This article has really filled in my "voids" that kept me from fully
understanding things. I have found it to be one of the best
discussions on the subject of freedom, and how our own Government has
managed to take that freedom from us, all the while giving lip service
to the Constitution.
The title of the article is The UCC Connection. The author is noted as
Howard Freeman. It is distributed by Americans for Constitutional
Government, PO BOX 99, Lancaster, Ohio 43130. It also notes "without
prejudice U.C.C. 1-207. And it is dated September 22nd 1991. (I do not
know if reserving rights under U.C.C. 1-207 is a method of asserting
"copyrights." It is possible, that the author did not want to use the
conventional (c) as it might imply an implied contract w/the US
Patent Office, and thus the Federal Government. If this is the case, I
apologize to Mr. Freeman, as I do not wish to infringe upon his
rights.)
Sincerely,
eric gray
sysop - The Desert Reef BBS
ericg@flash.net
eric-ucc1-207@usa.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE UCC CONNECTION
Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny
---------------------------------------------------------------
by Howard Freeman
READ and STUDY - THINK
Forward
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 want to develope a
deeper understanding of this information without having to
listen to three or four hours of recorded material.
The frustrations many Americans feel about our judicial system
can be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like most
fear, is based on lack of understanding or knowledge. Those of
use how have chosen a path out of bondage and into liberty are
faced, eventually, w/the seemingly tyrannical power of some
governmental agencye 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 difficutl, if not
impossible. If we are defending outselves from the government,
we find that the lawyers quickly take our money adn then tell
us as the ship is sinking, "I can't help you w/that -- I'm an
officer of the court."
Utlimately, the only way for us to have ever a "snowballs'
chnage" is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME and to come to
and 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 agaisnt
the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize
that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law. Mr. Freeman
admits he is not a lawyer. and as such, he has a way of
explaining law to use that puts it well w/in our reach.
Consider also that the framer of the Constitution wrote in
language simple enough that the people could understand,
specifiically so that it would NOT have to be interpreted.
So again we find, as in many other areas of life, "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 form
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
w/it. Please take note that this lecture represents one
chapter in the book of his understanding, which he is always
refining, expanding, improvign. 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 pas on to
others: greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of
lives lived in peace, freedom and praise
===============================================================
THE UCC CONNECTION
*"I send you out as sheep in
the midst of wolves, be wise
as a serpent and harmless as a
dove."*
===========================================
INTRODUCTION
When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court (SC) 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 SC had declared that I was
not a person required to file an income tax -- that that 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 w/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. If you are not required to file,
the amount doesn't matter. DONT 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
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,
(NoD) 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 SC 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
thougth 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 SC 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 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 me if she could help
me. I told her my problem. I said that I really thought the
District Director was up there. I asked her to call the IRS
and tell them that it was Senator Simpson's office calling and
to ask if the District Director was in. I said, "If you get
him on the phone, tell him that you are from the Senator's
office and you have a person who you are sending over to speak
to him -- if he is, can he wait just five minutes." It worked.
He was there, and I ran back up to his office. His secretary
met me when I ame 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
talk to him about. (If you hever 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 signiture?" The Director
said, "Oh, I couldn't read everything -- it goes out 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 SC 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 w/me, so I got them out
and presented them to him. [Supreme Court cases supporting his
position] 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 w/in 3 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
w/Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me to help
him. I told him that they would 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 SC cases I
had used w/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 it's case and he [Bob] decided to
rest his case on my testimony, which showed that he was not
required to file. and that the SC had upheld this position.
The prosecution then presented it's 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 and Income Tax form; you decide
whether or not he filed it." What a shock! The jury convicted
him. Later some of the 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 SC? 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 US SC in a District Court."
Public Law v. Public Policy
He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court _after_1938_
and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to
1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what
happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the SC was dealing
w/_Public_Law_; since 1938, the SC has dealt
w/_Public_Policy_. The charge that Mr. S was being tried for
is a _Public_Policy_Statute_, not Public Law, and those SC
cases do not apply to the 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 SC. It was also
the year the courts claim they blended _Law_ w/_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 besides the tracks. The
district court had decided on the basis of Commercial
(Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any
contract w/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 SC was that in any case of this type, the court would
judge the case on Common Law of the _state_ where the incident
occurred - in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad
case, the SC 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 the Law w/ Equity.
This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I
determined that _all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law
courts and not Common Law Courts._ There were still some
pieces of the puzzle missing.
A Friend in the Court
Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't make
friends w/a judge if you go into the 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 a sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent
and harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise
and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a _little
dumb_ and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of
questions and boxed the judges into the 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 my problem
w/the SC 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 together 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 th
executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the
state governments.
_Take silent judicial notice_ of this fact, but _never_
reveal it openly. Your court is operating in a Admiralty
Jurisdiction -- call it anything you want, but do not call
it Admiralty.
Admiralty Courts
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that
your defense would be quite different in Admiralty
Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In
Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless
there is a valid International contract in dispute. If you
know wit 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 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
breeched.
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 might challenge the validity of the
contract." What they would have do do is place the _national
debt_ into evidence. The would have to admits that the
international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are
their slaves.
Not Expedient
But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to
admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every
nation of the world. [my note: DAMN RIGHT! "at this time" That
is the KEY behind the building up of the UN as a MILITARY
FORCE! That is the KEY to disarming America, that is the KEY
to "ending" the cold war. Like now we have no more enemy, so
we can melt all our guns. WRONG. The Bankers PLAN to
foreclose, they just don't want their HEADS BLOWN OFF WHILE
DOING IT, so they DICTATE to the "congress" to get rid of the
guns.." eg] The reason they don't want to tell everyone that
they own everything is that there are still too many privately
owned guns. [see! ITYS. :)eg] 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
WORLD COURT, it is not _expedient_ to admit the jurisdiction
of the courts are operating under. When we understand these
things, we realize that there are certain secrets they don't
want to admit, and we can use this to our benefit.
Jurisdiction
The Constitution of the united States mentions three areas of
jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:
Common Law
Common Law is based on God's Law: Anytime someone is charged
under the Common Law, there must be a _damaged party._ You
are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as
long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty or property
of someone else. You have a right to make a _fool_ of yourself
provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty or property
of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any
government action which prevents a man from making a fool of
himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in
most states, you well see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT
BELTS -- IT'S THE LAW." This cannot be Common Law, because
who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This
would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel
performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and
is punishable.
Equity Law
Equity Law is law which _compels performance_. It compels you
to perform to the exact letter of any _contract_ that you are
under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a
contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform
under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a
civil action -- not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you
cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to
perform to the letter of the contract. If you then refuse to
perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with the
contempt of court, this is a criminal action. Are our set belt
laws Equity laws? No. They are not, because you cannot be
penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of the
contract. [this has of course changed since the publishing of
the article, so read on....eg]
Admiralty/Maritime Law
This ia _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 ba a valid international contract in force.
However, the courts don't want to admit that they are
operating under Admiralty/Maritime [hereafter noted by A/M]
Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law
Merchant and adopted it into our codes. This is what the SC
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 w/it. Since they were instructed
not to call it A/M Jurisdiction, they call is Statutory
Jurisdiction.
[my note: I looked for Statutory Jurisdiction in the 4th
edition of Black's. It's not there, so looked up Statue and
under the definition is this paragraph:
This word is used to designate the written law in
contradistinction to the unwritten law. Foster v. Brown,
199 Ga. 444, 34 S.E.2d, 530 535 See Common Law.
Unwritten law is common law, contradistinction you can look
up, but it means "as opposed to" "opposite to." Also I
looked up Common Law (w/my new understanding) and it's quite
enlightening! :) ]
Courts of Contract
You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be
charged w/failure to wear set belts and be fine for it. Isn't
the judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But
you must understand that the Constitution in Art. I, Sect. 10,
gives us the _unlimited right to contract_ as long as we do
not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone
else. Contracts _are_ enforceable, and the Constitution gives
two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced, _Equity_ or
_Admiralty._ But we find them being enforced in _Statutory
Jurisdiction_. This is the embarrassing part for the courts,
but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their
own courts. We will cover this more later.
Contracts must be voluntary
_Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or
it is void and unenforceable._ These are characteristics of a
Common Law contract. There is another characteristic - it must
be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read,
"For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will
paint your house, etc." That was a valid contract -- the
dollar was a genuine silver dollar. Now suppose you wrote a
contract that said, "For one _Federal Reserve Note_ and other
considerations, I will paint your house.." And suppose for
example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go
into a Common Law court and get justice? NO, you could not.
You see a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable" dollar, as it
has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that
contract would be unenforceable.
Colorable Money-Colorable Courts
The word "colorable" means something that appears to be
genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe
it spends like a dollar, but it if 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 Note, the government had to create a
jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that use them. We
now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a
genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is a "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 setup 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 w/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 the created a
system of law called the UCC. This "colorable" jurisdiction
under the UCC is the next key to understanding what has
happened.
Contract or agreement
One difference between Common Law and the UCC 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 necessary. 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 w/the those
benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then
you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every
statute involved w/the 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's
the driver's license, the marriage license, or the birth
certificate, etc. I believe it's none of these.
Compelled Benefit
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given
the _privilege of DISCHARGING [my emphasis eg] debt w/limited
liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give
substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk w/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 [hereafter FRN eg] to buy the milk, I have not
PAID for it. [my emphasis eg] There is no substance in the
FRN. 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 Common Law court. We can only use "colorable
court." We are completely under the jurisdiction of the UCC --
We are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are
discharging debt rather than paying the 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 the
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 UCC 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 UCC they will show you a shelf of
books completely filled w/the UCC. 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 were
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 possessed, 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 Gov. and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No.
The proper answer is "THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME -- I'M NOT A
FRENCHMEN." 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.
The 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 it's 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 w/the FRNs in
any way, shape or manner -- under your signature write:
Without Prejudice UCC 1-207. This reserves your rights. You
can show, at 1-207.4 that you have sufficiently reserved your
rights.
It is VERY IMPORTANT to understand just what this means. For
example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket
was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without
prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court. He had not
tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to
use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it
meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in
that way, he told the judge that he ws not prejudice 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
w/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 that 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 FRNs instead of silver dollars is it
voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so you have to use
FRNs -- you have to accept the benefit. The government has
give you the benefit to discharge 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 statue, 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 the recourse.
If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and
photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to
get the Anderson's 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 w/decimals into
ten parts and most importantly, it is written in plain
english.
RECOURSE
The Recourse appears in the UCC at 1-103.6, which says:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains
in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute
should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless
there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common
Law.
This is the argument we use in court.
The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not, recognize
the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that
the US is bankrupt, and is completely owned by it's 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 w/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 w/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 rights under the UCC." 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 statue
in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the
Common Law, you must come forth w/the damaged party.
If the judge insists on proceeding w/the the case, just act
confused, and ask this question:
"Let me see if I understand, Your Honor: Has this court made
a legal determination that the Sections of 1-207 and 1-103
of the UCC, 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 Applications - 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 w/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 that government's trick: "I'm
from the government, I'm here to help you." Now we want to use
this approach w/them.)
2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and
say,
"I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I
want to save the government some money (this will 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 taxpayers's money to run me through this
court and then have to give me a trial *de novo* [new
trial] 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 traffic court, where there is no
record.
When you get into the court there will be a court reporter
there who records every word the judge speaks, so that judge
is much more careful in a court of record. You will be in a
much better situation there than in 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 in
violation of ordinance xyz. He will ask, "Do you understand
the charge against you?"
4. "Well your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask
before I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it
could be answered if I could put the officer on the stand
for a moment and ask him a few short questions.
Judge: "I don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and
have him take the stand."
5. "Is this the instrument that you gave me?" (handing him the
traffic citation)
Officer: "Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has the
other portion of it."
"Where did you get my address that you wrote on the
citation?"
Officer: "Well I got it from your driver's license."
(Handing the officer you 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 and turns to the
officer) "You didn't notice this printing under the
signature on this license, when you copied his name and
address onto the ticket?"
Officer: "Oh no. I was just getting the address -- I didn't
look down there."
Judge: "You're not very observant as an officer. Therefore,
I'm afraid I cannot accept your testimony in regards to the
facts of this case. This case is dismissed."
6. In this case, the Judge found a convenient way out -- he
could say that the officer was not observant enough to be a
reliable witness. He did not want to admit the real nature
of the jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the record
that you had written `Without prejudice UCC 1-207 on your
license, the judge knew that he would have to admit that:
a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;
b. you had done it sufficiently by writing `Without
prejudice' UCC 1-207 on your driver's license;
c. the statute would now have to be read in harmony with
the Common Law, and the Common Law says the statute
exists, but there is no injured party; and
d. since there is no injured party or complaining witness,
the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.
7. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the
case, then you will want to ask him the following question:
Your Honor, let me understand this correctly: has this court
made a legal determination that it has authority under the
jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two
sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which have been
called to it's 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 w/the IRS before we get to court.
Using the Code w/the IRS
If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency this is called a
"presentment" in the UCC. 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 meet. 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 know."
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 $10,00, 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 the NoD had been withdrawn. So you can
see that if it's handled properly these things are easily
resolved.
Impending Bankruptcy
On my way here, I had a chance to visit w/the 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 that they
own the whole world. They could round up everybody in the
state capital building, put them in an internment camp and
hold them indefinitely. They may give them a trial, or they
may not. They may 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 w/o anyone really noticing it.
FEMA
FEMA or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been
designed for when America is officially declared bankrupt,
which would be a national emergency. In a national emergency,
all Constitutional Rights and all law that previously existed,
would be suspended. FEMA has created large concentration camps
where they would put anyone who might cause trouble for the
orderly plan and process of the new regime to take over the
nation.
Even a governor could be thrown into one of these internment
camps, and kept there indefinitely. This is all in place now,
and they are just waiting to declare a national emergency.
Then even state government could be dissolved. Anybody who
might oppose the new regime could be imprisoned until a new
set of laws could be written and a new government set up. The
Governor knows all this, and he is very concerned. He doesn't
want to be in office when all this happens.
I visited with him and I told him that there are certain
action we should take right now. I think we should consider
the fact that, according to the UCC, Wyoming is an
accommodation party to the national debt. To understand we
must realize that there are two separate entities know as the
United States.
The Rothschild Influence
When America was founded, the Rothschild 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 load gold or silver. Naturally, they
did not like this new government.
The Rothscilds had a deal w/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 be 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 Art. I,
Sect. 3, 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.
[this is an easy to understand restatement of how it's
presented in Black's Law Dictionary, btw]
Is that a nation? Yes. We have a governing body in the
Republic -- the three branch government. There are the
legislative, the executive and the judicial branches, with a
constitution. There is a prescribed territory containing a
body of people. This is a Constitutional Republic.
But, Article I, Sect. 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 w/in a
nation. This is a legislative democracy w/in a Constitutional
Republic.
When Congress was part of a Constitutional Republic, it had
the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its
duty was to coin gold and 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 DC) 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 the government, to try their own law. Here we have the
legislature making the law, enforcing the law and trying the
law, all w/in the one branch of government. This is a one
branch government w/in a three branch government.
Under the three branch government, the congress passes the law
which has to be in harmony w/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 the 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 DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, or
any of the other federally held territories is a citizen of
the United States (D.C.)
We must be careful with our choice of words -- we are not
citizens of the United States. We are not subject to Congress.
Congress has exclusive rule over a given territory, and we are
not part of that territory.
Where did Congress get the authority to write the Internal
Revenue Code? It is found in Art. I, Sect. 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 w/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 filed 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 w/Willful Failure to File an income tax
1040 form, that is a law for a different nation. You are a
non-resident alien to THAT nation. It is a foreign corporation
to you. It is not the Republic of the continental united
States coming after you, it is a foreign nation -- a
legislative democracy of a foreign nation coming after you.
If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a
presentment from the federal United States, and then you can
use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention that you
are among the national citizenry of continental united States,
and you are a non-resident alien to the federal United States.
You never lived in a federal territory and never had any
income from the federal United States.
Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay taxes under
the compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve Notes
(FRNs), because you have reserved your rights under the Common
Law through the UCC 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. There were nations, and they joined together for
protection from a 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 comes to use and says, "I'm
from the government, and I'm here to help you." The government
went out into the various states and said, "We don't want you
to have to go to all that trouble of writing three or four
letters to abbreviate the name of the state -- such as Ariz.
for Arizona. Just write AZ instead of Ariz. Or you can just
write WY for Wyoming instead of Wyo." So all of the states of
the union have got a new two letter abbreviation. Even a state
such as Rhode Island has a new abbreviation. It is RI instead
of R.I. The 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 do
ever `i' or make an i that looks like and `e?' With MA, MO,
MN, MS, etc and some sloppy writing, and you could not tell
one from another. So we have to use the zip code in order to
tell them apart. But if you wrote Mich. or Minn., or Miss.,
there would be no real problem telling which state it was.
There is no harm in using the zip code, if you lawfully
identify your state. I found out that no state legislature has
met to lawfully change the abbreviation of the state from it's
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 us AZ for Arizona, you
cannot use the state constitution to protect you because you
did not identify your state. You used the zip code, which
identifies which federal region you live in. And Congress may
rule directly federal regions, but it cannot rule the citizens
of any state.
Accommodation Party
Let's look at how the states have become the accommodation
party to the national debt. There are many people I have
talked to, including the Governor, who are very concerned
about this, and who know that it could happen very soon.
If America is declared a bankrupt nation, it will be a
national emergency. FEMA 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 setup prison camps w/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 -- [now almost double that in the 5 years since this
was recorded] is not owed by the Continental united States. It
it the federal United States that had the authority to borrow
bank credit. When Congress worked for the Continental united
States, it could only borrow gold or silver, so the national
debts was borrowed in the names of the federal United States.
The federal United States had to trap the States into assuming
the debt obligation of the federal debt.
In the UCC, we find the term, `accommodation party.' How did
the states become the `accommodation party' to the federal
debt? The federal government through our money system made the
states deal in Federal Reserve Notes, which means that
everything the states does is `colorable.' Under the
`colorable' jurisdiction of the UCC, all of the states are the
accommodation party to the federal debt.
Now the concern is to find out how we can get out of this
situation. I told the Governor that in the Common Law and the
Law of Merchants -- that's the International Law Merchant --
there is a term called `no-interest contract.' A no-interest
contract is void and unenforceable. What is a no-interest
contract?
No-Interest Contract
If I were to insure a house that did not belong to me, that
would be a no-interest contract. I would just want the house
to burn down. I would pay a small premium, perhaps a few
hundred dollars, and insure it for $80,000 against fire. Then
I would be waiting for it to burn down so I could trade my
small premium for $80,000. Under the Common Law, that is
called a no-interest contract, and it is void and
unenforceable in any court.
Unconscionable Contracts
In the UCC, 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 restatements of material presented earlier,
but they contain very valuable information which is worth
repeating.
Courtroom Techniques
Q. How did you "box in" the Judge?
A. 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 is 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 that 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?
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 w/International
Maritime Contracts, under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Equity is Civil, and you said this is a Criminal
actions, so it seems it would have to be under either
Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me, Your
Honor, is that there is no *corpus delecti* here that
gives this court jurisdiction over my person and
property under the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't
appear to me that this court is moving under Common
Law.
J. No. I can assure you this court is not moving under
the Common Law.
D. Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you make the
charge against me even more difficult to understand.
The only other criminal jurisdiction would apply only
if there was an International Maritime Contract
involved, I was a party to it, it had been breached,
and the court was operating in an Admiralty
Jurisdiction.
I don't believe I have ever been under any
International Maritime contract, so I would deny that
one exists. I would have to demand that such a
contract, if it does exist, be placed into evidence,
so that I may contest it. But surely, this court is
not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
You just put the words in the judges mouth.
J. No, I can assure you, we're not operating under an
Admiralty Jurisdiction. We're not out in the ocean
somewhere -- we're right here in the middle of the
state of _____. 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
actions, 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 anymore
questions in regards to this, I'm going to find you in
contempt of court! Now if you cant afford a licensed
attorney, the court will provide you w/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 that right to defend in my
own person?
He has no answer for that. The judge will probably postpone
the case and eventually just let it go. In this way, you can
be wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove, but you
mustn't go into court w/a chip on your shoulder and as a wolf
in "black sheep" country. Remember Jesus's words, "I send you
out as sheep in wolf country, be wise as a serpent, and
harmless as a dove." Sheep do not attack wolves directly. Just
be an innocent little lamb who just can't understand the
charge, and remember -- they can't try you criminally if you
don't understand the charge. That would automatically be 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. W/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 FRNs which have considerably less
value. For example, in 1940 you could buy a deluxe Chevrolet
for 800 dollars. With todays FRNs 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 FRNs into SS now, and get back something
later like the German mark after WWI -- when it took a billion
to buy a loaf of bread. They will give you every FRN back they
promised you, but it might not buy anything.
Assurance
Under the UCC, 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 SSN," or "I refuse to take it." Just take
it easy and say, "I would be happy to get a SSN 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 FRNs I get back at the end of the
contract will be as good as the ones that I pay in at the
beginning. They can't guarantee that, and you have a right
under the UCC to assurance of performance under the contract.
So tell them, "Well, I can not enter this contract unless the
government will guarantee to pay me at the end of the contract
w/the same value FRNs that I'm paying in. Both may be called
FRNs, but you know that these FRNs don't hold their value. I
want assurance on this contract that the FRNs that I get in my
retirement will buy as much as the ones I'm giving you now in
my working years." They can't make that guarantee. If they
won't give you that guarantee, just say, "I'd be glad to sign
this but if you can't guarantee performance under the
contract, I'm afraid I can not enter the contract."
Now, did you refuse or did they refuse? You can get the
sections of the UCC which grant the right to have assurance
that the contract you have entered will be fulfilled properly
-- that the return will equal the investment, and you can
reject the contract using the Code. Using their own system of
law, you can show that they cannot make you get into a
contract of that nature. Just approach them innocently like a
lamb.
It is very important to be gentle and humble in all dealings
with the government or the courts -- never raise your voice or
show anger. In the courtroom, always be polite, and build the
judge up -- call him "Your Honor." Give him all the `honor'
he wants. It does no good to be difficult, but rather 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 make a slip of the tongue, he turns to his court reporter and says, "I think you had better leave that out of the transcript; just say it got a little to far ahead of you, and you couldn't quite get everything in." So this will be missing from the transcript.
In one case, we brought a licensed court reporter with us and the judge got very angry and said, "This court has a licensed court reporter' right here, and the record of this court is this court reporter's record. No other court reporter's record means anything in this court."
We responded with, "Of course, Your Honor, we're certainly glad to use your regular court reporter. But you know, Your Honor, sometimes things move so fast that a court reporter gets a little behind, and doesn't quite keep up with it all. Wouldn't it be nice if we had another licensed court reporter in the courtroom, just in case your court reporter got a little behind, so that we could fill in from this other court reporter's data. I'm sure, Your Honor, that you want an accurate transcript. (I like to use the saying; give bad dog a good name, and he'll live up to it!) The judge went along with it, and from that moment on, he was very careful of what he said.
These are little tricks to getting around in court. This is how to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove when we enter 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 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 w/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
w/my signature indicates that I have reserved my
Common Law right NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM under
any contract I did not enter into KNOWINGLY,
VOLUNTARILY, and INTENTIONALLY.
And furthermore, I do not accept the liability
associated w/the the compelled benefit of any
UN-REVEALED CONTRACT OR COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT.
Once you state that, that 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
w/the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
agreement.
The compelled benefit is the privilege to use FRNs to
discharge your debts w/limited liability rather than to pay
your debts w/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 w/a medium of exchange provided by the
government. You are not allowed to print your own money, so
you are compelled to use theirs. This is the compelled benefit
of an unrevealed commercial agreement. If you have not made a
valid, timely and explicit reservation of your rights under
UCC 1-207, and you simply exercise this benefit rendered by
government, you will be obligated, under an implied agreement
to obey every statute, ordinance and regulation passed by
government, at all levels -- federal, state and local.
=============================================================
IN CONCLUSION
The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in
putting this to paper in an effort to make it readable and
somewhat compact. He wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard
Freeman for the opportunity to work w/the information so
absolutely vital to our survival as degnified, unenslaved
human beings. He must also ask Mr. Freeman's forgivness for
any errors committed in getting this to print. [And again to
e-test.] It's purpose, as stated in the Foreword, is to make
this knowledge and wisdom available to as many people as will
take the time and trouble to read it. This is meant to be
supplemental to Mr. Freeman's recorded lectures, not a
substitute. Indeed, there is NO SUBSTITUTE for hearing him
present this material in his own words. It is not just the LAW
and the FACTS that are important here, but the way they are
used. His numerous reminders of Jesus' commission to be "like
sheep among wolves.." cannot be overstated, and is certainly
good advice to us in all dealings -- not just in court or with
the government. Hearing him explain this in his own words
brings to life the practical application and usefullness of being
"wise" and "harmless." In fact, after being introduced to this
approach, it becomes difficult to imagine that any other way
of defending oneself from the government would be effective.
It goes without saying that none of this information presented
here is in any way, shape, or form offered as legal advice.
For that, as you know, you must "get yourself a licensed
attorney."
Having said that, I feel obliged to point out that one of the
most difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney --
even a good one -- may be knowing just whose side he is on.
(he is, after all, an OFFICER OF THE COURT)! So for those of
use who have concluded that having an attorney means that you
will soon be chained, gagged and lead to the gallows, this
information may be in-dispensable. For the extraordinary
challenges of appearing in court in one's own person -- *pro
per* --there are few reliable sources of information. Learning
to defind 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 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.')
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 writers 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 of 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 tor return to freedom!
Let us discover the mistakes we have made, let us find the
truth, let us apply it with meekness and wisdom and let us
gently but firmly reclaim the precious freedom which we have
so foolishly given up.
===========================================================================
Well there you have it, The UCC Connection. There is also a list of other publications available from American's for Constitutional Government. If you found this information useful, I would recommend contacting them for a list of
their materials.
I hope I didn't put all this effort in only for someone to tell me
"Yea, that's on the Internet...." I tried to find stuff like this for
some time now and other then John Freemans articles, I found none.
Also, I like the authors approach here. Many of the so called
"patriot" organizations seem to be more "profiteers" than patriots. I
understand bills need to be paid, but after reading lists and lists of
"products available for $xxxx" I saw this as a little different.
Good luck. And a few more quotes:
"When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is
forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all
Americans are in peril."
Harry Truman
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man,
brave hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the
timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Mark Twain
"Truth is less than truth until it is made known."
John Wheeler
Mr. Howard Freeman died in 1992, at the age of 92. He
gave lectures all over the country for more than fifty years.
(
geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby) (
geocities.com/capitolhill)