michael Simkanin. Please ask yourself, why do they want you to identify yourself? Because they need the defendant to give up the evidence. In the caption of the case, the terms RICHARD MICHAEL SIMKANIN is of course a legal fiction, or debtor, and the real man Richard Michael Simkanin is the creditor. Since the "courts" appear operate in commerce or a form of law merchant, they need the evidence from the defendant himself to proceed. The fiction cannot be charged so it needs the consent of the man in order to make the case move forward. The man must be coerced into becoming the creditor for the legal fiction or debtor. Once that is accomplished, the fiction has been given a life it doesn't deserve and the fiction now has no rights. That's why many judges state that the Constitution is not an issue in his court. Of course, this never is disclosed to the defendant and his rights as a man have now been compromised as he has agreed by consent or contract to stand in for the fiction. What this amounts to is a fraudulent conversion of a living man or woman into a form of a corporation. Once this is accomplished, the fiction has no rights and the real man had docked himself into the artificial entity and has turned himself from a freeman into a slave. And the problem with all of this is that the whole legal system runs from this disgusting principle. I've covered in more detail the principles behind the ALL CAPS name issue.

Deadly Question #2

Judge: Do you understand the charges?
Simkanin: "Yes"

This sounds like a simple question deserving a simple answer. However, this question is loaded. The key here is the word "understand."
However, the meaning of the term "understand" is critical in the terms of the context in which it is said. It is my belief that the "courts" are commercial in nature and not judicial.

Let's look Black's 4th and look at these definitions:

Understand: To know; to apprehend the meaning; to appreciate; as, to understand the nature and effect of an act. (Refs. sniped) To have a full and clear knowledge of; to comprehend. On the surface the judge appears to be asking the defendant if he comprehends the charges? However, in the world of commercial tribunals the question has a two-faced meaning.

Understanding: In the law of contracts, An agreement.

Understood: The phrase "it is understood" when employed as a word of contract in a written agreement, has the same force as the words "it is agreed."

Is the judge asking the defendant if he comprehends the charges or is he asking if he agrees with the charges? I submit that the judge is asking if the defendant is he is agreeing with the charges since the context is within a commercial tribunal which depends on consent and contract. By answering "yes" to this question, the case is all but lost and the defendant is put in the almost impossible position of having to prove a negative that he is "not guilty." The defendant has now contracted with the "court" and now has done himself in by putting himself into a position of voluntary servitude to the entity of which he entered into a contract.

So when the judge askes you, "Is that understood?", you had better know from where he speaks. Since all "courts" are commercial in nature the only meaning that is present is "agreement" and not "comprehension."

These kind of term/word games is what the "judicial" system uses to trap the unsuspecting into their snare. Yes, this is a cruel shell game and many innocent men and women go to jail never knowing what happened to them. Remember, the whole legal system works primarily from these two deadly questions.

So yes, it is offer and acceptance. The judge made the offer, the defendant accepted.

It is important that every man or woman know that the definition of terms and the use of these terms will define what happens in their cases.
The first issue is the NAME/name and the second one is "understand." If these are not set on a proper foundation the case will spiral into chaos.

Al Thompson

Friday, March 19, 2004

I was going to get ready to write a piece on the 14th Amendment when I found the following article on the net. Since my studies has taken me to this subject matter, I found that there is a lot I don't need to write about since someone has already done it and I don't have to try to reinvent the wheel.

However, there may be some issues I may disagree with, but for the most part this article appears to be correct. I'm putting this out there for those of you who are not understanding the reasons why the government behaves as it does. It isn't just limited to taxes, but it runs the gamut of all the areas of our lives that involves "government."

Take your time to absorb this and then think it through. I'm sure I'll get a few comments, but knowing the real history of this nation is essential in understanding what all of us have had to put up with for so many years.


Al Thompson

The question is WHY?
Written at 13 year grades level and comprehension of 32


Why are we, still under the war powers of Lincoln? Why is it that they carry out seizure and forfeitures in
America without due process of law? Why is it that you have no rights when it comes to IRS confiscation and
seizure of property? Why can the IRS seize your property without them ever having to go to court to get a decree
to seize bank accounts or levy wages? Why is it that if you attack the IRS in court you never win and they file a
Rule 12 (b) (6) on you and the judge dismisses your case? Why is it that in all tax cases they never allow that the
defendant to bring in the law; never allowed expert witnesses; and all other facts are 99 percent denied by the
judge? Why is it that they deny all motions dealing with jurisdiction, out of hand by the judge? Why is the judge
always predisposed in favor of the United States?

When you read 12 Statutes at Large 319, you will have your answer. They have never repealed this statute. The
codes in Title 28, and Title 50 that pertain to seizure, have their source as this Statute at Large. I have written
extensively on this before but never included the actual Statute at Large. Now here it is and I WILL CAPITALIZE
those words that the government is using today to allow the destruction of your freedom. They wrote this Statute
during the Civil War but the important words do not pertain to only Civil War. During the Reconstruction Acts
the Congress reversed the roles of the people and the government. In other words the people became the slaves
of Congress. This is why they never repealed this Statute and allowed Congress to use the statutory words of
construction to rule the people with an iron hand. This Statute is the root of all people's problems with seizure
today, whether they are drugs, taxes, property condemnation and on and on.


THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ca. 60, 61. 1861.

Chap. LX.--An Act to confiscate Property used for lnsurrectionary Purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That if, during the present or any future insurrection against the Government of the United States,
after the President of the United States shall have declared, by proclamation, THAT THE LAWS OF THE
powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals
by law, any person or persons, his, her, or their agent, attorney, or employee, shall purchase or acquire, sell or
give, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffer the same to
be used or employed, in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or RESISTANCE TO THE LAWS, or any
person or persons engaged therein; or if any person or persons, being the owner or owners of any such property,
shall knowingly use or employ, or consent to the use or employment of the same as aforesaid, ALL SUCH

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That such PRIZES AND CAPTURE shall be condemned in the DISTRICT
OR CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES having jurisdiction of the amount, or IN ADMIRALTY IN ANY
DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SAME MAY BE SEIZED, or into which they may be taken and proceedings FIRST

Sec. 3..And be it further enacted, That the Attorney-General, or any district attorney of the United States in
which said property may at the time be, may institute the proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they
shall be wholly for the benefit of the United States; or any person may file an information with such attorney, in
which case the proceedings shall be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal parts.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That whenever hereafter, during the present insurrection against the
Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any State,
shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful
agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States, or shall be required or permitted by the person to
whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent, to work or to be employed in or upon any
fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever, against the
Government and lawful authority of' the United States, then, and in every such case, the person to whom such
labor or service is claimed to be due shall forfeit his claim to such labor, any law of the State or of the United
States to the contrary notwithstanding. And whenever thereafter the person claiming such labor or service shall
seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim that the person whose service or
labor is claimed had been employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States, contrary to
the provisions of this act.
Approved, August 6, 1861.

OBSTRUCTED," are self evident that if you oppose the IRC then you come under this war powers' statute and
as an enemy, have no rights. These are facts that anyone cannot dispute as the law is clear on this as are the

They cannot dispute the fact that under War Powers the President is commander-in- chief and is one of the
functions under the Constitution that the President can enforce. He does so under the flag showing the
jurisdiction of the commander-in-chief, that being the gold fringe on the flag. This is clear in the words of the

Now when you look at every court in America you will see that the commander-in-chief is exercising his
constitutional authority under the war power's acts. He also is exercising admiralty jurisdiction that is the supreme
authority under which gives him total authority as showed by these words, "PRIZES AND CAPTURE" shall be
condemned in the "DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES having jurisdiction of the
may be taken and proceedings FIRST INSTITUTED."

They clearly show this in the modern case of ; United States of America, Libelant v $3976.62 In Currency, One
1960 Ford Station Wagon, 37 F.R.D. 564;
Key 31. "Although presumably for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal Revenue
Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on the character of
civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control."
"On August 14, 1964 a `libel' of information' (see Supreme Court Admiralty Rule 21; 28 U.S.C. § 1355; 26 U.S.C.
7323) was filed by the United States Attorney." Ibid 565.

You see the use of the words "FIRST INSTITUTED" here. They say they commence it in admiralty, "first
made," then proceeds to the civil side. Well admiralty has two sides. The first is the"PRIZE CAPTURE" under
War Powers, then it goes to the civil side. Unless you know admiralty, it is too long to go into in this small article,
it is sufficing to say that is how they operate today. There are tens of thousands of pages that one must glean
from admiralty to understand the significance and how the President operates under admiralty when in the
capacity of the commander-in-chief in time of national emergency, sometimes called War Powers. That is why
some people say the flag is an admiralty flag. Really it is not. Technically it is the commander-in-chief's flag of
authority. Under War Powers, there is no separation of the three branches, they all come under the President.
Therefore, today ALL actions come under executive authority and the courts are under executive control, not
congressional legislative control. This is exactly as stated by the antifederalists, specifically Patrick Henry and
James Wilson when they said the constitution, NOT DRAFTED AND RATIFIED by ordinary people, "squinted
toward monarchy." Today people, that is exactly what they said would happen in 1788.

We have a dictator, the President, operating constitutionally under War Powers controlling every aspect of
your life. No, they do not suspend the constitution, the constitution exists exactly as they designed it. They have
eliminated your rights and you can "constitutionally" do nothing about it. As the declared enemy, you cannot
use the President's courts to effect a remedy when you "OPPOSE" and "RESIST the LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES." It is that simple under emergency/war power's acts. Congress is a major player because it was
CONGRESS that in 1867 decided to veto President Johnson's veto of the war powers act so they could continue
to control the people under the war power's act. Again, note how slyly they incorporated the capitalized words in
12 Stat 319 so they could take care of any future civil disturbance AND if anyone challenged the "LAWS" of
Congress, such as the internal revenue laws for example. When you oppose the IRC for being wrong and you are
not a taxpayer, or you do not need a license to travel or any other law then that is "RESISTANCE to that LAW."
Immediately you have become the "enemy" and then have no rights or as one court case, I think The Sally stated,
but there are others, have "no standing in judicio." That means when you take the IRS to court, or any other agency, as the enemy :resisting and opposing the laws," you lose automatically. That is where Rule 12 (b) (6) comes in. You have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Of course because at the "common law" everything was a "claim." Under present law, everything is an action. There is a difference and I suggest
you look up those terms as this article does not go into other avenues that branch out from here like an octopus'

The answer to why are judges predisposed on the government's side is found in the third paragraph of the 14th
amendment and Article VI of the Constitution. Under the President's control and pursuant to Article VI they took
an oath to uphold the Constitution, in time of war or peace. Since you are the "enemy" and you are in
"RESISTANCE and OPPOSED to the LAWS" that you challenge, they would be "aiding and abetting" the
"enemy" if ruling for you. Yes, it is that simple ONCE you understand the rules they are playing under. All the
rhetoric of the constitutional protections, Bill of Right Protections is so much "gutter trash" to them, that
sometimes they get down right nasty and sanction their own breed, attorneys, when they constantly bring up
these "frivolous" arguments. Do you not think that all attorneys should know what rules we are playing under?
Could it be that all attorneys play lip service to a constitution to give the illusion that it still exists and that
somewhere the magic argument will appear? This way the American people are none the wiser.

With the emergency powers still in effect, this is what President Wilson used to enter WWI, as there was no
direct threat to this Nation from Germany, BUT, there was to the Mother country with which we had a treaty.
Then in 1932 Roosevelt wanted to declare war on Japan because they would threaten the oil fields in China.
Rockefeller owned those oil fields. Roosevelt was told by his cabinet to hold back. Then, Roosevelt used the 12
Stat 319 to begin the "new" emergency powers of March 4, 1933. He then went to Congress on March 9, 1933 and
declared that they (him and the federal reserve) declared all the people the enemies of the banking system. It just
so happens that Rockefeller owned the Chicago Bank, and if the run was to take place he would lose everything
and have to sell part of those oil fields in China and Saudi Arabia to satisfy the depositor's demands. Those
depositors would be demanding their property that the banks could no longer return. Such being the case, the
federal Reserve System of banks sought the change in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 to include the
American, which, before they did not declare them the enemy. They totally rewrote section 5 (b) to include the
American. From that point on, all so called Wars, yes even the WWII was an action under the President's
constitutional authorization of 12 Stat 319 and subsequent powers delegated to him under the Reconstruction
Acts starting March 2, 1867.

Now you have the answers to what is and has happened to the American people. Truthfully, it started when
President Washington used the first "emergency power’s act" in 1791, so he could, unconstitutionally in peace
time, but constitutional in war time because it was "necessary" to install the first private bank in America. He then
set up each State as a "district State" so the United States could control through its "district courts" what it
could not do under the original constitution in time of peace. They took the physical State and overlaid it with a
fictitious "district state." That is why you have U.S. district courts in every State of the Union. James
Montgomery has documented this action, and I believe he has it posted on in his section
immediately below the Informer's section.

To get to the bottom of all your woes today, one must go back in time to see how they accomplished this. This
is why I have stated that IF the people, the common everyday people, had really drafted AND ratified their own
creation of a contract, do you think they would, or rather put you in their position, drafted such a damaging piece
of paper called the "Constitution?" I know I would not have. Especially the emergency powers part where once
the President took control, constitutionally mind you, that it would be the engine for total control. Such has been
the case since 1791. Patrick Henry and the other anti-federalists saw what was happening and the common
average man on the street, just like today, said it could not happen and allowed this to happen out of shear
ignorance. Today we have most of the people who have no clue what really took place. They cannot fathom why
they rape them repeatedly again and cannot claim their unalienable rights. They cannot understand why the
so-called Bill of Rights can no longer be used. They cannot understand why the Constitution that they thought
was theirs, is not, and cannot be used in the prize courts of admiralty. Simply stated, "enemies have no rights."

What is fascinating is this passage from Solicitor of Lincoln's War Department, William Whiting's book on War
Powers, where he wrote;

"The belligerent right of the government to confiscate enemy's real estates, situated in this country, can
hardly admit of question. The title is to no inconsiderable part of real estate in each of the original States of the
Union, rests upon the validity of confiscation acts, passed by our ancestors against loyal adherents to the crown.
Probably none of these States failed to pass and apply these laws. English and American acts of confiscation
were recognized by the laws of both countries, and their operation modified by treaties; their validity was never
denied. The only authority which either of the States or colonies ever had for passing such laws was derived
from the fact that they were belligerents."

Right here it is evident that the States, created the same way the United States was, by the aristocrats, would
consider themselves belligerents against the common man on the street who had no say in the drafting and
ratifying of any of the constitutions of any of the States. The common man had no money to speak of nor any
large amount of real property to be able to become a member of the contract called the State. In all the States you
had to have at least 500 pounds sterling or a land mass equivalent to that amount before becoming an elector or
even thinking of running for office. This is but another small proof that you and me, the common man of that era,
was considered as nothing. Just like we look at street bums of today, they looked at the common man. No dear
people, we were never considered part of their posterity and never drafted nor ratified any constitution. The
statement the constitution was "divinely inspired" is so far from the truth that it should be stated that it was the
"works of the devil."

I am only reporting my research. I am offering no remedy whatsoever. To offer a remedy would only invoke the
wrath of people whose reading of this would only be gut reaction and no solid evidence to substantiate their
stance that the facts speak for themselves.

Sincerely ,

The Informer

Sunday, March 07, 2004


As some of you may know there was a purported federal warrant issued against me on March 5th, 2004 for contempt of court for not complying with an order to file back tax returns and to resume withholding taxes from workers at my business. However there are extreme flaws in such orders and I wish to go over them and explain in some detail about why I think that these so-called orders were not issued to me but to a legal fiction. But before I do that and explain my position I want to make a few comments about the news article and a comment I received from Devvy Kidd who was up until recently, a principle of We the People.

I met Devvy around 1993 when she ran for Congress in my district and at the time I thought she had done some excellent work in exposing the fraud of the income tax. In fact, it was from her lips that alerted me to this fact. However, no useful information was forthcoming and I never knew the reason for what she thought was a fraud and I forgot about it for a few years. And it wasn't until I had access to the US Codes that I found out the reason why the income tax was a horrible hoax upon the American people.

Devvy made a comment to the effect that I should be smart enough not to fall for the strawman or redemption theory. This is because of the comments that I made to the effect that the order was made out to the legal fiction WALTER ALLEN THOMPSON OR WALTER A. THOMPSON OR Walter A. Thompson. However, in working various court cases of mine over the years, I have seen repeated fraudulent conversions of people's names into ALL CAPS thereby substituting the living soul or man into a corporate fiction which I'll explain in more detail later in this article. However, what Devvy and the rest of many of the "patriot" movement, if you want to call it that, is the continued reliance on defective information that has been provided to them by the likes of attorney Larry Becraft and others who are protecting the system rather than trying to make any effective changes. The so-called "patriot" movement for many years has been almost totally ineffective in
stopping this horrible fraud. Devvy and others like her seem to ignore critical facts necessary to effect meaningful changes in our system of government and thus fail to restore the Republic. There has been precious little support by Devvy for business owners like my self, Dick Simkanin, and Nick Jesson from the patriot movement All three of us and many other business owners have taken the position that without a clear definition and disclosure of any tax liability, we simply could not continue in good conscious withhold from the people's paychecks. Devvy and many in the "Tax Honesty" movement have not supported us and in fact have been a detriment in helping us to effect a change for the better. Their solutions make things worse and I'll explain this further in this article. The fact is that people in this movement do not know how to protect their rights a men and women but continue to be cannon fodder for a very corrupted "court" system. And it appears to me that this so-called patriot movement is loaded with people who are providing "controlled opposition" rather than a meaningful change for the betterment of all Americans. While I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I also realize that this doesn't happen by accident.

I'd like to mention that this whole mess has cause extreme hardship to myself and my family. My lovely wife of 32 years has filed for divorce of which I do not want. I can't stop her from doing this, but for the record, I love my wife Denise and
I do not want this divorce. I suspect that perhaps that people around her have helped put her up to this. I may also be that because of the constant inflow of information and paperwork has simply terrorized her to the point that she has broken down and is frightened by the result of my stand for the truth. Once I knew the truth, I could not go back to the
way things were. This has helped in destroying my marriage, business, and family.

So let's deal with some of the issues in my case so that everyone will have a better idea of what is really happening in our court system. We'll also examine how the DOJ with zero evidence of liability can continue to get convictions year after year, case after case.

The United States court system advertises that it operates as an Article III court. However, the essential elements of a claim or complaint are almost always missing. In my case, there was no verified complaint. The jurisdictional statement
was in gross error and it was incomplete. The NAMES listed were in ALL CAPS and thus reflected artificial entities rather than listing me as a living soul or a man. I may be addressed as Walter Allen, Thompson but not WALTER ALLEN THOMPSON. There is no contract in evidence between myself and the DOJ, USDC, or the Internal Revenue service.
There was also no statute listed in the alleged complaint that I had violated, and without a sworn complaint there was no reason for me to make any appearances. I have served upon the parties a Plea in Abatement which is non statutory and the goal of this document was to get the government to cure its defective process. As expected no response was
submitted by the government. Without the foundation of the case being set properly it was impossible for me to continue
with the case or even attempt to litigate it. In fact, in the Plea in Abatement I wanted to know what kind of court this
was, and I received no response. Does this sound familiar? In addition, there is a writ of habeas corpus on the record which is in accordance with the common law and this of course is completely ignored by the DOJ and the USDC.

In all of the elements of this case, none match any form of lawful due process. They have the appearance of it, but it appears to me that this "court" system operates under the color of law. If there is a lawful remedy it is being hidden by corrputed judges and attorneys.


Whenever someone gets a paper from the court he'll see his name rendered ALL IN CAPS. However, any proper noun
is to be rendered in upper and lower case. This rule of grammer is also reflected in the Governemt Style Manual.
In the body of the case the name is usually correct in that they use upper and lower case. So what's going on here?

When I first heard of this a few years ago, I thought it was very strange and that the people who brought this issue up
were a bit odd. However, I don't discount anything until I examine the issue for myself.

Upon working various court cases, I tried to render the name properly in upper and lower case in the caption of the case. However, on any return paperwork the name was returned in ALL CAPS. I would then respond in upper case and lower
case in the caption of the case, and again the paperwork was returned in ALL CAPS. In fact, we've seen instances where case numbers were changed or new cases rendered in response to our paperwork that indicated that the court system itself cannot deal with real men and women and that the use of ALL CAPS is very deliberate and diabolical. Just look at
any driver's license, passport, utility bill, or any other document and you'll see that the name is almost always ALL IN CAPS.

So what's going on here? I believe that this has been an ongoing fraudulent conversion in converting a real live, sentient man or woman into a fiction of law. Fictions have no rights; only real men or women. In order to overcome the barrier of
these rights the court system converts the real man or woman into a fiction and then gets the man to consent or "volunteer" to become security for the ALL CAPS NAME. Once the man accepts this fraudulent conversion he now gives
"consent" to the defective process and his rights are violated in a routine manner in the "court" system. This is a form
of an unconscionable contract that deprives the man of any due process because he volunteered, consented, or contracted into the defective process. However, there's no room for complaining because the man consented to become a slave albeit it is based upon a fraud. A man or woman has rights; fictions do not. Our rights come from the Creator and not from any government document. The government is supposed to be restrained by the foundational documents but the state is not the source of our rights.

So now that the fraudulent conversion is accepted, there is no need for any lawful due process. There does not need
to be any verified complaint, disclosed liability, competent witness, bill of particulars, or any other restraint put on the government by any of the foundational documents. The court is now free to do what it wants, when it wants to its victim and there is no end to this fraud. The courts as we see them now appear to not be able to function as courts of law, but it appears to me that they operate under a form of presumed contract. The biggest part of this fraud is that the presumption is never disclosed by the courts.

So the purpose in challenging the name is designed to protect my rights as a living man. To admit to being the
artificial person opens the door to a defective process that will not only deprive me of my rights, but will put me in the positon of being a corporate fiction and thus I would become the property of the state. Once I become the property of the state, the state can now do what it wants with its property. By accepting an artificial persona I would have put myself
in the position of VOLUNTARY servitude. I believe that this is how the government converts living men into slaves. A slave has no rights but only privileges. Just hearing the words, "5th Amendment" privilege ought to give one a clue. Since
when do we have a "privilege" instead of rights? Men and women have rights, slaves have privileges.

In this particular case I have exercised my right of avoidance and I will continue to challenge the NAME/name as a first line of defense of my rights as a living breathing man on the land. Thus any warrant, court document or order must contain my proper Christian appellation Walter Allen, Thompson in the caption of any case regarding me. Anything less than that
makes any paperwork from any "court" null and void from the beginning.

I'll have more on this case as it progresses.

Al Thompson