There are almost as many traps laid out to ensnare unsuspecting citizens as there are government regulations for "our own good." The procedures are varied but the end result is usually the same: You did something or failed to do something which is then construed to be an acknowledgment that you volunteered.
Government bureaucrats are not going to meet you head on. They invariably try to have buffers in the game to take the brunt of your criticisms and retaliations when you discover that they are trying to control you or take your property.
Most government agents you encounter will eventually say "I don't make the laws, I just carry out my orders." It is a little like a good-guy, bad-guy team you see on the TV cop shows --- one is your courteous, concerned friend and is trying to protect you from the other, violent, impatient cop.
When the State of Arizona decided it wanted more control over every aspect of life in that state, the bureaucrats formed a Water Management Control Agency. Water, in any state and especially in the Southwest, is one item of extreme importance. Range wars were fought in the old west to establish water rights. Men have died fighting over simple water holes or creeks.
Since the Arizona property owners have deeded rights to water included with their land deeds, the state was hard pressed to try and control the water. The legal experts quietly agreed and said that attempting to enforce such rules would violate the property rights of the people.
The Water Management people were about to be put out of a job unless they found a way to wrest control of the water in Arizona. Bruce Babbitt, then governor of the Arizona, later appointed as Secretary of the Interior by the Clinton Administration, took "credit" for coming up with the solution. He urged the water controllers to file a lawsuit claiming that they were responsible for protecting the water of the state. They sued every property owner for title. To further their cause they sent out notices (somewhat vague) to every property owner, via Certified Mail, that each was named in the pending lawsuit. At the same time the various water companies of the state notified their customers that the water company would protect their rights and they would not have to answer the lawsuit.
If you haven't guessed, the result was a quiet, voluntary default judgment against the water owners (property owners) with title and control of water passing to the government bureaucrats. When strictly enforced this program allows the watercrats to dictate regarding who will do what and where. They have complete control over most property unless the owner can find a way to "personally drill" a well or use the land without water or waste. In this case the court will be used as the buffer. Subsequent court decisions will use the legal maxim of STARE DECISIS to continue with this abuse of private property and the legal system.
Simply stated, the rule of STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE, means "let the decision stand and do not disturb things which have been settled." It could also be construed to mean "We've made up our collective minds and we do not want to be confused with more facts."
Courts are gutless when they refuse to hear arguments of law as well as variations of facts. They fall back on precedent to avoid making a decision which will upset their own little world. Dispensing justice is often ignored as a purpose of the courts if it means going against the principle of "stare decisis." Such a legal maxim can be used to trick otherwise honest and competent judges into going along with rules which are contrary to the laws and the Constitution.
When you find yourself subjected to adjudication by a commissioner or arbitrator (even those calling themselves "judge"), rather than by a real judge in a real court of law, you are being exposed to Principled Adjudication --a theory which the U.S. Supreme Court approves of and follows, allowing a designated officer of the court to make decisions based on the principle of Stare Decisis (Chapter 15). Usually such kangaroo tribunals can be avoided if you are tenacious and demand a trial by a qualified court of competent jurisdiction. It is the court's method of providing buffers for the judges.
In Monroe County, Florida, which is made up of hundreds of small and medium sized tropical islands or keys (Florida Keys), the State bureaucrats technically ordered THE COUNTY to stop issuing building permits to anyone until it complied with a Federal Housing & Urban Development (HUD) program. The HUD plan is to trick every city and county in the nation to submit Master Plans for their area. The Master Plans are then construed to be a voluntary commitment on the part of local government. Local officials are then told by State Officials (the buffers) that they must do certain things to comply with the Master Plan.

When Monroe County officials heard that they were supposed to cease issuing building permits, they sent a formal question to the State and HUD officials. The letter asked "Is it true that we are ordered to stop issuing building permits as of July lst?" That is the interpretation the local officials had placed on the information they received. The State of Florida did not reply. HUD officials did not answer the question. The County had asked the question wrong --- or right --- depending on your point of view. If they had merely asked, "Is it true that we are not supposed to issue any more building permits after July 1st?" the State and HUD would have promptly responded "Yes!"
The State and HUD did not have authority to order Monroe County to violate the property rights of its citizens by denying them permits to build on their property. Such a procedure might collapse the theory that any government agency has any real authority to dictate what a person may do with his own private property. As long as the property is not utilized in direct violation of deed restrictions or zoning rules which existed at the time of purchase, they can do anything they want. If the government, at any level, or a neighbor believes the use is detrimental to the property rights of others, then they have the burden of proof to take the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction and prove it.
If Monroe County refuses to issue building permits, which most people believe they are required to have, the county officials are acting innocently. The county believes it is under orders from higher up. County officials become the buffer between the property owners and the state, while the state is the buffer between the county and HUD to enforce the HUD rules.
Similar tactics are used to enforce the "Wetlands Act" and to take private property rights via the creation of so-called Marine Sanctuaries.
Big Brother bureaucrats appear to prefer introducing their twisted programs in fast growing areas such as Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Southern Texas and Southern California. One disgruntled government employee who retired said it was because the people don't have old roots and contacts in those states. They are less likely to have a close relative in a position of authority within local government and less likely to be inclined to organize a group to fight and resist efforts to reduce their rights.
In 1990 the Florida Keys came under a scurrilous attack by Federal and State government when they attempted to use the same type of tricks used in HUD takeovers. Officially the entire area was declared a "Marine Sanctuary" and a citizen's group was appointed to determine the methods which would be employed to carry out the protection of the "sanctuary."
This will be used to help major hotel firms take-over valuable lands to build more hotels; make lobster fishing too expensive and thereby open the door to foreign interests to ship "farmed lobster" into the U.S. without resistance.
When anti-smoking crusaders in Congress wanted to pass rules which could not be challenged in court, a rider was attached to an appropriations bill authorizing the bureaucrats to adopt rules regarding smoking on flights within the U.S. The rider, circumvented the requirement that hearings be held regarding planned rule-making which would affect a large portion of the population. It authorized the agency to adopt rules to prevent anyone from smoking on airlines.
The rules were adopted quickly "to prohibit the pilot from turning off the No Smoking light" on flights of less than 2 hours and then changed to include all flights under 6 hours duration (that means all flights). Those who were inclined to challenge such regulations (NOT LAWS) would need time to prepare a case. If anyone did get to court within a year, it would be dismissed for some reason or another. Eventually, the theory was that since AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL is limited to a specific time frame it is dead after that time. That means the bureaucrats no longer had the authority to impose rules which prohibited smoking on airlines. If challenged in court, the judge would merely rule that since there was no such valid rule which "prohibited smoking," the litigant was in court VOLUNTARILY and would rule for what the judge perceived to be PUBLIC GOOD.
Another example of usurping the Rights of the people is the Class Action Lawsuit. When properly filed, the Court orders publication of a public notice which will (they presume) preclude anyone else from ever filing a lawsuit under these particular circumstances. The idea is to make your claim now or forever be on the outside.
Such lawsuits are a favorite ploy of manufacturers who are suddenly being exposed to numerous lawsuits for knowingly putting out an unsafe product. It is far cheaper to defend one big lawsuit than a thousand small ones. Invariably there is an out of court settlement and it is implied that all litigants must accept the decision of the lawyers and the court in final settlement. The ideal situation is for the company in question to get some friendly lawyers to file a class action in Federal Court (one fight). If the company is concerned about the outcome, they can get lawyers to file class action lawsuits in every state (50 fights) and then appeal the unfavorable decisions. It is certainly cheaper than having to go to court with every litigant.

If you have a business and you want to protect yourself, come to an agreement for penalties (civil sanctions) or settlement with some government agency. Firestone did it and profited millions by admitting it had put out a defective steel-belt radial tire. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) entered into an agreement with Firestone lawyers and "ordered" the tire manufacturer to replace all the defective tires. Since it was not possible to do them all at once, they were given time. The serial numbers of the tires effected would not be made public until they were actually recalled for replacement. In every case, the tires were not recalled until they had been on the road for over 4 years. Four years? How many cars have 4-year old tires with tread left?
When actually called in, the tires were only adjusted for remaining tread life. If someone did show up with good tires on the car, they had to take an upgrade since that recalled tire was no longer manufactured. End result--profits for Firestone! They broke the rules and they won!
The Miranda decision orders that an accused must be informed of his rights. The Supreme Court ruled "...a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused...." Can't we, the non-criminals, be given similar consideration by the courts?
The Courts say we cannot! That is their ruling. If you give the court jurisdiction, you will lose. Unless your lawyer is on his toes, he will volunteer you to enter into the twisted system almost every time you consult him. You must pay close attention to every word and phrase uttered by a bureaucrat or court or you may find yourself volunteering to become a slave to government.

POINT TO PONDER

The information about volunteering is not new. Ayn Rand, a noted philosopher and author, used much of her famous novel, "Atlas Shrugged", to make similar points when government tricks became obvious to her in the l940's.
At one point in her book the scenario went like this as the government tried to control the hero's special technique for making metal. The scene is a courtroom where a three judge panel has summoned Hank Reardon. He has just been advised that cases of this nature are not tried by a jury, but are tried by a three judge panel appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. Reardon has just refused to enter a plea:

"Do you..." the judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself on the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognize this court's right to try me."
"What?"
Hank Reardon repeated his statement.
"But, Mr. Reardon, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognize my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your metal."
"I do not recognize your right to control the sale of my metal."
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law --- to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
The dialogue in Ayn Rand's novel continues between Reardon and the court for another page and then the court questions if he is aware of the gravity of the charges against him and the sentence he could receive.
Reardon challenges the panel to impose their sentence.
"This is unprecedented," one of the judges said.
"It is completely irregular," said the second judge. "The law requires you to submit a plea in your own defense. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself on the mercy of the court."
"I do not."
"But you have to."
"Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?"
"Yes."
"I volunteer nothing."
"But the law demands that defendant's side be represented on the record."
"Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?"
"Well, no...yes...that is, to complete the form."
"I will not help you."
The exchange continues until the oldest judge smiles condoningly and says, "Mr. Reardon, it is regrettable that you should have misunderstood us so completely. That's the trouble --- that businessmen refuse to approach us in a spirit of trust and friendship. They seem to imagine that we are their enemies. Why do you speak of human sacrifices? What made you go to such an extreme? We have no intention of seizing your property or destroying your life. We do not seek to harm your interests."

The insight Ayn Rand had in realizing what government was doing in the late 1940's and early 1950's is displayed in the books she wrote at that time. A better understanding of the attitudes which prevail among bureaucrats today, can be best developed by reading this great classic-- ATLAS SHRUGGED, New American Library, Signet Books, Hardcover Edition from Random House.