• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Lex mercatoria / Law Merchant

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
The subject is trusts created by men claiming things that are not true.

It is equally absurd to pay homage to a system based on lies, which is what you are defending.
A system that says we own you based on the creation of a trust created in our NAME that we were never told about much less that we agreed to.

Her presentment as one of the members of the trust is essentially calling the bluff of a deceitful lying organization called the Vatican.

I guess they own you, but they don't own me.
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!
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
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____.
 

David Merrill

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
245
Likes
71


Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua, etc. are a blood sacrifice known as the "kinsman Redeemer" to lift and redeem a "blood curse."

Kinsman Redeemer

https://www.gotquestions.org/kinsman-redeemer.html

A metaphysical blood curse moves from generation to generation per stirpes until a proper blood sacrifice has been offered & fulfilled to pay the debt...

Blood Sacrifice

https://www.gotquestions.org/blood-sacrifice.html

The aforementioned kinsman redeemer was sacrificed to lift and redeem the debt that was incurred when the people of Akka & Babylon, etc. deified a succession of man-Kings as Gods in the flesh... The first deification was the third king of Akka, Naram. The people deified him and he took the name Naram-Sin...

Naram -Sin

http://www.ancient.eu/Naram-Sin/

Sin was the masculine moon god deity of the Mesopotamian triad which would later become the Xian trinity.

The Origin of Sin and the Queen of Heaven

https://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/origsin.htm

Anytime a blood sacrifice is offered whether it be man or animal it is always operating to pay the debt of a blood curse... In the case of the Jesus figure, it was to satisfy the debts incurred by the people for deifying their kings as the moon god Sin...

For this reason today any activities that do not conform with the priesthoods dominion is known as sin. The worshippers of the moon god & man-gods were known as "sinners." Since the moon is commonly observed during darkness, Sin (moon god) & sinning (worship of the moon god) is associated with darkness & the night.

Sin & sinning did not become associated with "evil" until the solar-sun worshipping Persians invaded & conquered the collapsing Babylonian empire with aid from the Babylonian priesthood. They made a treasonous deal with the Persians, they paved the way for the Persians to conquer, as a reward for their treason & sedition they were given the tasks of administering the government of Babylon, with one exception... the Persians, to prove the priesthoods political allegiance & alliance to the new rulers they were required to convert from the lunar based pantheon worship to the Persian solar-sun religious system.... Thus they did convert to acquire political power over the Babylonian empire. The moon god Sin & sinning became evil & associated with darkness & night... Sin became synonomyous with deception & deceiving the Mesopotamianian world. It should be noted that it was believed the Moon god gave the Sun/Son God his day light... When it was learned & accepted that it was the Sun/Son god that gave the moon its night light, Sin became the deceiver & liar god of evil.... Today the moon god Sin has been transformed into the evil lesser deceptive liar god Satan... Originally Sinners were people who worshipped Sin the moon god. Sinning was the act of worshipping the moon god.

The first blood curse of Agade and all of the subsequent following so called curses are products of the treasonous priestcraft to hold & gain power & status as political environments change.... In this respect the treasonous & seditious Babylonian priesthood system remains to this very day.

The Curse of Agade: Naram-Sin's Battle with the Gods

http://www.ancient.eu/article/748/

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.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
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?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
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?
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.....
 

David Merrill

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
245
Likes
71
On another avenue of communication - Skype:

[2:13:40 PM] Suitor: Good afternoon David,
I have received the colb., I am wondering about receipts.
Redemption is transaction based. So can you redeem a receipt for a 3rd party?
[3:36:08 PM] David Merrill: Find a church that will give you an official Certificate of Baptism. A death certificate should do it.
[3:40:52 PM] Suitor: I don't get it.
[3:53:55 PM] David Merrill: The COLB never, ever works like you suggest. It is saying you are alive to the world/system. The Certificate of Baptism says you are dead to the world, and alive in the spirit.
This is what you reminded me about. Thank you.

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?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
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...
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
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.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
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.
To jump in the middle of that shit is impairing obligation of contract.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
To jump in the middle of that shit is impairing obligation of contract.
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
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
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:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
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.
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,220
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


# # #
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
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.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
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
The fact that the religion of the Pharisees has never been recorded as having become extinct, indicates that they and their Slave-Trading practices continue on to exist to this very day. In their own literature, the modern practitioners of "Rabbinical Judaism" Admit (quietly) that they are decedents from those ancient Pharisees. In their own book entitled "The Jewish Encyclopedia", and "prepared by more than Four Hundred Scholars and Specialists", and published by the "Funk and Wagnalls Company", in 1905, Page 665; the following text is presented:

"With the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared all together, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees.

Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees, the whole history of Judaism was re-constructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition (Abot i. 1).
The exercise of judicial functions, at least in matters of commercial law, seems to have been in the hands of the hierarchy. The reasons for this may have been in part those which, in the mediaeval period of European history, threw the control of legal procedure largely into the hands of the ecclesiastics. In Babylon, the custom of documentary evidence in almost all transactions . . . and the wide extent to which written contracts were employed, made the notarial and judicial functions of the priests very extensive.
The Babylonian Law developed to the fullest extent the idea of a Contract. Almost any possible business transaction was reduced to the form of a contract and was executed with the same formalities - i.e., with witnesses, notary, and signature. Thus the points as to deeds, sales, mortgages, loans, and banking are in no respect different in form from the matter of hiring, rent and leases, partnership, testaments, and domestic relations, including adoption. Transactions so very different could be reduced to the same principle, or brought under the one head, only by a highly abstract conception of contract itself. From forms of contract . . . we pass to the relations of master and servant, leases, and future delivery of goods.

Sub-section A. Master and Servant. . . a man might well make a contract with another whom he hired for a year, or whom he contracted to serve for a year. . . example . . . In connection with this contract, it should be noted that Ubarru was regarded as a free agent, hiring himself out. But since he enters into a relation to his master in which he is temporarily in the condition of a slave, he has a representative, or guardian . . .

. . . In the case of a slave the name of the slave's father is never given. The slave is not regarded or spoken of as a man, but as a thing, and is reckoned in the same way as cattle. The actual point of this contract is the transfer of the right to a man's services. Such a transaction is but a part of the whole Babylonian system, whereby every credit or right was passed from one to another by means of contracts. . .

The law was very strict as to the beginning and termination of these contracts. . . If the servant did not appear, he could be arrested and brought to his master, as he was his master's man. ...
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,220
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
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
Appreciate this Bigjon. One more rock to throw at Goliath.

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.
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 (now UCC 1-308)'."
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
§ 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.
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
Capacity to contract usually refers to whether the signatory was 1) authorized to sign on behalf of an entity or another person; or 2) in a mental state where they understand the contract and can decide whether to sign it; or 3) old enough to sign it; or 4) not signing under duress. Again, out of context, it is hard to decide whether any of these apply to your situation.
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.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
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
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,220
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!
 

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,352
Likes
2,220
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
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
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
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
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

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


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.
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
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-415
§ 3-415. OBLIGATION OF INDORSER.
(a) Subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d) and to Section 3-419(d), if an instrument is dishonored, an indorser is obliged to pay the amount due on the instrument (i) according to the terms of the instrument at the time it was indorsed, or (ii) if the indorser indorsed an incomplete instrument, according to its terms when completed, to the extent stated in Sections 3-115 and 3-407. The obligation of the indorser is owed to a person entitled to enforce the instrument or to a subsequent indorser who paid the instrument under this section.

indorsement states that it is made "without recourse" or otherwise disclaims liability of the indorser, the indorser is not liable under subsection (a) to pay the instrument.

instrument is required by Section 3-503 and notice of dishonor complying with that section is not given to an indorser, the liability of the indorser under subsection (a) is discharged.

draft is accepted by a bank after an indorsement is made, the liability of the indorser under subsection (a) is discharged.

indorser of a check is liable under subsection (a) and the check is not presented for payment, or given to a depositary bank for collection, within 30 days after the day the indorsement was made, the liability of the indorser under subsection (a) is discharged.
§ 3-419. INSTRUMENTS SIGNED FOR ACCOMMODATION.

(a) If an instrument is issued for value given for the benefit of a party to the instrument ("accommodated party") and another party to the instrument ("accommodation party") signs the instrument for the purpose of incurring liability on the instrument without being a direct beneficiary of the value given for the instrument, the instrument is signed by the accommodation party "for accommodation."

(b) An accommodation party may sign the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser and, subject to subsection (d), is obliged to pay the instrument in the capacity in which the accommodation party signs. The obligation of an accommodation party may be enforced notwithstanding any statute of frauds and whether or not the accommodation party receives consideration for the accommodation.

instrument is presumed to be an accommodation party and there is notice that the instrument is signed for accommodation if the signature is an anomalous indorsement or is accompanied by words indicating that the signer is acting as surety or guarantor with respect to the obligation of another party to the instrument. Except as provided in Section 3-605, the obligation of an accommodation party to pay the instrument is not affected by the fact that the person enforcing the obligation had notice when the instrument was taken by that person that the accommodation party signed the instrument for accommodation.

party to an instrument is accompanied by words indicating unambiguously that the party is guaranteeing collection rather than payment of the obligation of another party to the instrument, the signer is obliged to pay the amount due on the instrument to a person entitled to enforce the instrument only if (i) execution of judgment against the other party has been returned unsatisfied, (ii) the other party is insolvent or in an insolvency proceeding, (iii) the other party cannot be served with process, or (iv) it is otherwise apparent that payment cannot be obtained from the other party.

party to an instrument is accompanied by words indicating that the party guarantees payment or the signer signs the instrument as an accommodation party in some other manner that does not unambiguously indicate an intention to guarantee collection rather than payment, the signer is obliged to pay the amount due on the instrument to a person entitled to enforce the instrument in the same circumstances as the accommodated party would be obliged, without prior resort to the accommodated party by the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

(f) An accommodation party who pays the instrument is entitled to reimbursement from the accommodated party and is entitled to enforce the instrument against the accommodated party. In proper circumstances, an accommodation party may obtain relief that requires the accommodated party to perform its obligations on the instrument. An accommodated party that pays the instrument has no right of recourse against, and is not entitled to contribution from, an accommodation party.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-501
§ 3-501. PRESENTMENT.

(a) "Presentment" means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee.

(b) The following rules are subject to Article 4, agreement of the parties, and clearing-house rules and the like:

(1) Presentment may be made at the place of payment of the instrument and must be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the person to whom presentment is made; and is effective if made to any one of two or more makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors.

(2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.

(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.

(4) The party to whom presentment is made may treat presentment as occurring on the next business day after the day of presentment if the party to whom presentment is made has established a cut-off hour not earlier than 2 p.m. for the receipt and processing of instruments presented for payment or acceptance and presentment is made after the cut-off hour.
 
Last edited:

David Merrill

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
245
Likes
71
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...
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
 

Attachments

Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
257
Likes
100
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
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,072
Likes
19,566
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 !
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,351
Likes
11,002
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
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 !
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.
 

David Merrill

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
245
Likes
71
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
 

Attachments