The Unsorted BBS Collection/thegreatunsorted.tar/thegreatunsorted/texts/txtfiles_misc/ucc-conn.txt

Text File | 1995-12-28 | 85KB | 1,604 lines

                             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
        ass
urance 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.

      <skipped story on court reporter, of only secondary importance.>

                               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. (minus the court reporter
story) :) 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 these people 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