Chapter 7 - The Coloring Agreement Approach

 

Background

Many libertarian and patriot pro se litigants have had their Constitutional arguments rejected by a Federal judge, with the words "We won’t have that document in this courtroom; this is an Admiralty court, not a court of law!" Don Smith, a pro se "attorney-in-fact," has devised an approach that may get around this problem. He calls it "The Coloring Agreement." The idea is to make the Constitution and the Bill of Rights colorable law in Admiralty jurisdiction. In this way, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are simply contractual provisions that can be enforced in an Admiralty court. This is a kind of "Chinese box" approach to the Constitution, whereby:

 

• The Constitution encompasses Admiralty jurisdiction, and

• Admiralty jurisdiction encompasses the Uniform Commercial Code, and

• The U.C.C. encompasses contracts, including the "coloring agreement" and

• The "coloring agreement" encompasses the Constitution, once again!

Instructions
If a Federal, state or local official violates your rights (or credibly threatens to do so), take the Coloring Agreement (Appendix B.5), substitute your name and the name of the government official in question, and be sure to substitute all references to Arizona law with those of your own state or locality. If the presentee is a Federal official, you may choose to omit the references to state law.

 

Present the Coloring Agreement to the official in question, either in person or by certified mail. If the official is under oath to defend the Constitution of the United States (or the state in question), (s)he is bound by the agreement, whether or not (s)he accepts it or dishonors it. Present the agreement up to three times. If it is returned (dishonored) each time, then you may sue to compel him/her to accept it, based upon the oath of office.

 

Don Smith expands upon the theory as follows: "The object is to create a civil contract (not tort) liability for the government agent for violating your constitutional rights, which rights are probably not part of the agreement that you signed, and is the reason the government agent is bothering you in the first place. This will likely have a chilling effect on the agent’s activities toward you; i.e., you will probably not hear from him again . . .

 

"For any violation, simply file contract (not tort) action to recover the amount specified in the Coloring Agreement’s schedule. If the violator is a Federal sworn employee, sue in U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Pl N.W., Washington, D.C. . . .

 

"When The Beast invades [your] rights thereafter, your suit is in CONTRACT instead of equity. If IRS is involved, this moves the case into the Court of Claims, if over $10,000, sounding in admiralty-instance. Under $10,000, the District Court sits as a Court of Claims to enforce the contract dispute if a federal defendant, and if the case sounds in admiralty-instance . . . You WANT TO BE IN ADMIRALTY, not equity, since you don’t have any ‘squish’ in the decision of the court. The same can be done in state court, sounding in admiralty-instance. You need only characterize your pleading as a complaint in the way of libel. Libels may be used for judgments as well as prize. You want strict enforcement of the contract. You don’t want equity civil rights enforcement . . .

 

"If the government employee/official ignores the Coloring Agreement and proceeds to violate the rights you have established by contract, you may file a Commercial Lien against him . . . " [for a sample lien see Appendix B.8].

 

Smith points out that this approach only creates an agreement between you and the specific government official involved. He also states that it will only work if the official has sworn an oath of office; otherwise the official will simply dishonor the agreement. However, if the official is not under an oath of office, this can still have a chilling effect.

 

Imagine an official pleading, in court, to have the agreement set aside because he (the official) has not sworn an oath of office! This creates many "embarrassing issues." For example, if the official is not under oath, is he an impostor, acting in his own capacity? If not, who does he really work for? Are all his official acts legally void? Should all prisoners prosecuted by him/her be released from prison? Rather than open up such a "can of worms," the "oathless" official is much more likely to drop matters and leave you alone.

 

Don Smith writes a newsletter, "Writ Rap." To obtain a copy, send SASE to Don Smith, nRa, c/o General Delivery, Laveen 39, Arizona. For back issues or teleconference, send one unopened roll of stamps to the same address, and you will receive three 720 kB disks (Word Perfect 4.2 format). All of Mr. Smith’s material used in this manual is reproduced with permission.

 

Chapter 8