Forrest Frederick Bishop November 18th, 2004

P.O. Box 30121

Seattle, Washington, 98113



The various attempts, executive, judicial, as well as legislative, to compel alleged persons to testify against themselves, appear to be unlawful on multiple counts. A proposed, criminal, color-of-law indicator of "Evidence Conversion" is introduced below.

The contemporary pogrom of alleged social-engineering, color-of-crime prosecutions, and its associated American Gulag, have also become a concern to a number of alleged law-enforcement officers. The tax-payer abuse noted below is the effect of inquisitorial Soviet-style alleged laws and procedures enabled by, and for, the enfranchisement of tax-consumers, not the cause. The alleged police are simply serving and protecting themselves and their alleged masters, to the detriment of others. The DUI ‘industry’ is steeped in fraud, as is shown below.

An interesting article has come to my attention:

I have debated writing this article for months. I am a strong supporter of law enforcement, and I have an extensive background in law enforcement. Even now, I have a number of conflicts which cause me great concern with how the information I am about to impart to you will be used. I do not want to enable the criminals in our society to thwart justice, but I am committed to protecting the innocent from what appears to be an explosion of police abuse. In a case like this, I choose to protect the citizens. I will start with law enforcement contacts with regard to traffic stops for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that we are not to be forced to incriminate ourselves. The actual wording is that you cannot be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself. If you are stopped for suspicion of DUI, these are your rights, regardless of the laws of your
First, you are to deny having consumed any alcoholic beverages whatsoever. You are never to admit to having one or two drinks. If you admit to consuming even one drop of alcohol, you open the door to probable cause, allowing the police officer to search your vehicle for open containers. Next, you are never to submit to a field sobriety test. You are to refuse to do so. They cannot make you walk the line, balance or anything else. If arrested, you are to refuse to allow a blood or breath test, regardless of what state law requires, such as revocation of driving privileges for a period of time.

That is an attempt to compel you to be a witness against yourself.

Supreme Court decisions in this area are quite specific with regard to your rights as follows:
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (19 73). "The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding civil or criminal formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings….". McCarthy v. Arndstein 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S. Ct. 16, 17, 69 L.Ed 158 (1924), squarely held that "the privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant." Maness v. Myers, 95 S Ct. 584, 419 US 449 (1975). "...where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is Involved ... This Court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later maybe used against him as an accused in a criminal action... The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution. Hoffman v. United States, 341 US. 479, 486, 71 S. Ct. 814, 818, 95L. Ed. 1] 18 (1951). "
"In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U S 441, 92 S Ct. 1653, 32 LEd.212 (1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Id., at444, 92 S.Ct., at 1656; Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 US. 70, 77, 94 S. Ct. 316,322, 38 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1973)...
Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 384 US 436 (1966). "We have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination --- the essential mainstay of our adversary system-is founded on a complex of values ... To maintain a fair state individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load ... to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce [the] evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth... [in] sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will."
"...there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside. of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves."
Please also note: The above, as stated by the Supreme Court, are rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution, and anyone (including judges) who knowingly violates those rights may be civilly and criminally liable under several federal statutes. Please see: United States Code, Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against rights), and Section 242 (Deprivation of
rights under color of law); Title 42 Section 1983 - Section 1986 (Civil Rights). Most attempts to pursue action under these laws fail, but very skilled litigators with good factual circumstances can sometimes get some satisfaction. However, if more individuals were to understand the above
rights and exercise them at the appropriate times, more successful litigation could be the outcome.
Okay, you got that? You cannot be forced to provide evidence against yourself, …[end excerpt]

-- By Carl F. Worden



We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious

is the first duty of intelligent men. -George Orwell

This piece of evidence-of-lex:
RCW 46.61.506
Persons under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug -- Evidence -- Tests -- Information concerning tests.

(1) Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, if the person's alcohol concentration is less than 0.08, it is evidence that may be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.

-allows 0.00% to be "liberally construed" as evidence, and as evidence of drug use to boot. This "Evidence Conversion" has been claimed to have occurred by several DUI-charge victims in several cases cited below. This is repugnant to the due process provisions in the alleged Constitution of the United States, and in the alleged Washington Constitution: A cannot be rationally used as evidence of B, when A and B have no causal linkage.

This specimen:

RCW 46.61.517
Refusal of test -- Admissibility as evidence.

The refusal of a person to submit to a test of the alcohol or drug concentration in the person's blood or breath under RCW 46.20.308 is admissible into evidence at a subsequent criminal trial.

-fails on the grounds stated in the Supreme Court decisions cited above:

Considering the LACK of compelled testimony to be admissible as evidence converts that LACK of evidence into evidence, (Evidence Conversion) which in turn was compelled, since the human being in question was being detained under the implied threat of injury or death. This concept of Compelled-Evidence Conversion has further ramifications, not the least of which is the action of the message encoded. "Refusal to summit" is a charge for a slave-"person".

Adding in this alleged provision:

RCW 46.61.506
Persons under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug -- Evidence -- Tests -- Information concerning tests.

…(4)…(b) For purposes of this section, "prima facie evidence" is evidence of sufficient circumstances that would support a logical and reasonable inference of the facts sought to be proved. In assessing whether there is sufficient evidence of the foundational facts, the court or administrative tribunal is to assume the truth of the prosecution's or department's evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to the prosecution or department….

-capriciously implies that the compelled LACK of evidence constitutes a foundational fact, of say alcohol, PCP, or cocaine use, or maybe other whatever chemical compounds such as aspirin or dihydrogen monoxide. This built-in partiality also encroaches upon and compromises the alleged immunity of the alleged Judge, who may have sworn an oath to the contrary.

Compounding the already vitiated due process of law achieved by the above with this, from:

A Juror's Guide Welcome to jury service! How was I chosen?

4. DO listen carefully to the instructions read by the judge. Remember, it is your duty to accept what the judge says about the law to be applied to the case…

precludes the most critical duty of jury nullification of destructive lex, leaving no exit for a runaway judicial system. Rules of evidence are also alleged to be law. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom for fugitive slaves, and many other unalienable, natural rights were reaffirmed and reinforced by the unalienable process of jury nullification. This alleged jury rule appears to be unlawful, and unethical, in addition to undermining the basis of civilization itself. The rise in color-of-crime is the result of these kinds of practices, not the cause. One quarter of Earth’s prison population is in the American Gulag: put there by the machinations of the 94% of Earth’s alleged lawyers that are allegedly American. The claim that "it is your duty to accept" is wide open to challenges, as are the apparently undisclosed presumptions of implied contract.

Noting now the doctrine of liberal construction:

RCW 1.12.010 Code to be liberally construed.

The provisions of this code shall be liberally construed, and shall not be limited by any rule of strict construction.

-which, taken together with the above alleged jury rule and alleged RCWs, appears to mean the alleged Judge can claim the law is anywhere within the bounds of whatever he thinks the evidence and law happens to be that day. This suffices to fully eliminate even any pretense of Due Process, regardless of the specific decision of any particular alleged Judge.

Additionally, the doctrine of liberal construction, combined with the alleged Court Rules, appears to run afoul of the Preamble to the Articles of Amendment to the alleged Constitution of the United States, which states in relevant part:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.…"

Additionally, the alleged Supreme Court cases cited above err in asserting ‘"...where the Fifth Amendment privilege…" As shown in the language of the Preamble to the Articles of Amendment, the Sixth, Fifth, Fourth, and several others Articles and Clauses, are not "privileges" granted, they are restrictions placed on the behavior of the tax-consumer. They are not "civil rights" per se; they are bases for remedy. These kinds of assertions also meet the criteria of Evidence Conversion, enabled by the evident omission of the Preamble and Title. Exercise for the reader: try to find this Preamble in any alleged law publication.

As a front note, the rifling of unalienable, private property at the door of the courthouse is also a compelled, unwarranted search, and may additionally be construed as compelled testimony, by the actions and effect of the appearance order of the court. Additionally, the presumptive basis for installing this police-state machinery has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be fraudulent. Additionally, this squanders tax-payer’s alleged money and constitutes a public nuisance.

Additionally, the inquisitorial, compulsion-by-veiled-threat of a Soviet-style, alleged, psychiatric "alcohol evaluation" upon arraignment constitutes compelled testimony. The linguistic gymnastics employed to disavow this Inquisition are noticed. The compulsion of testimony, and the other such pains and penalties, issued by court order before a verdict has been rendered, have all the indicia of a Bill of Pains and Penalties, the non-capital version of a Bill of Attainder, also unlawful. These indicia are 1) Specificity in identification, 2) Punishment, and 3) Lack of judicial trial. This is in violation of the aforementioned, alleged Constitutions.

Additionally, the alleged "Victim’s Panel" that the DUI scapegoat is forced to attend has direct precedents in the "class-consciousness" re-education sessions of Mao-Tse Tung’s Red China, as well as in the soviets (village committees) of the USSR.

Additionally, the alleged provision in-

RCW 46.20.308 Implied consent […to be searched] -- Test refusal -- Procedures.

(2) (a) If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's license, permit, or privilege to drive will be revoked or denied for at least one year; and

(b) If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's refusal to take the test may be used in a criminal trial; and

(c) If the driver submits to the test and the test is administered, the driver's license, permit, or privilege to drive will be suspended, revoked, or denied for at least ninety days…

-also exhibits the compulsion and coercion of testimony (aka submission), by way of a lower penalty for testifying against one’s self, as well as exhibiting the mark of Evidence Conversion.

In the same, alleged statute, the unspeakably immoral desecration of the dead, sans permission of next-of-kin, in addition to the compelled sucking of blood and other bodily fluids from the living as well as the dead, is noticed. Ongoing research into the more communitarian aspects of certain dictatorships has so far failed to evidence an equivalent. Human experimentation conducted by tax-consumers alleged to be variously associated with Imperial Rome, Imperial Spain, the Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People’s Republic of China, the United States of America, National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi) Germany, and so forth, have some similarities, but fails equivalence due to minor differences in opportunity, in motive, and in method. The hearsay concerning ‘Vlad the Impaler’, appears to be the closest analogy, outside of some contemporary, vulgar fiction.

Additionally, the thoughts that produced the patterns of contrasting colors evidenced by-

RCW 46.20.308 … (4) Any person who is dead, unconscious, or who is otherwise in a condition rendering him or her incapable of refusal, shall be deemed not to have withdrawn the consent provided by subsection (1) of this section and the test or tests may be administered, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, and the person shall be deemed to have received the warnings required under subsection (2) of this section.

-are so demented that I am at a loss for words.

There is a different, unrelated issue concerning RCW 46.61.506 Section (4)(b): that by "[assuming] the truth of the prosecution's or department's evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to the prosecution or department…", the prosecutor, along with the judge, and possibly the jury, is placed in jeopardy of violation under US Kalina v. Fletcher, (1997), in addition to raising the prospect of other remedies, such as under the USC Title 18 exposure noted above, by introducing possible elements of fraud, malice, caprice, covin and collusion. This prospect of remedial actions, or suits in law, available in the various federal and international courts of mandatory jurisdiction, is noticed.

Additionally, and critically, the underlying basis of alleged legislative intent was formed and driven under the influence of fraudulent information provided by certain alleged members of alleged legal entities, cited below. This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Fraudulent altruism poisons and vitiates every human action and contract it touches, as well as any alleged "public confidence".

Additionally, the penalties dished out by the alleged courts for refusing to consent to being searched while under duress add, and abet, yet another element of unwarranted compulsion.

Additionally, the unfounded compounding of one charge with another into the same alleged statute, and furthermore into the same alleged charge, may introduce the criminal elements of malice, caprice, and fraud.

Additionally, there is a swarm of other defects of theory, practice, form, and process arising from, and orbiting the nexus thereof, the commercial and presumptive fiduciary relations.


U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187. "Because what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for the law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance."

Butler v. Collins, 12 Cal. 457, 463. "Consent in law is more than mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake."

Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722 "There is a difference between `consent' and `submission', but it by no means follows that a mere submission involves consent."

Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 301 U.S. 292 "acquiescence in loss of fundamental rights will not be presumed."

Emspak v. United States, 349 US 190. "the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights."

Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1983) "A waiver of constitutional rights in any contractual language relied upon must on its face amount to a waiver."



The Architecture of Modern Political Power

"This document articulates the nature of the modern western establishment, its methods and goals, and their final consequences…

"… For comparison, the ruse by which the modern establishment ducks accountability is the committee, and the members of these committees believe they wield god-like powers to command humanity and define right and wrong. A key commonality is a pathological inability to recognize that the laws of nature are constant..."

"Perhaps the greatest of school's illusions is that the institution was launched by a group of kindly men and women who wanted to help the children of ordinary families—to level the playing field, so to speak…."

ORDER OUT OF CHAOS Elite Sponsored Terrorism & The New World Order by Paul Joseph Watson



PAINFUL QUESTIONS: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack by Eric Hufschmid

WAR AND GLOBALISATION The Truth Behind September 11th by Michel Chossudovsky

THE NEW PEARL HARBOR Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin, foreword by Richard Falk

DARK ALLIANCE The CIA, The Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion by Gary Webb, forward by U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters


[Note- time and space limitations precluded the inclusion of the many tens of thousands of other available authorities, in this section as well as other.]



The DUI Gulag - The purpose of CAWA and this webpage is limited to educating the public about DUI related issues and providing information and support for otherwise law abiding citizens who have been criminalized by unnecessary, draconian, Low BAC drinking driver laws

Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc. (R.I.D.L.)

Submitted Stories "Many abuses are [occurring] with DUI arrests. Over 1.6 million people are being arrested annually. Most of whom committed no actual crime and did not hurt anyone. Here are some real-life stories from some DUI Arrest Victims that describe some of the problems, abuses and emotional fallout occurring because of the new laws…."

NHTSA FARS Database - This is the division of the United States Department of Transportation where RIDL gets its data.

Muckraker Report - A site dedicated to discussing all social and constitutional topics.

True Believer - A Santa Barbara Lawyer dares to explore the madd, madd world of DUI - This web site provides information related to Driver's Rights,
DUI laws, the Anti-Alcohol Movement, & Prohibition

Drinkers Against Madd Mothers - Within these pages you'll see precisely how [through statistical games, deceptive language, secret compacts, etc.] the American public has been duped in one of the most successful propaganda campaigns ever seen.



The American Jury Institute and Fully Informed Jury Association


"Our mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers, and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law…As I am sure you know, the highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking government-authored law, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical laws imposed by a power-hungry government…."



"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty."

(1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

JURY NULLIFICATION, by Julian Heicklen


"Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact." In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson noted, in his Philadelphia law lectures of 1790, that when "a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that ‘the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.’" [This appears to be sufficient to void the alleged jury rule cited above.]



The 1685 Bill of Attainder of James, Duke of Monmouth, for High Treason:

"WHEREAS James Duke of Monmouth has in an hostile manner invaded this kingdom, and is now in open rebellion, levying war against the king, contrary to the duty of his allegiance; Be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons in this parliament assembled, and the authority of the same, That the said James Duke of Monmouth stand and be convicted and attained for high treason, and that he suffer pain of death, and incur all forfeitures as a traitor convicted and attained of high treason." - 1 Jacob 2, c.2 (1685) [A most excellent adventure indeed!]

Cummings vs. Missouri, 4 U.S. 323 (1866); [Clergymen were barred from the ministry in the absence of subscribing to a loyalty oath.]

10 and 11 William 3, c. 13 (1701) "An Act for continuing the Imprisonment of Counter ["Counter" is the criminal's name] and others, for the late horrid Conspiracy to assassinate the Person of his sacred Majesty."

Cooper vs. Telfair, 4 Dallas 14 (1800). "...all and every the persons, named and included in the said act [declaring persons guilt of treason] are banished from the said state [Georgia]."

See also Kennedy vs. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, at 168 (footnote #23), (1963).

James Claim, 1 Dallas 47 (1780); "John Parrock was attained of High Treason, and his estate seized and advertised for sale" [historical interest- prelude to US Constitutional convention.]

Respublica vs. Gordon, 1 Dallas 233 (1788); "... attained for treason for adhering to the King of Great Britain, in consequences of which his estate was confiscated to the use of the commonwealth..."

Richard Nixon vs. The Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, at 473 (1976) "The infamous history of Bills of Attainder is a useful point in the inquiry whether the Act fairly can be characterized as a form of punishment leveled against appellant. For the substantial experience of both England and the United States with such abuses of parliamentary and legislative power offers a ready checklist of deprivations and disabilities so disproportionately severe and so inappropriate to nonpunitive ends that they unquestionably have been held to fall within the proscription of Article I, Section 9."

United States vs. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, at footnote #30 (1967) [Discussion of indicia of Bills of Attainder, Pains, & Penalties.]


Ira Nudd vs George Burrows, 91 U.S. 426, at 440 (1875) "Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It affects fatally even the most solemn judgments and decrees."

United States vs. Sam Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, at 64 (1878) "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments"

U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977)

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately."

Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). "Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth."

Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added) –Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 594.

McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307

Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.