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