1. Stocks start off holding yesterdays gains, metals continue to pull back
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good Tues Am. Gold continues to roll back and down 4.9 to 1272. Silver is down 3 to 1782. Crude is +12 to 4935, while the USD is down 3 to 9894
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 4/22/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1289.10-- UP 0.60 Silver $17.85-- down 66 Oil $49.62-- down 3.80 USD $99.88 -- down 58

Lex mercatoria / Law Merchant

Discussion in 'Topical Discussions (In Depth)' started by BarnacleBob, Feb 11, 2017.



  1. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    They have a created CLAIM of trust... A CLAIM & a valid CONTRACT are two very different animals....

    Attempting to get Mamberti to accept the bond is an absurdity... why would he as a Vatican sovereign voluntarilly trade places with a bond? Secondly one doesnt require a bond to deny a civil CLAIM .... Indeed the priesthood employs all kinds of lies & deceptions to keep ignorant men enslaved via claims... the entire bond-age system is operated on perceptions believed to be truth... Killing another man in cold blood is called murder & a crime, when a group of man engage in systemic institutionalized cold blooded murder its then called war. Its all perception. This is the tactic they operate upon... an ideological group or herd think of stoics!

    An entire organization has grown up around these frauds, deceptions & lies. These scammers will as history has shewn use every form of violence & perversions to prevent the scam from failing...

    I once had a local circuit court judge tell me in a local tax dispute that my defense was rock solid & I was correct, that I was not the object or the subject of the tax, then he ruled against me saying I was free to appeal his decision... later I learned that if he had ruled in my favor the entire local tax assessment & collection process would have been required to be reevaluated... a timely & costly process.

    It was an injustice to me as an individual, I suppose the judge found it would have been a larger injustice to the local system ruling in my favor... Indeed justice is blind!

    From my research & study of the system & its history at the highest levels, money, commods, financial assets, etc. are not the value thats traded at the top.... they already control these. Theres something else very, very valuable thats traded & used for value... I have my suspicions as to what it is but additional research is needed before I will hypothecize about it.... There are many hints as to what it is but yet as many researchers have learned "theres no smoking gun" that leads directly to true redemption... Strangely as participants probe the system by various means using "lawful money" demands & other theories the gate keepers capitulate to protect the secrets... The closer we get to the secrets employed against hu-manity the stronger the police state is empowered & grown... The frauds, lies & deceptions are becoming very fragile!
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  2. MIavatar

    MIavatar Seeker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    This is just my work flow. Deleted info and and format is not SCAO
    This is the affidavit I responded to the court with.

    AFFIDAVIT



    STATE OF MICHIGAN CASE NO.

    JUDICIAL DISTRICT



    To this Honorable Court.



    I respectfully refuse the presentment of this instrument without dishonor UCC 3-501 (b)(3).



    “(3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement, or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule. “



    I don’t understand how the complainant/plaintiff has been dishonored? What damages have occurred?



    I also ask why the [vehicle] is subject to registration on the day of purchase?



    “ MCL 257.216 Vehicles subject to registration and certificate of title provisions; exceptions.

    MCL Sec. 216.

    Every motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer, when driven or moved on a street or highway, is subject to the registration and certificate of title provisions of this act except the following:

    (a) A vehicle driven or moved on a street or highway in conformance with the provisions of this act relating to manufacturers, transporters, dealers, or nonresidents.

    (b) A vehicle that is driven or moved on a street or highway only for the purpose of crossing that street or highway from 1 property to another.”



    “MCL 257.216

    (l) For 3 days immediately following the date of a properly assigned title or signed lease agreement from any person other than a dealer, a registration is not required for a vehicle driven or moved on a street or highway for the sole purpose of transporting the vehicle by the most direct route from the place of purchase or lease to a place of storage if the driver has in his or her possession the assigned title showing the date of sale or a lease agreement showing the date of the lease.




    Further I ask what authority complainant has to enforce said instrument?



    “ MCL 257.206 Forms.

    MCL Sec. 206.

    The secretary of state may prescribe and provide suitable forms of applications, certificates of title, registration certificates, operators' and chauffeurs' licenses, and all other forms requisite or deemed necessary to carry out the provisions of this act, the enforcement and administration of which are vested in the department.”



    Thank you for your time. Let it be.



    NAME DATE
    _____________________________ UCC 1-308 __________



    Subscribed and sworn to before me, this _________________ [day of month] day of _________________ [month], 20____.

    [Notary Seal:]



    __________________________________
    [signature of Notary]

    __________________________________
    [typed name of Notary]

    NOTARY PUBLIC

    My commission expires: ________________, 20____.
     
  3. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28

    Thank you Barnacle Bob;

    That is very edifying. I have heard many Christians say it the other way - that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb after the Passover Lamb. Either way though, I reject that sacrifice is pleasing to God. Primarily though, this is based in the Worthless Shepherd prophecy of Zechariah. Jesus was blood son of Archelaus HEROD and the true King of Israel politically. It was just too risky to go back into Jerusalem to claim the throne after three days had passed.

    You need not agree; I am showing this so you know I have thought it through.

    The Gospel of Pragmatism.
     
  4. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Well might be a system based on false claims but it is a representation of what we were born into. I think that what every one is missing is the fact that one does not have to be a part of the system be as it may. One only has to step apart. Now with this anna proclamation, now it shows she is stepping apart. Fine, but using the system to prove she is not of the system is just showing she is or understands the system, which means she is of the system.

    It is kind of like a catch 22 but you really are dammed if you do but to do means you are really dammed. I can not claim sovereignty I can only show it. What was that little saying...about light? Something about a little light shineith alot? Wipes away the darkness? Then there was the thing about the ten virgins? And, what is it with the virgin thing anyway....? OH well, what I am saying is, is that IF you are walking on water why slip into it just to prove you were walking on it?
     
  5. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  6. MIavatar

    MIavatar Seeker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I like the Notary at the UPS store. She refused to endorse some of my documents before. She so hot though. I think she submitted?
     
    michael59 likes this.
  7. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    sorry just have to as curiosity compels me..haha; who actually did she submit to? And, can u supply pictures without being charged with stalking? And, why is it called stalking any way? Stocks support grain crops....Is she a future crop? I gota quit here 4 I start talking bout porn....

    a hottie U say.....gerwralll.....
     
  8. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    On another avenue of communication - Skype:

    This is what you reminded me about. Thank you.

     
  9. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    come on...holie hard nipples on saggy titties there dave what the bumping uglies is that about? re-dam-dean something from a turd party?

    er I hate 2 do this but..and I wont...sorrys 2 my self...I should but eye wont...though I'm snickering and thinking I should...
     
  10. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    listen here davy.... you nor I.. nor Fucking GOD can redeem from a third party. K,I get tricked o....gona have to go biblical on this...

    who were them pups?.... Let them B jacob and esaw.... jacob just pops out of the bush and wants to suck out of esaw bush/bowl*gagging here* so esaw gets tricked out of his shit, fine. jacob sells his trick to u,....U do not have access to the jaco-B's shit.

    in matters of contract when A and B contract and B transfers that shit C and A are not contractually obligated.
     
  11. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    To jump in the middle of that shit is impairing obligation of contract.
     
  12. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    and, AND, AND, this oppsie...th...this is why and what filterfeading Robert made this post/thread. LAW merchant or merchant of law is all fucking third party bullshit...yet it is an ongoing thing.

    and, that my friends is what merchant law or law merchant is all about.

    edit: crap, and this is #5K? fuck
     
  13. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    We are not subject to that kind of intellectual abuse.
     
  14. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Oh yeah that is right BUT the fact of this matter is that you endure it....and that my friend is called suffering, period. You just like me are abused through this, this money law.

    you listen here cuz this is what I found out.... reason equals law as law equals reason. this money law why it don't equate, at all. It does not equate with contract, at all; but there it is.

    so opting out is not a option because to use that option just includes one as the thing. one can only stand against it on their own. and now you know why most peeps just let themselves be called PERSON.

    edit: placed U where it should have been,,[you] dag- nab-it every instance to correct/edit I can't find it,....but there should be a U in this,,.....
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  15. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I simply skip your posts. There is no need to suffer because you are miserable.
     
  16. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Well I don't do the christain quote thing as I know law goes way back further than that book. I have reasoned this law stuff for a long time and most of what people say is so, kind of works and sometimes it just don't. Running around and using a system to prove I am not of the system is counter intuitive, so I don't do it. What I do is use their laws against them at the time for it to be done. I have got myself in a pickle with a judge who thinks he is right so much that he cannot see he has annihilated three major parts of the Oregon constitution. I suppose he is getting his information off of a district prosecutor, but who's to say? This has been going on about ten, fifteen years or so. So I know for a fact pre filing paper work to prove I am not what they say I am is useless work when all I have to do is defeat them in court.
     
  17. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman2.htm


    Howard Freeman
    P. O. Box 364
    Lusk, Wyo. 82225

    March 25, 1991


    Dear Clarence:

    Please extend my kind regards to your wife as well as to
    yourself. I still look back upon the wonderful fellowship that I
    enjoyed with you in the few days that I spent with you in the
    Hendersonville, N.C. area in 1989.

    I have come upon much new information since that time which I
    will try to place in a format here so that your local attorney
    will understand the importance of the Remedy provided for us in
    the present commercial system of "law." The present commercial
    system of "law" has replaced the old and familiar Common Law upon
    which our nation was founded. And I will explain the legal
    thread which brought us from the status of sovereigns over
    government, to the status of subjects under government, through
    our use of negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to
    discharge our debts with limited liability instead of paying our
    debts at common law with gold or silver coin.

    The change in our system of law from "public law" to "private
    commercial law" was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United
    States in the Erie Railroad v. Thompkins case of 1938. After
    this case, in the same year the procedures of law were officially
    blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all U.S.
    Supreme Court Decisions were based upon public law, namely, that
    system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitations.

    Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court Decisions are based upon what
    is termed public policy concerning commercial transactions made
    under the Negotiable Instrument's Law. This Law is a branch of
    the International Law Merchant, which has now been codified into
    what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, or U.C.C. This
    system of law was made uniform throughout the 50 States through
    the cunning of the Congress of the United States. This "United
    States" had its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
    Constitution, as distinguished from the "United States," which is
    the Union of the 50 States. Through its cunning Congress offered
    grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which were
    given to the 50 States of the Union for education, highways,
    health, and other purposes, thus binding all the States of the
    Union into a commercial agreement with The Federal United States
    (as distinguished from The Continental United States).

    Having accepted the "benefits" offered by The Federal United
    States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between The
    Federal United States and each of the Corporate States, the
    Corporate States were then obligated to "obey" the Congress of
    The Federal United States and also to assume their portion of the
    equitable debts of The Federal United States to the International
    Banking Houses, for the CREDIT which they loaned. The equitable
    paper each State received, in the form of federal grants, was
    predicated upon this credit.

    This system of negotiable paper, binding all corporate entities
    of government together in a vast system of Commercial Agreements,
    is what has altered our Court system from one under the Common
    Law, to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal system of
    Commercial Law. Under this Tribunal system of Commercial Law,
    those brought before it are held to the letter of every statute
    of government on the Federal, State, County or Municipal levels
    UNLESS they have exercised the Remedy provided for them within
    that system of Commercial Law. By means of this Remedy, when
    forced to use a so-called "benefit" offered or available to them
    from government, they may reserve their former right, under the
    Common Law guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract or
    commercial agreement that they did not enter knowingly,
    voluntarily and intentionally.

    Now that you see exactly how corporate entities of State, County
    and Municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative
    Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
    Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to
    distinguish it from The Continental United States whose origin
    was in the Union of the Sovereign States. Also, you see that the
    same national Congress rules The Continental United States
    pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it
    enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it
    legislates for The Federal United States.

    With that knowledge, you ask this question: How did the free
    white Preamble citizenry of the sovereign States lose their
    guaranteed unalienable rights, be forced to accept the equitable
    debt obligations of The Federal United States, and become subject
    to that entity of government and divorced from their "sovereign
    status" in the Republic, which we call here The Continental
    United States, given that they do not reside, work or have income
    from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of The
    Federal United States? That is the question that has troubled
    sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. The answer follows:

    The answer is that your lack of knowledge concerning the
    "cunning" of the legal profession is the cause of that divorce.
    A knowledge of the "truth" concerning the legal thread that
    caught you in its net will restore your former status as a free,
    white, Preamble Citizen of the Republic.

    Not realizing that our national Congress works for two nations
    foreign to each other, and by legal cunning both are called The
    United States (one being the union of the Sovereign States under
    the Constitution, which I have termed The Continental United
    States, the other being a Legislative Democracy having its origin
    in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, which I
    have termed The Federal United States), few people, seeing some
    so-called "law" passed by Congress, ask themselves these
    questions: Which nation was Congress working for when it passed
    this or that so-called "law?" Does this particular law apply to
    the Continental Citizenry of the Republic, or does this
    particular law apply only to residents of the District of
    Columbia, and other named enclaves or territories of the
    Democracy, called The Federal United States?

    Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed
    citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for
    "cunning" political leadership to seek more power and authority
    over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of
    legalese. Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide a
    medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in harmony
    with its Constitutional mandate, but it created an abundance of
    commercial credit money for the Legislative Democracy, where it
    was not bound by Constitutional limitations.

    Then, after having created an emergency situation and a
    tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its
    emergency authority to remove the remaining substance from the
    medium of exchange belonging to the Republic, and Congress made
    the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative Democracy (The
    Federal United States) a legal tender for The Continental United
    States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts. At the same
    time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations
    the "benefit" of limited liability in the discharge of all debts,
    telling the citizenry that the gold and silver coins of the
    Republic were out-of-date and cumbersome, so they no longer
    needed to PAY their debts in substance, but were now privileged
    to discharge debt with this more "convenient" currency, issued by
    The Federal United States.

    So, everyone was forced to go modern, and to turn in their gold
    as a patriotic gesture. The entire news media complex went along
    with the scam, and declared it to be a forward step for our
    democracy, no longer referring to America as a Republic. From
    that point on, it was a falling light for the Republic of 1776,
    and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal Democracy,
    which overcame the depression, (caused deliberately by a created
    shortage of real money) by an abundance of debt paper money (so-
    called) in the form of interest-bearing negotiable instrument
    paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and other forms of paperwork
    credit instruments.

    Since all contracts, since Roosevelt's time, have the "colorable"
    consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine
    consideration of silver or gold coin, all contracts are colorable
    contracts, and not genuine contracts. So, a new colorable
    Jurisdiction, called a statutory Jurisdiction, had to be created
    to enforce them. Soon the term Colorable Contract was changed to
    the term Commercial Agreement to fit circumstances of the new
    Statutory Jurisdiction, which is legislative, rather than
    judicial in nature, and which enforces Commercial Agreements upon
    "implied consent," rather than full knowledge, as is the case
    with the enforcement of contracts under the Common Law.

    All of our Courts today sit as Legislative Tribunals, and the so-
    called "statutes" of legislative bodies being enforced in these
    Legislative Tribunals are not "statutes" passed by the legisla-
    tive branch of our three-branch Republic, but as "commercial
    obligations" to The Federal United States for anyone in The
    Federal United States or in The Continental United States who has
    used the equitable currency of The Federal United States, and who
    has accepted the "benefit" or privilege of discharging his debts
    with the limited liability "benefit" offered to him by The
    Federal United States, and who did not avail himself of the
    Remedy within this Commercial System of law, which Remedy is
    today found in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) at
    Section 207.

    A rubber stamp which reads "Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" is
    sufficient, when used in conjunction with one's signature, to
    indicate to the Magistrate of any of our present Legislative
    Tribunals (called Courts), that the signor of the document has
    reserved his common law right not to be bound to the statute or
    commercial obligation of any commercial agreement, that he did
    not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, as would be
    the case in any common law contract.

    And pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being enforced as a
    commercial obligation of a Commercial Agreement, must now be
    construed in harmony with the old common law of America, where
    the Tribunal or Court must rule that the statute does not apply
    to the individual who was wise enough and informed enough to
    exercise the Remedy provided in this new system of law. By means
    of this Remedy, he may retain his former status in the Republic
    and fully enjoy his unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the
    Constitution of the Republic, while those about him "curse the
    darkness" of Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed
    to free themselves from a slave status under The Federal United
    States, even while inhabiting territory foreign to its
    territorial venue.

    I trust your attorney friend will have some ideas as to where you
    are coming from when you have him read this. If he still refuses
    to handle your case, contact me, and I will try to help you
    handle the case in propria persona. I hope to visit you again
    sometime.


    Your brother in Christ,

    /s/ Howard Freeman

    Howard Freeman


    # # #
     
    Goldhedge and BarnacleBob like this.
  18. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Well, all that is true when messing with inferior courts like municipal ones, the ones that deal with peace and dignity, but when it comes to the district court which is harm and injury all that jazz just peters out. POWER OF THE PLAINTIFF is jurisdiction and if it is handed off to the fiction then so be it. This means that a 'Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207' or a 'Without Prejudice TITLE 18' aint gona do nuthin or mean nuthin.

    IF you harm or injure me and I swear an affidavit of truth to secure your arrest then I have the power of the plaintiff and you have power of defendant. I can hand that power to the fiction while you cannot hand defendant to any one. Now when it comes to statute law like....like, i wore the wrong colored panties on tuesday then every thing above comes into play. BUT, if I rip your panties off because they are the wrong color on tuesday then I have committed a trespass against you and it is actionable.
     
  19. MIavatar

    MIavatar Seeker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I certainly have flawed understanding of this as the son of an esquire yet not technically “in the club” so take it for what it’s worth. I’m going through my own thing right now. We shall see.

    From what I understand if you volunteer into their system. Through being a resident, having a drivers license, using FRN’s, maybe even just walking into the front of the court, etc.. You are subservient to the giver of said benefit. You contracted for that status prime on it’s face. It’s all well and good to expose this. Yet when people don’t know the back story and they wonder why they as so called sovereigns are thrown in jail by these “priest” esquires. Until the Law is resolved by another “priest” esquire sitting in judgment. Most just plead for mercy to get out of the chains.

    I’ve only tried to read the Talmud a few times and didn’t spend much time on it( much more interested in the Zohar), I do like codes though so .

    Do you’re own diligence.

    https://www.biblebelievers.org.au/babelaw.htm

     
  20. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    I don't think one volunteers into it but a lot of people see it that way and explain it as such.
     
  21. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The UCC Connection:

    Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny


    September 22, 1991


    Foreword

    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, as most
    fear, is based on lack of understanding or knowledge. Those of
    us who have chosen a path out of bondage and 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 and 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.


    UCC Connection

    "I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves,
    be as wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."


    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 whom you are sending over to speak to him -- if he is,
    can he wait just five minutes. 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 judge'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 vs 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 of 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 as wise as a serpent and as
    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 an 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.


    No 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. Any time 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 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 your
    seat belt 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 seat belt
    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 seat belts 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 1,
    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 and
    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"1 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 UCC, this is not so. First of all, contracts are
    unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding,
    and if you only exercise the benefits of an "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
    UCC 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 1-207.2 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 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 Anderson3 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 complementary 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 seat belt, 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 a
    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 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.


    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
    to say:


    "I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I
    want to save the government some money (this will get 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


    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 am 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 he would have to admit that:


    a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;

    b. you had one 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

    F E M A, 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 told him that there are certain
    actions we should take right now. I think we should consider the
    fact that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Wyoming is
    an accommodation party5 to the national debt. To understand
    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 1,
    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. They 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 1, 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.

    When did Congress get the authority to write the Internal
    Revenue Code? It is found in Article 1, 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 cannot 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
    nonresident 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 -- the 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, so then you can use
    the UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention that you are
    among the national citizenry of the continental united States,
    and you are a nonresident alien to the federal United States.
    You never lived in a federal territory and never had an 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 cannot rule the States. How have
    we been tricked into federal regions?


    The ZIP Code Trick

    Remember how the government always come 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
    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, 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 federal
    regions directly, 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 the 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."6 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 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.


    Questions and Review

    Note: These are some of the questions asked after the main
    lecture. Some are re-statements 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 were 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 judge's 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 the 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 am 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 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 must not go
    into court with a chip on your shoulder and as a wolf in "black
    sheep" country. Remember Jesus' words, "I send you out as sheep
    in wolf country. Be as wise as a serpent, and as 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 cannot 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 to 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 cannot 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 and 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 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 judge's 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 I 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 to 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 as wise as a serpent and as 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 your 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 unrevealed 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 agreement7, 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 it to paper, in an 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.

    The purpose of this transcript, 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. It 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 obligated 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 led to the gallows, this information
    may be indispensable. For the extraordinary challenges of
    appearing in court in one's own person -- in propria persona
    -- 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
    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 who is 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 numbered 90-30, 90-31,
    90-32 and 90-33, which may be ordered from:


    America's Promise Ministries
    c/o P. O. Box 157
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Postal Zone 83864/TDC

    (208) 265-5405


    The next set of tapes (from 1991) are numbered 1004, 1005
    and 1006, and contain vital material not found in this
    transcript.


    Footnotes:

    1. Colorable. That which is in appearance only, and not in
    reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned,
    having the appearance of truth. Black's Law Dictionary,
    Fifth Edition.

    2. Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this
    demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights.
    The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to
    order and get a stamp, shows that you had reserved your
    rights before signing the document.

    3. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, Lawyers Cooperative
    Publishing Company.

    4. It is very important to get it into the record that you do
    not understand the charges. With that in the record, the
    court cannot move forward to judge the facts. This will be
    covered later on page 19.

    5. For more about this, see page 18.

    6. UCC 3-415. "Accommodation Party." One who signs commercial
    paper in any capacity for the purpose of lending his name to
    another party to the instrument. Such a party is a surety."
    (Surety: "One who undertakes to pay money or to do some
    other act in the event that his principal fails therein.")

    7. See UCC 1-201. General Definitions (3): "Agreement means
    the bargain of the parties in fact as found in their
    language or by implication from other circumstances
    including courses, dealing or usage of trade or course of
    performance."


    # # #





    Return to Table of Contents for

    Howard Freeman
     
    Goldhedge and MIavatar like this.
  22. MIavatar

    MIavatar Seeker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Appreciate this Bigjon. One more rock to throw at Goliath.

    Noticed they changed the wording and I can’t find the anderson version of the UCC anymore. This is from Cornell Law.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-103
    So, I started snooping around some more.

    https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/in-ucc-1-103--what-exactly-does---and-the-law-rela-1369907.html
    My work flow is. Since the [drivers license] was un signed under duress and the complainant obviously looked at it to write the instrument how can the court accept that contract as valid? Not know what they are doing under UCC 1-103?

    Thinking about sending in another writ asking just that, maybe with a scanned copy of the [ driver license].

    Again, thanks for the light bulb going off right now.
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  23. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
     
  24. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    He blue/blew it, just flat spewed chunks....when he asked if the court took notice of the judges oath and hurley replied "Yes I take notice of my oath," hurley is not the court, he is the inhabitant of that court but not the court. Hurley is setting up the fictitious plaintiff and this guy just fell into it.

    And, I can't watch the rest...hey I had a judge go to school to learn about people like me and my beliefs...hahaha
     
  25. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The ZIP Code Issue:
    Excerpts from a Personal Letter

    by

    Howard Freeman

    November 11, 1988


    Your letter asks for information on the ZIP Code pursuant to
    something that appeared in the Justice Times some time ago. I
    wish I had in my possession the article you refer to, so that I
    could have some idea of what you already know, and could just
    fill in the details of what you do not understand, but I do not
    have that article, so I'll try to make the "ZIP Code Issue" clear
    to you.

    There are two entities, or nations, called "The United
    States". One is the union of 50 independent States combined into
    a 3-branch (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) Republican Form of
    government under a contract called: The Constitution of the
    United States of America. The Other is a 1-branch (Legislative)
    Democracy, which arises out of the Constitutional Contract
    wherein Congress (the Legislative Branch of the 3-branch
    Republic) was given Exclusive rule over a body of people known
    as: The Residents of the District of Columbia. It should be
    obvious to anyone that, when a governing body (in this case
    Congress) has "exclusive" rule over a people, you have a nation.
    So, in America, we have a small nation, operating upon Roman
    Civil Law principles, within a larger nation which operates upon
    the principles of the Common Law, and is limited in its powers
    and authority by the Constitutional Contract. I could spend the
    rest of the day explaining the differences between Roman Civil
    Law and the Common Law, but instead I will enclose a tape with
    this letter to you, which will do that for me. Please do me the
    honor of listening to this tape on both sides. Many people
    reply, upon my inquiry about the tape I sent to them, that they
    are too busy to listen to it, which remark I consider somewhat
    insulting to me, when I have gone to the expense and trouble of
    getting it into their hands.

    As you know, the Republic called The United States, is
    limited in what it can do by the Constitution, and that
    Constitution limited its Congress to coining money out of silver
    or gold, and limited its borrowing power to those two
    commodities. The Legislative Democracy called: The United
    States, using the same Congress as the Republic, only for its own
    ends, has no limitation of any kind on what it might or might not
    do, since Congress, working in behalf of the Legislative Party or
    Democracy, has the power and authority to issue a paper currency,
    and to declare it to be a "legal tender" for all debt public and
    private. That Congress had no limitation in what it might borrow
    either! So the National Debt that you hear so much about, came
    from that Congress's power to borrow other than silver or gold,
    which was bank credit from the International Banking Houses.

    A Problem: What can the Bankers do? Easy solution, since
    their money controls the news media: keep the citizens of the
    Republic in the dark, get the lawyers busy, and figure ways of
    entrapment, so that the Citizens of the Republic would think that
    it was THEIR Congress that borrowed the bank credit, and that it
    is their problem to pay the usury on that debt. Steps of Legal
    Trickery follow:


    1. The 14th Amendment, which is based upon Roman Civil Law,
    supposedly replaced the 4th Amendment, which is based upon
    the Common Law. That aspect of things is explained on the
    tape enclosed, so I won't go into it here.

    2. Have the Congress of the Republic fail in its duty to
    provide a medium of exchange for its Citizens, thus forcing
    them to do their trading in the "Legal Tender" paper which
    the Congress of the Legislative Democracy has made
    available. I will skip a few other steps here, and get to
    the meat of the information you want, which concerns the ZIP
    Code issue.

    3. The Congress of the Republic must be enticed to consolidate
    50 independent States into 10, not so independent, Federal
    Regions. (What Congress creates, Congress can control, is a
    legal principle.) Now, the same Congress that rules the
    Legislative Democracy may rule the 10 Federal Regions,
    provided the citizens thereof can be kept asleep, and not
    claim their rights under the Federal and State
    Constitutional Contracts.

    4. Have the Post Office Department separate itself from the
    Republic and, in its new independence, create two-letter
    abbreviations for all States (contrary to the lawful State
    abbreviations established by the Legislatures of most
    States) and have the Post Office Department require this new
    abbreviation on all subsidized mail, and suggest it on all
    first class mail, along with the ZIP Code.

    5. Page 11 of the ZIP Code Directory, which can be found in any
    Post Office, will tell you that the first digit of every ZIP
    Code number indicates the Federal Region in which the user
    resides.

    6. Now that the majority of the brainwashed public, belonging
    to the Republic, are educated to employ the two-letter
    abbreviations for their State, which abbreviations were
    never adopted by the State Legislatures as the lawful State
    abbreviations, those using said abbreviation are not making
    a lawful claim of their State residency and, with the use of
    the ZIP code in connection with the new two-letter State
    abbreviation, they are making a lawful claim that they are
    residents of the particular Federal Region in which they
    reside, so they can now be ruled under Roman Civil Law and
    tried in the Admiralty Courts of the Legislative Democracy.

    7. With all of that in place, the Income Tax, which is employed
    to pay the Usury on the National Debt owed by the
    Legislative Democracy, now applies to the Citizens of the
    Republic who fail to properly claim and establish their
    rights as Citizens of their respective States.

    8. It is made to appear "Progressive" in our Schools to refer
    to America as a "Democracy", and somewhat "Reactionary" to
    study the State and National Constitutions in our schools.
    This keeps the public ignorant of the fact that the Congress
    of the "Republic" is limited by Contract from passing any
    penal statute of compelled performance upon the Citizens of
    any State. The Internal Revenue Code is all that type of
    statute, and those statutes ONLY apply to the residents of
    the District of Columbia (see Article 1, Section 8, Clause
    17 of the U.S. Constitution) and also to all those who
    stupidly fail to claim their State residency and allow
    themselves to be given to the status of citizens of the
    United States (meaning the Legislative Democracy) claiming
    themselves to be residents of a Federal Region which is
    ruled over by the Democracy under Roman Civil Law.


    The above is all needed information if you are to understand
    the ZIP Code issue. I hope that I have not worn you out with my
    explanation, as I have done with others, who ask me questions of
    depth, and who only want some shallow, one-sentence reply.

    One other caution before I close: The ZIP Code use, or non
    use, is NOT a "silver bullet" solution to all problems, wherein
    the Legislative Democracy, called the United States, forces
    itself upon you. The enclosed tape will point out other
    solutions. To properly handle oneself in order to keep out of
    Legislative Article I Courts exercising Legislative Power, and
    into the Article III Courts of the Republic which exercise
    Judicial Power, is another whole study in itself. Again, let me
    repeat: There Are No Silver Bullets for those who claim to be
    too busy to study!
     
  26. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    26,138
    Likes Received:
    28,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Bigjon likes this.
  27. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Damn the swamp is one deep place, complete with rabbit holes.

    Bid Bonds, Performance Bonds CUSIP. Gene Keating

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/ginit...ng/53838263849

    Criminal Court Bonding

    February 23, 2009 at 10:08pm
    Criminal Court Bonding

    Gene Keating workshop

    Statutes are bonds. Courtroom charges are civil, not criminal. Clerk’s Praxis was the court of arches under the king’s bench at the time of Edward I. It’s a court of probates. John Hall wrote this book. This was used in vice-admiralty courts in the colonies in the American Revolution and this is what caused the revolution.


    Everything involves bonds. When you are arrested there are two different sets of bond. A bid bond is filled out when you are arrested. US District court uses forms used SF 273, 274, and 275. There is another set of bonds. Both sets are put out by the GSA. SF form 24 is the bid bond. The performance bond is SF form 25. The payment bond is SF form 25 A. These are all put out by the GSA, under the Comptroller of the Currency under the GAO (general accounting office).

    SF 273, 274 and 275 are the bonds for federal level courts to use. What are they doing with these bonds? In the court room you are being sued for debt collection. It is an action in assumpsit. The word, presume, comes from assumpsit. “I agree, or I undertook to do...” Assumpsit means collection of debt.

    All these bonds have a penal sum attached to it. If you go into default judgement, you end up in prison wondering what is going on. If you argue jurisdiction, or refuse to answer questions that the court addresses to you, you’ll be in contempt of court and in jail. This goes back to Edward I and Clerk’s Praxis. This is all civil and not criminal. It’s a smoke screen to cover up what they are doing.

    They brought someone to court under an arrest bond. There was a civil suit. Clerk’s Praxis is Latin for practice. Praxis means practice. This book is an actual practice book that goes into everything Jack Smith teaches, letter rogatories. You are held until the suit is complete, they get a default judgment for failure to pay a debt and then you are put in prison. Attorneys are there as a smoke screen to cover up what is really done. They lead you into default judgment by argument (dishonor), you go to prison and then the default judgment is sold.

    US District Court buys all the state court judgments. Type US Court in any search engine. After you get to US Courts there are 11 circuit courts of the US listed. Click on circuit 7 and that takes you into all the list of courts. To find Ohio/Illinois find circuit 7 is northern Illinois district courts, bankruptcy courts, etc and then you’ll find a box that says clerks office. Scroll down and you’ll see administrative offices and under that you’ll see financial departments. It talks about the criminal justice acts, optional bids, it’s all spelled out.

    Go to List of sureties. Why would they have a list of sureties in a federal district court? When you click on this it takes you to www.FMS.Treas.Gov. This is department of treasury. Then you will see on the left hand side of the screen, admitted and reinsured. Under that is list of sureties. Under that is ‘forms.’ If you click on admitted, reinsureds, there are over 300 insurance companies. There’s a complete list. There’s also a list of Surety Companies. These are more insurance companies. Under Circular 750 the dept of treasury these insurance company have to be certified before they can purchase the bonds. They can’t put up bonds unless they are certified by the secretary of the treasury.

    Next you go to “forms.” Click here it goes to the Miller Backed Reinsurance; it’ll list three different type of bonds. You don’t use a bid bond in district court. These bonds come out of the GSA. The 273, 274 and 275 bond forms are as follows: 273 is the reinsurance agreement with the US; 274 is the Miller Act Reinsurance Performance Bond; 275 is your payment bond–the Miller Act Reinsurance Payment Bond.

    What are they doing with these bonds? They have regulations governing these bonds.......2,000 pages governing these bonds. Gene will sell these for $50. If you go into these regulations they tell you they’re buying up commercial items (actual words) 2.01 of these regulations. These regulations are divided into 50 parts. There are 1126 pages Volume1; 823 pages in volume 2. Commercial items are nonpersonal property. Property that is not real estate, moveable property. Real estate is not moveable. These terms are defined in UCC.

    Commercial items are commercial paper. This is the 8th edition of Black’s Law which just came out. “Commercial items: it’s commercial paper; negotiable instruments; anything you put your signature on is a negotiable instrument – lex mercantoria.(?) This is used in the courtroom because everyone of us is a merchant of law. Because I use commercial paper on a day-to-day schedule I am considered an expert. This is why they don’t tell us what’s going on in the court room. Every time we put our signature on a paper, we’re creating negotiable and non negotiable instruments and that makes us experts. When I endorse it under 3-419 I’m an accommodation party or an accommodation maker. Anyone who loans his signature to another party is an accommodation party. This is in 3-419 of the UCC.

    When you loan your signature to them, they can rewrite your signature on any document they want to. The federal courts buy up the state courts default judgments. These are civil and just being called criminal to cover up what they are doing. If you don’t pay the debt you go to prison.

    CUSIP is an identification system. DTC Depository Trust Corporation, and has several other monikers. Depository Trust Clearing Corporation. 1 trillion dollars a day goes through the DTC. Govt Clearing Securities Clearing Corporation is another day. CUSIP (committee on uniform identification processes) is a trademark of Standard and Poors and is on bottom floor of the building at Water Street in Washington DC. CUSIP cins (cusip international numbering system) is an international numbering system. Domestic securities have 6 digit numbers; international number (isid -- international securities identification division--plus) are a global networking system. Paine Webber, with 10,000 corporations in it, is the major stockholder of CCA, Corrections Corporation of America in Nashville, TN.

    They have privatized the system. Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, HUD, are all international. Everyone is feeding off the prison system internationally. All major corporations are feeding off the prison system including REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust), PZN–Prison Trust. All real estate companies are holding bonds and the bonds are not redeemed and they haven’t closed my account. Lehman Bros just gave $6 billion. New York City had a $3 billion deficit. Lehman Brothers gave NYC the money to build credit facility (not prison system). Lehman Brothers is underwriting the prison system. They buy up the bid bonds, the court judgments.

    There are international treaties that are reinsurance treaties. Insurance Companies come in and act as sureties for the bid bonds. The performance, bid, and payment bonds are all surety bonds. All bid bonds must have a surety. The surety is guaranteeing the reinsuring of the bid bond by issuing the performance bond. They get an underwriter (investment broker or banker) to underwrite the performance bond which reinsures the bid bond. The underwriter takes the payment, performance and bid bonds and pools them into ‘mortgage backed securities’ which are called bonds and sold to TBA, The Bond Market Association, an actual corporation. After the payment bond is issued to reinsure or underwrite the performance bond, which reinsures the bid bond, the banks convert the bonds to investment securities. The banks and brokerage houses are selling these as investment securities. The prisoners are funding the whole enchilada. Because you got into default judgment when you went into the court room.

    There are regulations governing these that are all in 48CFR, title 48 code of federal regulations. This is where Gene gets all the information. It’s on his $50 disc. Part 12 deals with commercial items, which are negotiable instruments, which are court judgments--the performance, payment and bid bonds. . Any time you deal in bonds you are dealing with risk management. A reinsurer and reinsurance means you are dealing in risk management. The reinsurer is assuming part of the risk of the bid bond; they give him a portion of the original premium. The original insurer gets part of the premium of the policy of the bid bond for acting as surety for the bid bond. The underwriter guarantees the resale of the bonds back to the public as investment securities.

    To win in court you have to redeem the bond. Gene went to court and asked for his bid bond. He asked for post settlement closure of the account. This process is hypothecation. You have to know how to hypothecate the bond. Banks make derivatives out of your promissory notes and sell them (mortgages, credit cards etc). These prison bonds are being monetized. They make an investment security out of it. They make a fortune off the prisoners. These bonds go international into sinds and then into ANNA (annual numerical numbering association) in Brussels, Belgium with unlimited capital. This is where euro, yin, sterling, everything is under the prison system. All countries are feeding off it.

    This is what was behind 911. State legislatures pass bond statutes so they can arrest people for paper terrorism. American Legislative Exchange Committee is behind all this. Paul Warrick owns this think tank. ALEC promotes privatization of the prison system. They go to the National Congress of Commissioners which are 72 judges and lawyers who ‘grew up’ under the UCC under lex mercantoria. “The principles of the law merchant are the rules of the decisions of all the courts.” Everything is commercial. All crimes are commercial. All crimes....kidnaping, robbery, extortion, murder. You don’t close the account, you go to prison. The bond gets sold domestically and internationally.

    The bonds are sold on the NYSE. CCA (Corrections Corp of America) sells their stock and shares on the NYSE. John D. Russell owns 64 million shares of CCA. John Ferguson, VP, owns 5 million shares. They are on the CCA board of directors. The Dillon Corrections Corp is owned by David Dillon and merged with Trinity Ventures Investment who then became SB Warburg. That’s part of the Warburg family, located in Chicago, Illinois. They are hooked up with the BIF bank, the bank of international settlements in Switzerland, one of the largest banks in the world. This is why people do not win in court. Trial and pre sentencing are just a dog and pony show.

    Don’t use a bond, Gene says. Use a bid bond. It has the word principle....I am the principal, the strawman is the surety. Put the strawman as the surety and myself as the principal. Then I fill out a performance bond which is a reinsurance bond for the bid bond. On the reinsurance bond I will put myself down as the guarantor or the reinsurer. The performance bond is 274. The payment bond underwrites the performance. I can underwrite the bid bond with the performance bond. That’s the reinsurer. The courts do this for me, because I don’t know this stuff. And then they make the money off me.

    If you have a case pending, go into whatever district you are in. Find the court, type in the case number and it’ll tell me who has my bond. Banks are all tied into this. Every time I sign a check, it’s a promissory note, the bank makes a derivative out of it. The bank endorses it on the back, without recourse, and monetizes it by selling it as a derivative. They sell it internationally. My $100 check is used by 20 or 30 corporations internationally. This is why we are not getting back our canceled checks. The reason is they are sold as promissory notes. The banks make derivatives out of them and sell them internationally. Therefore, I am loaning money to the bank. The bank re-loans it to other people. The CUSIP # is a 9 digit number. Internationally it’s up into 12 digits, representing trillions of dollars.

    What if you have a court case in default? Default is synonymous with dishonor. They are suing you civilly for collection of a debt. If you go into default judgment, if you have a claim, there mandatory rule 13. Rule 13 says that when a claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence it is mandatory that you file a counter claim. What is your counter claim? Post settlement and closure

    of the account under public policy. You’re entitled to a discharge of the debt because you are the principle and the holder in due course of the original account; you own both sides of the account. You own the common stock and the preferred stock and you are the principal on the account which means you are the creditor. Everyone is acting like a debtor instead of a creditor. A creditor pays his debts.

    You have to do the proper filing to establish your position. (UCC I–you have to be the secured party). You are the principal upon which all money circulates. This is the accrual method of accounting. Accruals are capital and interest from the principal. Any time you monetize debt you have a principal. You have to identify yourself as the principal. What they have to do is return all the capital and interest to you as the principal. This is the accrual method of accounting. When you go to court and argue jurisdiction what you are saying is you aren’t going to pay the debt. The strawman (all caps name) is the name they have a claim against because your mother signed the birth certificate with the state creating the strawman contract. They used your name in all capital letters. That makes you the fiduciary trustee of the account which means you pay all of your debts to honor the court. People in the redemption process are going into the court and arguing and getting into default judgment. If you don’t give your name or argue jurisdiction you’re causing problems. What you can do is give a conditional acceptance.

    If they don’t charge you, they don’t have a claim against the strawman. But don’t start arguing with the court about it. Do a conditional acceptance. “I’ll be happy to give me my name, if you’ll give me the charging paper.” Rebut the presumption that they have charges against you. They work on presumption and they don’t have to have anything. You have to rebut the presumption. Use a negative averment. The court is drafting you for performance. If you don’t perform you get into dishonor by non-acceptance. They make a formal presentment under 3-501 of the UCC in order to charge and they use the word charge. They use the same commercial term on your indictments, complaints, your information. They use the word charge. The following charges...........two counts of RICO, etc. Gene Keating and Roger Elvick both had the same charges. Roger has been in jail 9 months, Roger hasn’t been to trial yet. Gene is out of jail. Roger is arguing jurisdiction. He’s arguing whether they are an article III court.

    The have a business credit report on you. If the judge says he’s going to do a psychiatric exam on you, you’re arguing. You have to be a gentleman and not get belligerent. Be gentle as a dove and wise as a serpent. If you act like a belligerent they’re going to beat you up. You’re the fiduciary trustee and the principal and owner of the account.

    Following is Gene’s overlay (notes in ( ) not to be included in the overlay–just emphasis). Tell them what to do. You want full settlement and closure of the account. You have to do this from the get-go. “I accept your charges for value and consideration (you must use value and consideration) in return for post-settlement and closure of account xxxxxxxxx (social security number with no dashes–the cusip is the SS # without the dashes) cusip and autotris (automated tracking identification system) number. Cusip is uniform security identification processes. Cusip uses you SS# to identify you because the birth certificate is an investment security. All these are registered at state level with department of human resources, then to department of commerce at federal level, and the to the DTC (Depository Trust Corporation on Water Street. CUSIP is a trademark of Standard and Poor. It is located under the DTC building at 55 Water Street in New York City. The 9 digit cusip is also used for isid (international numbering system).

    “I accept the charges for value and consideration. In return please use my exemption and principal for post-settlement and closure of case number #___________ and cusip and autotris account #555555555 as this account is prepaid and exempt from levy.” Then date it and place your signature it below the previous statement. (The case # references back to your SS#. That’s why they always get your SS#). Endorse as the strawman by ‘authorized by’ or agent with your signature. Write “good as aval” after the signature. I’m the fiduciary trustee who is assuming responsibility for the strawman as the authorized representative. When you put the word by, and then authorized representative it means someone other than the strawman signed. Other way to do it is the real Christian appellation and you don’t have to put ‘by.’ (John Peter; Public) Under 3-402 1a of UCC, “if a person acting as a representative or purporting to act as a representative signs an instrument the name of the signor the representative person is bound by the signature in the same extent a representative person would be bound by the signature on a simple contract.” That is, you’re not incurring any liability on the signature. (Lynn’s note: look this up, the tape was hard to hear at this point) That’s why you want to sign the strawman name and then by John Peter Public, authorized representative.

    What they do is they put the autotris # in a manual in a module; every federal and state agency has my tracking number. They have it in the criminal task force. Passports, metro police, city, county, sheriff, FEMA, homeland security all use this #. Autotris was made in a forensics laboratory in Russia. It is owned by AD&M.(stopped between the two left arrows).

    He used this on an ADA and it worked. They held him for 3 days and let him go. Judges and attorneys do not understand commercial law. They don’t teach it in law school. No one uses it in a court room. Nobody knows this stuff and that’s why Gene is teaching it. Because we are using commercial paper, the law assumes we understand what we are doing. You are responsible for your actions. If you use commercial paper on a daily basis, that makes you an expert by legal definition. They presume you know all this stuff when you go into a courtroom. The judges don’t even know this stuff.

    If you don’t show up in court with an attorney, they grill you about competency and mental capacity. Here’s what you are dealing with. You are arguing with these people. You don’t want to argue in a commercial setting. What you want to do and the reason you have to have an attorney in a court room is that they are working on the public side and you are working on the private side. Everyone on the public side is insolvent or bankrupt. You are dealing in (Black’s Law) a fiction of law: You are referred to legal fiction. Why do they call it legal fiction? Definition: (this is the reason why you can’t argue venue and jurisdiction in a commercial setting) assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue. (In some aspects of admiralty you can argue venue and jurisdiction.) Made especially in judicial reasoning to alter how a legal rule operates, specifically a device by which a legal rule or institution is divergent from its original purpose to accomplish indirectly some other object. The constructive trust is an example of a legal fiction. Also termed a fiction of law........fictio juris. They will not allow you to defeat this fiction of law. This came out of Erie vs. Thompkins and courts at all levels are using fictions of law because everything is colorable and has the appearance of being rule, but it’s not real.

    Gene worked with a case. Used a habeas corpus and the judge threw it out because Gene failed to give a colorable claim. How can you give color to a pleading? Confession and avoidance. Gene did a lot of research in this area. Confession and avoidance is a common law remedy. You avoid the consequences of the action by the plaintiff and you avoid by defenses. This has been changed to rule 8 concerning defenses federal rules of civil procedure.. Letter of affirmative defense, the law of discharge, the law merchant, the law of principle and equity, the law of satisfaction, the law of bankruptcy. Are they bankrupt? Sure they are. You don’t want to rebut the presumption. You want to settle the account as the principle. When they monetize a debt they always have a principle on which they borrow all this money. Trafficant said we were going through the biggest bankruptcy and reorganization in the history of the US. He’s in jail because he dishonored the court. All these judges know there’s know money. Under common law only gold and silver is money. Title 12 section 211 and 212--The lawful money of the US is construed as gold and silver coin. Any federal reserve note is redeemable at any federal reserve bank or treasury office for lawful money. Title 31 section 5118 2d. HJR192.

    They have to give you an out, a remedy. Affirmative defenses under rule 8 is my remedy for every commercial liability. These are prepaid accounts. The industrial society borrows money to manufacture product, like General Motors. They are on the public side of the accounting ledger. On one side of the ledger everything is private.

    The principle is on one side, the debtor strawman is on the public side. That’s in the bankruptcy. You are the principle and the owner. You’re the stockholder, you’re the bank. This is not opinion, this is what is going on. Gene owns his own bank and drew up his own charter. You are the lienholder in this system. You own preferred stock and the common stock. The strawman is the beneficiary. Your exemption is in a bridge between the private side and the public side. That’s why you have the exemption.

    Credits are liabilities and debits are assets. They can’t pass from the credit to the debit side, because we are constantly in dishonor. Debits are private and credits are public. They’re borrowing all this money using our credit. I am responsible for the strawman. The strawman name is on the complaint in court and the strawman is liable and has to pay. If the strawman doesn’t pay, I pay for him because I didn’t assume the responsibility as the fiduciary trustee and they sell the account. They don’t need a real complaint or a real warrant. It’s all colorable. They will not allow you to overcome them. You start arguing with them, not giving your name, they will drive you into submission and into contempt. Gene’s done all this. You don’t want to do this. They will kill you and collect the insurance money. I am insured by the FDIC and the FDIA under title 12 with a $10 million dollar policy. I’m worth more dead than alive. They’ll kill you without batting an eyelash. They killed a young woman by shooting her in the face with a pellet after the Red Sox won and she wasn’t doing anything.

    The more people they kill the more money they make.

    Judges and lawyers in Texas hired someone to shoot migrant workers and then they collected the insurance money on them. This is serious business. What does a creditor do? Pays his debts? I am the only one with any money. The banks don’t have money, everyone on the public side is bankrupt. Everyone who goes into court and argues with the judge over how they spell their name (all caps, etc). When you have ‘committed’ a felony they will appoint counsel. What you do is a letter Rogatory, a letter of advice. What goes in this letter Rogatory? You instruct the attorney that you are doing an acceptance for honor and you want an accounting of the total amount of the bill for full settlement and closure of the account and you give the case #, the cusip # and the autotris #. The letter Rogatory is in Clerk’s Praxis. What you say in the letter, you put your name in and “I ___________appoint ________(attorney’s name) as my fiduciary trustee, case #, autotris and cusip # , use my exemption for post settlement and closure of this case and account.” Date this and endorse it.

    I’m actually creating all the money for the bank. They make derivatives and fractionalize it and makes trillions of dollars off me. Gene issued an international bill of exchange for his APA (parole officer) and they stopped billing him. They closed the account. He’s going after the bid bond, the performance bond and the payment bond–he wants them back. He’s the principle and he wants his capital and interest back.. After he did the international bill of exchange they arrested him and then let him go after 3 days. They quit billing him, the weekly parole bills. Dec 8, 1988, the US became a party to the municipal convention on the international bills of exchange.

    They have insurance on the strawman and when you go in as an insurgent or belligerent,......... There is the war powers act and trading with the enemy act and you are subject to seizure wherever they find you. If you don’t allow them settlement and closure they will kill you without batting an eyelash. Don’t fire the attorney. Tell the judge that you are appointing the attorney as fiduciary trustee. When you go into court you have to be a gentleman, and don’t get vulgar. If you do things right you will not be held in contempt of court. Gene was charged with 3 counts of RICO, felony 1, 2 and 3, including intimidation. The only reason he spent any time in prison was that he couldn’t get his paperwork. He served 5 months. They dropped the first 2 counts.

    They arrest you and what you want to do is go after the bid bond. There are two sets of bonds, the GSA 25, SF (standard form) . There are two sets of forms 24–bid bond, 25–performance bond, 25a is the payment bond.

    Municipal convention supercedes article 3 of the UCC. This is in the official, master text of the UCC.



    28 Likes19 Comments82 Shares
     
  28. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Hermosa Beach couple convicted in federal tax fraud case

    A federal jury convicted a Hermosa Beach couple Friday of charges related to their participation in a scheme that filed fraudulent tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service that sought to collect millions of dollars in refunds.

    Sean David Morton, 58, and his wife, Melissa Ann Morton, 50, each were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts each of filing false claims against the United States, and various counts of passing false or fictitious financial instruments.

    Sean Morton faces up to 650 years in prison when he is sentenced June 19; Melissa Morton faces up to 625 years.

    During their trial, prosecutors presented evidence showing the Mortons filed federal income tax returns that falsely claimed they had income from various banking institutions. The Mortons falsely reported large withholdings and claimed they were owed refunds.

    As a result, the IRS erroneously issued a refund of $480,323 to Sean Morton for a 2008 income tax return.

    http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-...ch-couple-convicted-in-federal-tax-fraud-case
     
  29. MIavatar

    MIavatar Seeker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male

    How much you want to bet that the IRS "billing system is almost completely automated? just like the medical coding system. Most never sees a human user?


    http://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/lex-mercatoria-law-merchant.135226/page-9#post-1177613


    I’ve been endorsing any instrument with [signature] UCC 1-308 12 USC 411. I did have one judge ask me to strike the invocation UCC 1-308 from the instrument. I haven’t gone as far to be the secured principle via UCC-1 form. I've had an esquire tell me you can't just come in here and tell these people to F-off. Then of course I spent 20 minutes in "contempt" before they let me out. It's kinda a crap shoot.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-415
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-501
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  30. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What is lacking in all these deliveries is a papertrail verifying exigent circumstances by testimony of the unbound "judges". Academic at best.

    clerk instruction Garnish Secretary President_Page_1.jpg

    Here is an example of R4C:

    clerk instruction Garnish Secretary President_Page_4.jpg




    I once called it the IN GOD WE TRUST Trust. The bonding is Masonic, within the Lodge - CAPITONYM. SO HELP ME GOD in conjunction. George WASHINGTON added verbally and impromptu: "So help me God." to the first Presidential Oath.



    NY_FREEMASONRY.jpg


    NY_FREEMASONRY back cover.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

  31. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    625 years a piece? day-um!

    piece and dignity....or a piece of YOUR dignity...
     
  32. MIavatar

    MIavatar Seeker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Just for fun. Here's a response I'm thinking about. Not SCAO format. Just for entertainment.

    MOTION TO DISMISS

    (Plaintiffs name here)                                                                                                         Plaintiff

            VS                                           Case number (number here)

    (Defendants name here)                                                               Defendant







    Motion to Dismiss.

    The defendant in error respectfully moves the court to dismiss this case against for lack of a valid contract and rejection of the offer.

    1.) I ask if the complainant and/or Court had the opportunity to view the [drivers license] of the defendant in error?

    See exhibit 1 attached.

    2.) Can this honorable court explain if there is a contract under UCC 1-103 (b)?

    § 1-103. Construction of Uniform Commercial Code to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.

    Uniform Commercial Code must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

    (b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.

    3.) If the contract is unsigned and entered into under threat of duress how can this honorable court follow one section of the law while ignoring another under UCC 1-308? Again see exhibit 1 attached.

    § 1-308 (a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.




    4.) I also ask why the defendant in error was denied the private necessity of going on the land of the plaintiff when running out of gas on the public highway? Also what damages occurred from the alleged trespass?

    Private necessity

    In tort law, a defense that can be used against charges of trespass where a defendant interferes with a plaintiff's property in an emergency to protect an interest of his own. necessity does not serve as an absolute defense to liability for trespass. A defendant commits trespass and invokes the defense of private necessity must still pay for any damage done to the property caused by his trespass, however, the defendant is not liable for nominal or punitive damages.







    5.) Does this constitute a violation of

    A.) 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both

    and

    B.) 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both




    WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for the foregoing speedy relief.

    Kindest and warmest regards,

    Signed__________________________________________

    Without prejudice UCC 1-308
     
    BarnacleBob and TAEZZAR like this.
  33. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    9,448
    Likes Received:
    14,298
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    I like it , BUT, most, if not all, states have passed laws that & have you acknowledge & sign to "driving is a privilege" !!
    I will bet this was done for exactly the reason in you post !
     
  34. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Yes, yes... "driving is a privilege" I agree.
    Driving is defined at law as operating a vehicle for wages or income in the transport of persons or cargo as a commercial operator (driver). Driving is purely a commercial term & subject to the regulatory police powers. Traveling & performing your personal business is not driving or regulateable & therefore is not a privilege but a constitutional right. However today, exercising your constitutional right to travel is in opposition to declared legislative "public policy" which is the result of the long emergency established 1861.
     
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  35. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Fraud vitiates all contracts. The presumption is that you were arraigned, and that a promise of an appeal process (common law) was promised in order to arraign. Refuse for Cause the deviant oaths on the chief federal "judge" and the chief "justice" of the Circuit Court of Appeals and seal the testimony in a published indictment; then serve it on the traffic court.

    Drop all talk of anything else - it will count against you as appearance. Nip it in the bud. You have not been arraigned because the agreement is that you understand the nature and cause of the charges against you. Fraud vitiates all contracts ab initio - from the beginning.

    The hard part is do not talk about anything else. Just stay on the point. Fraud vitiates all contracts ab initio - from the beginning.
    clerk instruction Garnish Secretary President_Page_1.jpg clerk instruction Garnish Secretary President_Page_2.jpg clerk instruction Garnish Secretary President_Page_3.jpg clerk instruction Garnish Secretary President_Page_4.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

    BarnacleBob likes this.

Share This Page