Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 10:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Shellie West
The attached is in three parts. The document indicates a relationship with
the Monetary System imposed by the federal Reserve Board and the Courts
Jurisdictions.
I would like to hear from DONAOL on this, as to a lawyer's perspective on
what sounds very complex as far as the way the court rule vis-a-vis the
Universal Commercial Code and the Bill of Rights.
.....
Offline Xpress Message Folder File - Created on 1994-06-09
Date: 1994-06-07,18:46
From: TOM JEFFREY
To: ALL
Subject: This Will *SCARE* YOU!!
Response To: ALL CONCERNED AMERICANS
Most of you have not seen my name in this echo for many months. I've
been kind of busy, but something has come to my attention that I feel I
must share with the readership of this ehco. Please redistribute this as
far and wide as you can. Our nation may depend on it.
Following this message is an article I obtained from the Accociated
Conservatives of Texas. I would ask that we all put politics asside for
awhile and consider this matter. Politics is not the issue here. Control
is. I'm convinced by some of this information that this country is in
far worse shape than anyone in the political system is willing to admit
because they are far to close to it and dependant on it. Please weigh
these thing carefully and let me know what you think.
Please excuse any formating problem which may make this hard to read. I
got this from one computer and ported it another and I'm now sending it
out through an off-line reader to bust it into parts.
Subject: The U.C.C. Connectio 1/11
THE UCC CONNECTION
" I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves,
be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."
This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of
a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make
available
the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible
and understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and
the courts. It should be helpful to those who may have difficulty learning
from such lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of
this information without having to listen to three or four hours of
recorded
material. The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can
be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like most fear, is based on
lack
of understanding or knowledge. Those of us who have chosen a path out of
bondageand into liberty are faced, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical
power of some governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of
the courts. We have been taught that we must "get a good lawyer," but that
is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending
ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our
money and then tell us as the ship is sinking, "I can't help you with that--
I'm an officer of the court." Ultimately, the only way for us to have
even a 'snowball's chance' is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to
come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law. The lawyers have
established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge
by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person to
understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of
otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly
complicated,
it is not that difficult to grasp--are lawyers really as smart as they
would
have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle
against
the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers
learn about procedure, not about law. Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a
lawyer, and as such, he has a way of explaining law to us that puts it well
within our reach. Consider also that the framers of the Constitution
wrote in language simple enough that the people could understand,
specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted. So again we
find, as in many other areas of life, that -THE BUCK STOPS HERE!' It is
we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the
TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our God-given rights and our
freedom from those who would take them from us. It is we who must protect
ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into
our lives by-those who live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents
of others. To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation
of our plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it. Please take note
that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his understanding,
which he is always refining, expanding, improving. It is, as all bits of
wisdom are, a point of departure from which to begin our own journey into
understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to others: greater
knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of lives lived in peace, freedom
and praise.
INTRODUCTION
When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court decisions. If I had
tried to use these in court, I would have been convicted. I was
involved with a patriot group and I studied supreme Court cases.
I concluded that the Supreme Court had declared that I was not a
person required to file an income tax--that the tax was an
excise tax on privileges granted by government. So I quit filing
and paying income taxes, and it was not long before they came
down on me with a heavy hand. They issued a notice of
deficiency, which had such a fantastic sum on it that the
biggest temptation was to go in with their letter and say.
"Where in the world did you ever get that figure?" They claimed
I owed them some $60,000. But even if I had been paying taxes,
I never had that much money, so how could I have owed them that
much? NEVER ARGUE THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY Fortunately, I had
been given just a little bit of information: NEVER ARGUE THE
FACTS IN A TAX CASE. If you're not required to file, what do
you care whether they say you owe sixty dollars or 60,000
dollars. If you are not required to file, the amount doesn't
matter. Don't argue the amount--that is a fact issue. In most
instances, when you get a Notice of Deficiency, it is usually
for some fantastic amount. The IRS wants you to run in and
argue about the amount. The minute you say "I don't owe that
much", you have agreed that you owe them something, and you have
given them jurisdiction. Just don't be shocked at the amount on
a Notice of Deficiency, even if it is ten million dollars! If
the law says that you are not required to file or pay tax, the
amount doesn't matter. By arguing the amount, they will just
say that you must go to tax court and decide what the amount is
to be. By the time you get to tax court, the law issues are all
decided. You are only there to decide how much you owe. They
will not listen to arguments of law. So I went to see the agent
and told him that I wasn't required to file. He said, "You are
required to file, Mr. Freeman." But I had all these supreme
Court cases, and I started reading them to him. He said, "I
don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman, but the Code says
that you are required to file, and you're going to pay that
amount or you're going to go to tax court." I thought that
someone there ought to know something about law, so I asked to
talk to his superior. I went to him and got out my Supreme
Court Cases, and he wouldn't listen to them. "I don't know
anything about law, Mr. Freeman...." Finally I got to the
Problems Resolution Officer, and he said the same thing. He
said that the only person above him was the District Director.
So I went to see him. By the time I got to his office, they had
phoned ahead, and his secretary said he was out. But I heard
someone in his office, and I knew he was in there. I went down
the elevator, around the corner to the Federal Building and into
Senator Simpson's office. There was a girl sitting there at a
desk, and she asked if she could help me. I told her my problem.
I said that I really thought the District Director was up there.
I asked her to call the IRS and tell them that it was Senator
Simpson's office calling and to ask if the District Director was
in. I said, "If you get him on the phone, tell him that you are
from the Senator's office and you have a person who you are
sending over to speak to him--if he is can wait just five
minutes." It worked. He was there, and I ran back up to his
office. His secretary met me when I came in and said, "Mr.
Freeman, you're so lucky--the Director just arrived." The
Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies and we
sat and talked. So he asked me what I wanted to talk to him
about. (If you ever have someone say to you, "I'm from the
government and I'm here to do you a favor", watch out!--but we
can turn that around and approach them the same way.) So I
said, "I thought you ought to know that there are agents working
for you who are writing letters over your name that you wouldn't
agree with. Do you read all the mail that goes out of this
office over your signature?" The Director said, "Oh, I couldn't
read everything--it goes out of here by the bagful." That was
what I thought. I said, "There are some of your agents writing
letters which contradict the decisions of the supreme Court of
the United States. And they're not doing it over their name,
they're doing it over your name." He was very interested to
hear about it and asked if I had any examples. I just happened
to have some with me, so I got them out and presented them to
him. He thought it was very interesting and asked if I could
leave this information with him, which I did. He said he would
look it over and contact me in three days. Three days later he
called me up and said, "I'm sure, Mr. Freeman, that you will be
glad to know that your Notice of Deficiency has been withdrawn.
We've determined that you're not a person required to file.
Your file is closed and you will hear no more from us." I
haven't heard another word from them since. That was in 1980,
and I haven't filed since 1969.
THE SUPREME COURT ON TRIAL
I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got charged
with Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me to help
him. I told him that they have to prove that he willfully
failed to file, and I suggested that he should put me on the
witness stand. He should ask me if I spoke at a certain time
and place in Scott's Bluff, and did I see him in the audience.
He should then ask me what I spoke of that day. When I got on
the stand, I brought out all of the Supreme Court cases I had
used with the District Director. I thought I would be lucky to
get a sentence or two out before the judge cut me off, but I was
reading whole paragraphs-- and the judge didn't stop me. I read
one and then another, and so on. And finally when I had read
just about as much as I thought I should, the judge called a
recess of the court. I told Bob I thought we had it made.
There was just no way that they could rule against him after all
that testimony. So we relaxed. The prosecution presented its
case and he decided to rest his defense on my testimony, which
showed that he was not required to file, and that the Supreme
Court had upheld this position. The prosecution then presented
its closing statements and we were just sure that he had won.
But at the very end, the judge spoke to the jury and told them,
"You will decide the facts of this case and I will give you the
law. The law required this man to file an Income Tax form; you
decide whether or not he filed it." What a shock! The jury
convicted him. Later some members of the jury said, "What could
we do? The man had admitted that he had not filed the form, so
we had to convict him". As soon as the trial was over I went
around to the judges's office and he was just coming in through
his back door. I said, "Judge, by what authority do you
overturn the standing decisions of the United States supreme
Court. You sat on the bench while I read that case law. Now
how do you, a District Court Judge, have the authority to
overturn decisions of the Supreme Court?" He says, "Oh, those
were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions.
They have never been overturned. I don't care how old they are;
you have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United
States Supreme Court in a District Court."
PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY
He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after
1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were
prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what
happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court
was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has
dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being
tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those
Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy." I asked him
what happened in 1938. He said that he had already told me too
much--he wasn't going to tell me any more. 1938 AND THE ERIE
RAILROAD Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was
the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme
Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law
with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the
Erie railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking
out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The
district court had decided on the basis of Commercial
(Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any
contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no
standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was
damaged and he would have had the right to sue. This overturned
a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson
in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the supreme
Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge
the case on the Common Law of the state where the incident
occurred--in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad
case, the supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be
judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no
more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level.
So here we find the blending of Law with Equity. This was a
puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I determined
that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not
Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle
missing.
A FRIEND IN THE COURT
Fortunately, I made a friend of a
judge. Now you won't make friends with a judge if you go into
court like a 'wolf in black sheep country.' You must approach
him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go
into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what
the law is--how he had better uphold the law or else. Remember
the verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be wise as a
serpent and harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be
wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little
dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of
questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to
give me a victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I
won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's
office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said,
"You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in
town, stop by, and if I'm not sitting on a case we will visit.
AMERICA IS BANKRUPT
Later, when I went to visit the judge, I
told him of my problem with the supreme Court cases dealing with
Public Policy rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all
the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were
called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told:
America is a bankrupt nation--it is owned completely by its
creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the
Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state
governments. Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but
never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in a Admiralty
Jurisdiction--call it anything you want, but do not call it
Admiralty.
ADMIRALTY COURTS
The reason they cannot call it
Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite
different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the
Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has
jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in
dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they
have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court,
you can demand that the international maritime contract, to
which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have
breached, be placed into evidence. No court has
Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid
international maritime contract that has been breached. So you
say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew that I got
involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that
such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in
Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may
challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have
to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have
to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation,
and that we are their slaves.
NOT EXPEDIENT
But the bankers said
it is not expedient at this time to admit that they own
everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world.
The reason they don't want to tell everyone that they own
everything is that there are still too many privately owned
guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military
forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into
a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a single WORLD COURT, it is
not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating
under. When we understand these things, we realize that there
are certain secrets they don't want to admit, and we can use
this to our benefit.
JURISDICTION
The Constitution of the united
States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts
may operate: Common Law Common Law is based on God's Law.
Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a
damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything
you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty,
or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of
yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or
property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any
government action which prevents a man from making a fool of
himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in most
states, you will see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT
BELTS--IT'S THE LAW.' This cannot be Common Law, because who
would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would
be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel
performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT,
and is punishable. Equity Law Equity Law is law which compels
performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of
any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled
performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are
being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract.
Now this can only be a civil action--not criminal. In Equity
Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be
compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then
refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged
with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our
seatbelt laws Equity laws? No, they are not, because you
cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of
a contract. Admiralty/Maritime Law This is a civil jurisdiction
of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for
not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only
applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what
jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (and all traffic laws, building
codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under. Whenever there
is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to
file), that is Admiralty/ Maritime Law and there must be a valid
international contract in force. However, the courts don't
want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime
Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law Merchant
and adopted it into our codes. That is what the supreme Court
decided in the Erie Railroad case--that the decisions will be
based on commercial law or business law and that it will have
criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were
instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it
Statutory Jurisdiction.
COURTS OF CONTRACT
You may ask how we
got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to
wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to
uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand
that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 10, gives us the
unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on
the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are
enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where
contracts can be enforced--Equity or Admiralty. But we find them
being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the
embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the
judges into a corner in their own courts. We will cover this
more later.
CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY
Under the Common Law,
every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable.
These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is
another characteristic--it must be based on substance. For
example, contracts used to read, "For one dollar and other
valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc." That
was a valid contract--the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar.
Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, -For one Federal
Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your
house....' And suppose, for example, I painted your house the
wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get
justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is
a "colorable" dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common
Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.
COLORABLE MONEY/COLORABLE COURTS
The word "colorable" means
something that appears to be genuine, but is not. Maybe it
looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if
it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is
colorable.' If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract,
then the contract becomes a "colorable" contract. And
"colorable" contracts must be enforced under a "colorable"
jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the
government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of
contracts which use them. We now have what is called Statutory
Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It
is "colorable" Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing
because we are using "colorable money." Colorable Admiralty is
now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's see how we got
under this Statutory Jurisdiction.
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
The government set up a "colorable" law system to fit the
"colorable" currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or
the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper
which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once
Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be
a system of law which was completely "colorable" from start to
finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform
Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is
"colorable" law, and it is used in all the courts. I explained
one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is bankrupt
and we have no rights. If the master says "Jump!" then the
slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut
his head off. As slaves we have no rights. But the
creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a system
of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This -colorable'
jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key
to understanding what has happened.
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT
One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is
that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1)
knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally. Under the
U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, con-tracts are
un-necessary. Under this new law, -agreements' can be binding,
and if you only exercise the benefits of a -agreement,' it is
presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations
associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered
by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter,
each and every statute involved with that benefit. The method
has been to get everybody exercising a benefit, and they don't
even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some people
think it is the driver's license, the marriage license or the
birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none of these.
COMPELLED BENEFIT
I believe the benefit being used is that we
have been given the privilege of discharging debt with limited
liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give
substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver
dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the
dollar--substance for substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve
Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is no
substance in the Federal Reserve Note It is worthless paper
given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress
offers us this benefit: Debt money, created by the federal
United States, can be spent all over the continental united
States, it will be legal tender for all debts, public and
private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be sued
for not paying your debts. So now they have said, "We're going
to help you out, and you can just discharge your debts instead
of paying your debts." When we use this -colorable' money to
discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common Law court. We can
only use a "colorable" court. We are completely under the
jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code--we are using
non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging
debt rather than paying debt.
REMEDY AND RECOURSE
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and
Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law. The
Recourse is if you have been damaged under the law, you can
recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and
even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse,
but for a long time we could not find it. If you go to a law
library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will
show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform
Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read
it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be
confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy
and Recourse are found in the UCC. They are found right in the
first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.
REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever
rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such
rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC
1-207.7) It is important to remember when we go into a court,
that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we
go into court and say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the
judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again,
and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then we don't
understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the
Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under
one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the
French government came to you and asked where you filed your
French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French
government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The
proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME--I'M NOT A
FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the
jurisdiction in which you are charged--not under some other
jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your
reservation of rights under the U.C.C. 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say: When a waivable right or claim is
involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a
loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date. (UCC
1-207.9) You have to make your claim known early. Further, it
says: The Sufficiency of the Reservation--Any expression
indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such
as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4) Whenever you sign any
legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes--in any way,
shape or manner--under your signature write: Without
Prejudice UCC 1-207. This reserves your rights. You can show,
at 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.
It is very important to understand just what this means. For
example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was
asked by the judge just what he meant by writing -without
prejudice UCC 1-207' on his statement to the court. He had not
tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to
use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant.
When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way,
he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone....
The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he
lost the case. You must know what it means.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207
When you use -without prejudice' UCC 1-207 in connection with
your signature, you are saying: -I reserve my right not to be
compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement
that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally.
And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled
benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.'
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial
agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver
dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so you
have to use Federal Reserve Notes--you have to accept the
benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge
your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay
your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve
your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the
benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute,
ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of
government--federal, state and local.
If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the
judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain
it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC
1-103--the argument and recourse.
If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and
photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to
get the Anderson edition. Some of the law libraries will only
have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to
understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into
ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.
RECOURSE
The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6,
which says: The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which
remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute
should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there
is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law. This
is the argument we use in court.
The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the
Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the
United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its
creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code
was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely.
Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit
reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that
the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.
If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court
produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint.
If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your
seatbelt, you may ask the court who was injured as a result of
your failure to 'buckle up.'
However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead
with the case, then you will want to read to him the last
sentence of 1-103.6, which states: The Code cannot be read to
preclude a Common Law action. Tell the judge, -Your Honor, I
can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my right under
the Uniform Commercial Code.' I have a remedy, under the UCC,
to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the
remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with
the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must
come forth with the damaged party.' If the judge insists on
proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this
question: -Let me see if I understand, Your Honor: Has this
court made a legal determination that the sections 1-207 and
1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law
you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?'
Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one
part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, -yes,'
then you say: -I put this court on notice that I am appealing
your legal determination.' Of course, the higher court will
uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again
you have boxed him into a corner.
Part 2
PRACTICAL APPLICATION--TRAFFIC COURT
Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us
look at a court situation such as a traffic violation. Assume
you ran through a yellow light and a policeman gave you a
traffic ticket. 1. The first thing you want to do is to delay
the action at least three weeks. This you can do by being
pleasant and cooperative with the officer. Explain to him that
you are very busy and ask if he could please set your court
appearance for about three weeks away. (At this point we need
to remember the government's trick: -I'm from the government,
I'm here to help you.' Now we want to use this approach with
them.) 2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic
court and say, -I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you,
because I want to save the government some money (this will gets
his attention). I am undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As
you know, in an appeal, I have to have a transcript, but the
traffic court doesn't have a court reporter. It would be a
waste of taxpayer's money to run me through this court and then
to have to give me a trial de novo in a court of record. I do
need a transcript for appealing, and to save the government some
money, maybe you could schedule me to appear in a court of
record.' You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will
usually agree that there is plenty of time to schedule your
trial for a court of record. Now your first appearance is in a
court of record and not in a traffic court, where there is no
record.
When you get into court there will be a court reporter there who
records every word the judge speaks, so the judge is much more
careful in a court of record. You will be in a much better
situation there than in a traffic court. If there is no record,
the judge can say whatever he wants--he can call you all sorts
of names and tell you that you have no rights, and so on--and
deny it all later. 3. When you get into court, the judge will
read the charges: driving through a yellow light, or whatever,
and this is a violation of ordinance XYZ. He will ask, -Do you
understand the charge against you?' 4. -Well, Your Honor, there
is a question I would like to ask before I can make a plea of
innocent or guilty. I think it could be answered if I could put
the officer on the stand for a moment and ask him a few short
questions.' Judge: -I don't see why not. Let's swear the
officer in and have him take the stand.' 5. -Is this the
instrument that you gave me?' (handing him the traffic
citation) Officer: -Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has
the other portion of it.' -Where did you get my address that you
wrote on that citation?' Officer: -Well, I got it from your
driver's license.' (Handing the officer your driver's license)
Is this the document you copied my name and address from?'
Officer: -Yes, this is where I got it.' -While you've got that
in your hand, would you read the signature that's on that
license?' (The officer reads the signature) -While you're
there, would you read into the record what it says under the
signature?' Officer: -It says, 'Without prejudice, UCC 1-207.''
Judge: -'Let me see that license!' (He looks at it and turns
to the officer) -You didn't notice this printing under the
signature on this license, when you copied his name and address
onto the ticket?' Officer: -Oh, no. I was just getting the
address--I didn't look down there.' Judge: -You're not very
observant as an officer. Therefore, I'm afraid I cannot accept
your testimony in regards to the facts of this case. This case
is dismissed.' 6. In this case, the Judge found a convenient way
out--he could say that the officer was not observant enough to
be a reliable witness. He did not want to admit the real nature
of the jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the record
that you had written 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 on your
license, the judge knew that he would have to admit that: a. you
had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC; b. you had
done it sufficiently by writing 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 on
your driver's license; c. the statute would now have to be read
in harmony with the Common Law, and the Common Law says the
statute exists, but there is no injured party; and d. since
there is no injured party or complaining witness, the court has
no jurisdiction under the Common Law. 7. If the judge tries to
move ahead and try the facts of the case, then you will want to
ask him the following question:
Your Honor, let me understand this correctly: has this court
made a legal determination that it has authority under the
jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two sections
of the Uniform Commercial Code which have been called to its
attention? If he says yes, tell him that you put the court on
notice that you will appeal that legal determination, and that
if you are damaged by his actions, you will sue him in a common
law action--under the jurisdiction of the UCC. This will work
just as well with the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, we can
use the UCC with the IRS before we get to court. USING THE CODE
WITH THE IRS
If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called a
presentment' in the Uniform Commercial Code. A -presentment'
in the UCC is very similar to the Common Law. First we must
understand just how this works in the Common Law.
Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book--someone I have
never met. And I send him a bill or invoice on nice letterhead
which says, -For services rendered: $10,000.00.' I send this by
Certified Mail to him at the address taken from the phone book.
The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so I get a
receipt that he received it. When he opens it, he finds an
invoice for $10,000 and the following statement: -If you have
any questions concerning this bill or the services rendered, you
have thirty days to make your questions or objections known.'
Of course, he has never heard of me, so he just throws the bill
away and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of
thirty days, I go to court and get a default judgment against
him. He received a bill for $10,000, was given thirty days to
respond. He failed to object to it or ask any questions about
it. Now he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect
the $10,000.
That's Common Law. The UCC works on the same principle. The
minute you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, you return
it immediately with a letter that says: The presentment above is
dishonored. your name has reserved all of his/her
rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1-207. This
should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing more that
they can do. In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona who
received a Notice of Deficiency. The man sent a letter such as
this, dishonoring the 'presentment.' The IRS wrote back that
they could not make a determination at that office, but were
turning it over to the Collections Department. A letter was
attached from the Collections Department which said they were
sorry for the inconvenience they had caused him and that the
Notice of Deficiency had been withdrawn. So you can see that if
it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved.
IMPENDING BANKRUPTCY
On my way here, I had a chance to visit with the Governor of
Wyoming. He is very concerned that if he runs for office this
November, that there won't be a State of Wyoming at the end of
four years. He believes that the International Bankers might
foreclose on the nation and officially admit that they own the
whole world. They could round up everybody in the state capitol
building, put them in an internment camp and hold them
indefinitely. They may give them a trial, or they may not.
They will do whatever they want. As I explained earlier, it has
not been expedient to foreclose on the nation until they could
get everything ready. This is where the Federal Emergency
Management Agency comes in. It has been put in place without
anyone really noticing it.
FEMA
FEMA, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been
designed for when America is officially declared bankrupt, which
would be a national emergency. In a national emergency, all
Constitutional Rights and all law that previously existed, would
be suspended. FEMA has created large concentration camps where
they would put anyone who might cause trouble for the orderly
plan and process of the new regime to take over the nation.
Even a governor could be thrown into one of these internment
camps, and kept there indefinitely. This is all in place now,
and they are just waiting to declare a national emergency. Then
even state governments could be dissolved. Anybody who might
oppose the new regime could be imprisoned until a new set of
laws could be written and a new government set up. The Governor
knows all this, and he is very concerned. He doesn't want to be
in office when all this happens.
I visited with him and I told him that there are certain action
we should take right now. I think we should consider the fact
that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Wyoming is an
accommodation party to the national debt. To under-stand this
we must realize that there are two separate entities known as
the United States.
THE ROTHSCHILD INFLUENCE
When America was founded, the Rothschilds were very unhappy
because it was founded on the Common Law. The Common Law is
based on substance, and this substance is mentioned in the
Constitution as gold or silver. America is a Constitutional
Republic--that is: a union of the States under the Constitution.
When Congress was working for the Republic, the only thing it
could borrow was gold or silver, and the Rothschild banks did
not loan gold or silver. Naturally, they did not like this new
government.
The Rothschilds had a deal with the King of England. He would
borrow paper and agree to repay in gold. But these united
States, with their Constitution, were an obstacle to them, and
it was much to the Rothschild's advantage to get the colonies
back under the King. So the Rothschilds financed the War of
1812 to bring America back under England. Of course, that
didn't work, so they had to find another way.
THE FLAW IN THE CONSTITUTION: TWO NATIONS IN ONE
It was around the time of the American Civil War that they
discovered a flaw in the Constitution. The flaw was Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17.
Remember that there are two nations called -United States.'
What is a nation? See if you would agree to this definition:
Whenever you have a governing body, having a prescribed
territory containing a body of people. Is that a nation? Yes.
We have a governing body in the Republic--the three branch
government. There are the legislative, the executive and the
judicial branches, with a constitution. There is a prescribed
territory containing a body of people. This is a Constitutional
Republic.
But, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 gave Congress, which is the
legislative branch of the three branch government, exclusive
rule over a given territory known as the District of Columbia,
containing a body of people. Here we have a nation within a
nation. This is a legislative democracy within a Constitutional
Republic.
When Congress was a part of the Constitutional Republic, it had
the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its
duty was to coin gold or silver. Anyone who had a piece of gold
or silver could bring it in and have it freely minted into coin.
This was the medium of exchange for the Republic.
But, in the Legislative Democracy (over Washington D. C.),
Congress is not limited by the Constitution. Congress has
exclusive rule over the District of Columbia. The legislators
can make the law by a majority vote--that makes it a democracy;
they have the authority to have administrative agents to enforce
their own law; and they have courts in the legislative branch of
government, to try their own law. Here we have the legislature
making the law, enforcing the law and trying the law, all within
the one branch of government. This is a one branch government
within a three branch government.
Under the three branch government, the congress passes law which
has to be in harmony with the Constitution, the executive
enforces the law passed by the congress, and the judiciary tries
the law, pursuant to the Constitution.
THE THREE BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the ONE BRANCH
LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY are both called THE UNITED STATES. One is
the federal United States, and the other is the continental
united States.
ARE YOU A UNITED STATES CITIZEN?
If you say that you are a United States citizen, which United
States are you referring to? Anyone who lives in the District
of Columbia is a United States citizen. The remaining
population in the fifty states is the national citizenry of the
nation. We are domiciled in various sovereign states,
protected by the constitutions of those states from any direct
rule of Congress over us. In the democracy, anyone who lives
in those states known as Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, or
any of the other federally held territories is a citizen of the
United States [D.C.]. We must be careful with our choice of
words--we are not citizens of the United States. We are not
subject to Congress. Congress has exclusive rule over a given
territory, and we are not part of that territory.
Where did Congress get the authority to write the Internal
Revenue Code? It is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of
the Constitution. To pass that law, they only needed a majority
vote. There is no other way that they could pass laws directly
affecting individuals. Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, was
passed as law for another nation (remember our definition of
'nation'), but Title 26 is not consistent with the Bill of
Rights. If you try to fight the IRS, you have no rights--the
Code does not give you any of your constitutional rights. It
simply says, -You failed to file an income tax form--you failed
to perform in some specific manner.'
Remember, under the Common Law, you are free to do whatever you
want as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty or
property of anyone else. If you do not want to perform, you
don't have to. The only way you can be compelled to perform
under the Constitution in the continental united States, is if
you have entered a contract. But if you are not under a
contract you can not be compelled to perform. How can you be
compelled to file an income tax form, or any form?
When Congress works for the Republic, every law it passes must
be in harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but
when Congress works for the Legislative Democracy, any law it
passes becomes the law of the land (remember, Congress has
exclusive legislative control over federal territory).
If you are charged with Willful failure to file an income tax
1040 form, that is a law for a different nation. You are a
non-resident alien to that nation. It is a foreign corporation
to you. It is not the Republic of the continental united
States coming after you, it is a foreign nation--a legislative
democracy of a foreign nation coming after you.
If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a
presentment from the federal United States, and then you can
use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention that you
are among the national citizenry of continental united States,
and you are a non-resident alien to the federal United States.
You never lived in a federal territory and never had any income
from the federal United States.
Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay taxes under
the compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve Notes,
because you have reserved your rights under the Common Law
through the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-207.
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS
The Founding Fathers would never have created a government that
was going to boss them around! There were 13 sovereign States.
They were nations, and they joined together for protection from
foreign enemies. They provided a means by which the union of
the sovereign states could fend off foreign enemies. But they
never gave the congress of the federal United States direct rule
over any citizen of any state. They were not going to be
ordered around by that government they set up.
FEDERAL REGIONS
The supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule what
Congress creates. Congress did not create the States, but
Congress did create federal regions. So Congress can rule the
federal regions, but Congress can not rule the States. How have
we been tricked into federal regions?
THE ZIP CODE TRICK
Remember how the government always comes to us and says, -I'm
from the government and I'm here to help you.' The government
went out into the various states and said, -We don't want you to
have to go to all that trouble of writing three or four letters
to abbreviate the name of the state--such as Ariz. for Arizona.
Just write AZ, instead of Ariz. Or you can just write WY for
Wyoming instead of Wyo.' So all of the states of the union have
got a new two-letter abbreviation. Even a state such as Rhode
Island has a new abbreviation. It is RI, instead of R.I. They
have just left off the periods. When you use a two-letter state
abbreviation, you are compelled to use a zip code, because there
are so many states, for example, which start with M. ME is
Maine--MI is Michigan. How many people dot every 'i', or make
an 'i' that looks like an 'e'? With MA, MO, MN, MS, etc., and
some sloppy writing, and you could not tell one from another.
So, we have to use the zip code in order to tell them apart.
But if you wrote Mich., or Minn., or Miss., there would be no
real problem telling which state it was.
There is no harm in using the zip code, if you lawfully identify
your state. I found out that no state legislature has met to
lawfully change the abbreviation of the state from the old
abbreviation to the new. Therefore, if you do not use the
lawful abbreviation for your state, but use the shorter new
abbreviation, you have to use the zip code.
Look on page 11 of the Zip Code Directory, and it will tell you
that the first digit of your zip code is the federal region in
which you reside. If you use AZ for Arizona, you cannot use the
state constitution to protect you because you did not identify
your state. You used the zip code, which identifies which
federal region you live in. And Congress may rule directly
federal regions, but it cannot rule the citizens of any state.
ACCOMMODATION PARTY
Let's look at how the states have become the accommodation party
to the national debt. There are many people I have talked to,
including the Governor, who are very concerned about this, and
who know that it could happen very soon.
If America is declared a bankrupt nation , it will be a
national emergency. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
will take over, and anyone who opposes the new government of the
creditors can be sent to a detention camp in Alaska. We will
have no rights whatsoever. They have already set up prison
camps with work camps nearby so the people can be used for slave
labor. It could be the governors, legislators, and other
leaders who would be hauled away to Alaska, while the people now
disenfranchised from power would likely be chosen to run the new
government. This could all happen very soon, as the national
debt is so large as to be unpayable. Even the interest on the
debt is virtually unpayable.
As I explained, the national debt--more than three trillion
dollars--is not owed by the Continental united States. It is
the federal United States that had authority to borrow bank
credit. When Congress worked for Continental united States, it
could only borrow gold or silver, so the national debt was
borrowed in the name of the federal United States. The federal
United states has been bankrupt since 1938, but the federal
United States had to trap the States into assuming the debt
obligation of the federal debt.
In the Uniform Commercial Code, we find the term, 'accommodation
party.' How did the states become the 'accommodation party' to
the federal debt? The federal government, through our money
system, made the states deal in Federal Reserve Notes, which
means that everything the states do is 'colorable.' Under the
'colorable' jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code, all of
the states are the accommodation party to the federal debt.
Now the concern is to find out how we can get out of this
situation. I told the Governor that in the Common Law and the
Law of Merchants--that's the International Law Merchant--there
is a term called no-interest contract. A no-interest contract
is void and unenforceable. What is a no-interest contract?
NO-INTEREST CONTRACT
If I were to insure a house that did not belong to me, that
would be a no-interest contract. I would just want the house to
burn down. I would pay a small premium, perhaps a few hundred
dollars, and insure it for 80,000 dollars against fire. Then I
would be waiting for it to burn so I could trade my small
premium for $80,000. Under the Common Law and under
international law of the Law Merchant, that is called a
no-interest contract, and it is void and unenforceable in any
court.
UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS
In the Uniform Commercial Code, no-interest contracts are called
unconscionable contracts. The section on unconscionable
contracts covers more than forty pages in the Anderson Code.
The federal United States has involved the states as the
accommodation party to the federal debt, and I believe we could
prove this to be an unconscionable contract. We should get
some litigation into the courts before the government declares a
national emergency, claiming that this state has no lawful
responsibility for the national debt (of the federal United
States), because it became an accommodation party to this debt
through an unconscionable contract. If we have this litigation
before the courts under International Law when the nation is
declared bankrupt, the creditors would have to settle this
matter first, and it would delay them. They would want the new
government to appear to be legitimate, so they could not just
move right in and take over the state, because it would be in an
International Court. This is very important at this time.
Part 3
QUESTIONS AND REVIEW
Note: These are some of the questions asked
after the main lecture. Some are restatements of material
presented earlier, but they contain very valuable information
which is worth repeating.
COURTROOM TECHNIQUES
Question: How did you -box in' the Judge?
This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't know
too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a little dumb.
If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember that in
a criminal action, you have to understand the law or it is a
reversible error for the court to try you. If you don't
understand the law, they can't try you.
In any traffic case or tax case you are called into court and
the judge reads the law and then asks, -Do you understand the
charges?' Defendant: No, Your Honor, I do not. Judge: Well,
what's so difficult about that charge? Either you drove the
wrong way on a one-way street or you didn't. You can only go
one way on that street, and if you go the other way it's a fifty
dollar fine. What's so difficult about this that you don't
understand? D: Well, Your Honor, it's not the letter of the law,
but rather the nature of the law that I don't understand. The
Sixth Amendment of the Constitution gives me the right to
request the court to explain the nature of any action against
me, and upon my request, the court has the duty to answer. I
have a question about the nature of this action. J: Well, what
is that--what do you want to know? Always ask them some easy
questions first, as this establishes that they are answering.
You ask: D: Well, Your Honor, is this a Civil or a Criminal
Action? J: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action there
could be no fine, so it has to be criminal) D: Thank you, Your
Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will show that this
action against (your name) is a criminal action, is
that right? J: Yes. D: I would like to ask another question
about this criminal action. There are two criminal
jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: one is under the
Common Law, and the other deals with International Maritime
Contracts, under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is Civil,
and you said this is a Criminal action, so it seems it would
have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law. But
what puzzles me, Your Honor, is that there is no corpus delecti
here that gives this court a jurisdiction over my person and
property under the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't appear to
me that this court is moving under the Common Law. J: No, I can
assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law.
D: Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you make the charge
against me even more difficult to understand. The only other
criminal jurisdiction would apply only if there was an
International Maritime Contract involved, I was a party to it,
it had been breached, and the court was operating in an
Admiralty Jurisdiction.
I don't believe I have ever been under any International
Maritime contract, so I would deny that one exists. I would
have to demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be placed
into evidence, so that I may contest it. But surely, this court
is not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. You just put
the words in the judges mouth. J: No, I can assure you, we're
not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. We're not out in
the ocean somewhere--we're right here in the middle of the State
of __(any state)___. No, this is not an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
D: Thank you Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than ever.
If this charge is not under the Common Law, or under
Admiralty--and those are the only two criminal jurisdictions
mentioned in the Constitution--what kind of jurisdiction could
this court be operating under? J: It's Statutory Jurisdiction.
D: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I
have never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend
under that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure
for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me where I might find
those rules? There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so
the judge will get very angry at this point and say: J: If you
want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a licensed
attorney--I'm not allowed to practice law from the bench.
D: Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of
practicing law from the bench if you just answer a few questions
to explain to me nature of this action, so that I may defend
myself. J: I told you before, I am not going to answer any more
questions. Do you understand that? If you ask any more
questions in regards to this, I'm going to find you in contempt
of court! Now if you can't afford a licensed attorney, the
court will provide you with one. But if you want those
questions answered, you must get yourself a licensed attorney.
D: Thank you, Your Honor, but let me just see if I got this
straight. Has this court made a legal determination that it
has authority to conduct a criminal action against me, the
accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are
known only to this court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying
me the right to defend in my own person? He has no answer for
that. The judge will probably postpone the case and eventually
just let it go. In this way, you can be as wise as a serpent
and as harmless as a dove, but you mustn't go into court with a
chip on you shoulder and as a wolf in -black sheep' country.
Remember Jesus' words, -I send you out as sheep in wolf country,
be wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove.' Sheep do not
attack wolves directly. Just be an innocent little lamb who
just can't understand the charge, and remember--they can't try
you criminally if you don't understand the charge. That would
be automatically a reversible error on appeal.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM
If I were a young man, 18 or 20 years old and just starting out
in my first job, I would not want Social Security. With my
signature on the application I would write, 'Without prejudice'
UCC 1-207, and I would reserve my Common Law rights. But why
wouldn't I want Social Security today?
I got into the Social Security system in the 1930's, and I paid
into it dollars that had good purchasing power. Now I'm getting
a promised return in Federal Reserve Notes which have
considerably less value. For example, in 1940, you could buy a
deluxe Chevrolet for 800 dollars. With today's Federal Reserve
Notes, that won't buy the rear fenders and trunk on a new
Chevrolet. If I were a young man, I would not want to put
Federal Reserve Notes into Social Security now, and get back
something later like the German mark after World War I--when it
took a billion to buy a loaf of bread. They will give you every
Federal Reserve Note back that they promised you, but it might
not buy anything.
ASSURANCE
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you have the right in any
agreement, to demand a guarantee of performance. So, don't go
to them and say, -I want to rescind my Social Security number,'
or -I refuse to take it.' Just take it easy and say, -I would
be happy to get a Social Security number and enter into this
contract, but I have a little problem. How can I have assurance
before I enter into this contract that the purchasing power of
the Federal Reserve Notes I get back at the end of the contract
will be as good as the ones that I pay in at the beginning.
They can't guarantee that, and you have a right under the UCC to
assurance of performance under the contract. So tell them,
Well, I can not enter this contract unless the government will
guarantee to pay me at the end of the contract with the same
value Federal Reserve Notes that I'm paying in. Both may be
called Federal Reserve Notes, but you know that these Federal
Reserve Notes don't hold their value. I want assurance on this
contract that the Federal Reserve Notes that I get in my
retirement will buy as much as the ones that I'm giving you now
in my working years.' They can't make that guarantee. If they
won't give you that guarantee, just say, -I'd be glad to sign
this, but if you can't guarantee performance under the contract,
I'm afraid I can not enter the contract.
Now, did you refuse or did they refuse? You can get the
sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which grant the right to
have assurance that the contract you have entered will be
fulfilled properly--that the return will equal the investment,
and you can reject the contract using the Code. Using their own
system of law, you can show that they cannot make you get into a
contract of that nature. Just approach them innocently like a
lamb.
It is very important to be gentle and humble in all dealings
with the government or the courts--never raise your voice or
show anger. In the courtroom, always be polite, and build the
judge up--call him 'Your Honor.' Give him all the 'honor' he
wants. It does no good to be difficult, but rather to be
cooperative and ask questions in a way that leads the judge to
say the things which you need to have in the record.
THE COURT REPORTER
In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He gets
his job at the judges pleasure, so he doesn't want to displease
the judge. The court reporter is sworn to give an accurate
transcript of every word that is spoken in the courtroom. But
if the judge makes a slip of the tongue, he turns to his court
reporter and says, -I think you had better leave that out of the
transcript; just say it got a little too far ahead of you, and
you couldn't quite get everything in.' So this will be missing
from the transcript.
In one case, we brought a licensed court reporter with us and
the judge got very angry and said, -This court has a licensed
court reporter right here, and the record of this court is this
court reporter's record. No other court reporter's record means
anything in this court.'
We responded with, -Of course, Your Honor, we're certainly glad
to use your regular court reporter. But you know, Your Honor,
sometimes things move so fast that a court reporter gets a
little behind, and doesn't quite keep up with it all. Wouldn't
it be nice if we had another licensed court reporter in the
courtroom, just in case your court reporter got a little behind,
so that we could fill in from this other court reporter's data.
I'm sure, Your Honor, that you want an accurate transcript. (I
like to use the saying; give a bad dog a good name, and he'll
live up to it!) The judge went along with it, and from that
moment on, he was very careful of what he said.
These are little tricks to getting around in court. This is how
to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove when we enter
into a courtroom. There are others using the same information
presented here who end up in jail, handcuffed and hit over the
head, because they approach the situation with a chip on their
shoulder. They try to tell the judge what the law is and that
he is a no-good scoundrel and so on. Just be wise and harmless.
UCC 1-207 REVIEW
It is so important to know and understand the meaning of Without
prejudice' UCC 1-207, in connection with you signature, that we
should go over this once more. It is very likely that a judge
will ask you what it means. So please learn and understand this
carefully: The use of -'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207,' in
connection with my signature indicates that I have reserved my
Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any
contract that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability
associated with the compelled benefit of any un-revealed
contract or commercial agreement. Once you state that, it is all
the judge needs to hear. Under the Common Law, a contract must
be entered into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, by
both parties, or it can be declared void and unenforceable. You
are claiming the right not to be compelled to perform under any
contract that you did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily and
intentionally. And you do not accept the liability associated
with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
agreement.
The compelled benefit is the privilege to use Federal Reserve
Notes to discharge your debts with limited liability rather than
to pay your debts with silver coins. It is a compelled benefit,
because there are no silver coins in circulation. You have to
eat, and you can only buy food with the medium of exchange
provided by the government. You are not allowed to print your
own money, so you are compelled to use theirs. This is the
compelled benefit of an unrevealed commercial agreement. If you
have not made a valid, timely and explicit reservation of your
rights under UCC 1-207, and you simply exercise this benefit
rendered by government, you will be obligated, under an implied
agreement, to obey every statute, ordinance and regulation
passed by government, at all levels--federal, state and local.
IN CONCLUSION
The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in
putting this to paper in a effort to make it readable and
somewhat compact. He wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard
Freeman for the opportunity to work with information so
absolutely vital to our survival as dignified, unenslaved human
beings. He must also ask Mr. Freeman's forgiveness for any
errors committed in getting this in print. Its purpose, as
stated in the Foreword, is to make this knowledge and wisdom
available to as many people as will take the time and trouble to
read it. This is meant to be supplemental to Mr. Freeman's
recorded lectures, not a substitute. Indeed, there is no
substitute for hearing him present this material in his own
words. It is not just the law and the facts that are important
here, but the way they are used. His numerous reminders of
Jesus' commission to be -...like sheep among wolves...' cannot
be overstated, and is certainly good advice to us in all
dealings--not just in court or with the government. Hearing him
explain this in his own words brings to life the practical
application and usefulness of being -wise' and -harmless.' In
fact, after being introduced to this approach, it becomes
difficult to imagine that any other way of defending oneself
from the government would be effective.
It goes without saying that none of this information presented
here is in any way, shape or form offered as legal advice. For
that, as you know, you must -get yourself a licensed attorney.'
Having said that, I feel obliged to point out that one of the
most difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney--even
a good one--may be knowing just whose side he is on (he is,
after all, an officer of the court)! So for those of us who
have concluded that having an attorney means that you will soon
be chained, gagged and lead to the gallows, this information may
be in-dispensable. For the extraordinary challenges of
appearing in court in one's own person--pro per--there are few
reliable sources of information. Learning to defend ourselves,
that is, being responsible instead of turning over one more area
of our lives to -professionals'--may be the only way to have any
chance of digging ourselves out of this pit of legal tyranny.
Perhaps the greatest problem we face in education today is the
matter of widespread legal illiteracy.
Naturally, there will always be a number of people who just
don't care about these issues who either: (1), have a soft life
which is supported and maintained by this secret system of law
and the institutions which have grown up around it ('I can make
a bundle buying these IRS-seized homes cheap and reselling
them'), or (2), don't believe that anything can be done about
it ('you can't fight city hall'), or (3), simply don't have
the energy or inclination to do anything about it ('that's nice,
but let's see what's on TV'). For those good 'citizens' this
whole effort may seem useless, or even threatening. But it is
this writer's view that God did not intend for us to spend our
lives in statutory slavery for the benefit of a handful of
secret world manipulators, even if the 'masters' grant us some
token pleasures and diversions. Human dignity requires much
more than entertainment. The door is there and the key exists;
we must find it and we must use it to return to freedom!
Let us discover the mistakes we have made, let us find the
truth, let us apply it with meekness and wisdom and let us
gently but firmly reclaim the precious freedom which we have so
foolishly given up. September 22, 1991
FOR MORE INFORMATION
I encourage anyone interested enough to read this far, to obtain
a set of tapes of Howard Freeman and listen to them carefully.
A donation of $4.00 per tape would be appropriate. This
information was taken from tapes #'s 90-30, 90-31, 90-32, &
90-33, which may be ordered from: America's Promise Ministries P
.O. Box 157 Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 The next set of tapes (from
1991) are #s: 1004,1005, and 1006, and contain vital material
not found in this transcript.
SLMR 2.0 Tyrants and Bureaucrats prefer unarmed peasants!
* Origin: In spite of the cost of living...it's still popular. (1:124/5010)
