WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1.308

THE UCC CONNECTION
by Howard Freeman

"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 material.

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.

INTRODUCTION

When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court decisions. If
I had tried to use these in court, I would have been
convicted. I was involved with a patriot group and I
studied supreme Court cases. I concluded that the
Supreme Court had declared that I was not a person
required to file an income tax--that the tax was an excise
tax on privileges granted by government. So I quit filing
and paying income taxes, and it was not long before they
came down on me with a heavy hand. They issued a
notice of deficiency, which had such a fantastic sum on it
that the biggest temptation was to go in with their letter
and say. "Where in the world did you ever get that
figure?" They claimed I owed them some $60,000. But
even if I had been paying taxes, I never had that much
money, so how could I have owed them that much?

NEVER ARGUE THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY

Fortunately, I had been given just a little bit of
information: NEVER ARGUE THE FACTS IN A TAX
CASE. If you're not required to file, what do you care
whether they say you owe sixty dollars or 60,000
dollars. If you are not required to file, the amount
doesn't matter. Don't argue the amount--that is a fact
issue. In most instances, when you get a Notice of
Deficiency, it is usually for some fantastic amount. The
IRS wants you to run in and argue about the amount.
The minute you say "I don't owe that much", you have
agreed that you owe them something, and you have
given them jurisdiction. Just don't be shocked at the
amount on a Notice of Deficiency, even if it is ten million
dollars! If the law says that you are not required to file
or pay tax, the amount doesn't matter. By arguing the
amount, they will just say that you must go to tax court
and decide what the amount is to be. By the time you get
to tax court, the law issues are all decided. You are only
there to decide how much you owe. They will not listen
to arguments of law.

So I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't
required to file. He said, "You are required to file, Mr.
Freeman." But I had all these supreme Court cases, and
I started reading them to him. He said, "I don't know
anything about law, Mr. Freeman, but the Code says
that you are required to file, and you're going to pay
that amount or you're going to go to tax court." I
thought that someone there ought to know something
about law, so I asked to talk to his superior. I went to
him and got out my Supreme Court Cases, and he
wouldn't listen to them. "I don't know anything about
law, Mr. Freeman...." Finally I got to the Problems
Resolution Officer, and he said the same thing. He said
that the only person above him was the District
Director. So I went to see him. By the time I got to his
office, they had phoned ahead, and his secretary said he
was out. But I heard someone in his office, and I knew
he was in there. I went down the elevator, around the
corner to the Federal Building and into Senator
Simpson's office. There was a girl sitting there at a desk,
and she asked if she could help me. I told her my
problem. I said that I really thought the District
Director was up there. I asked her to call the IRS and
tell them that it was Senator Simpson's office calling and
to ask if the District Director was in. I said, "If you get
him on the phone, tell him that you are from the
Senator's office and you have a person 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.

ADMIRALTY COURTS

The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is
that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty
Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law.
In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction
unless there is a valid international contract in dispute.
If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have
admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty
Court, you can demand that the international maritime
contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and
which you supposedly have breached, be placed into
evidence. No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction
unless there is a valid international maritime contract
that has been breached. So you say, just innocently like
a lamb, "Well, I never knew that I got involved with an
international maritime contract, so I deny that such a
contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in
Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I
may challenge the validity of the contract. What they
would have to do is place the national debt into
evidence. They would have to admit that the
international bankers own the whole nation, and that we
are their slaves.

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. The reason they don't want to
tell everyone that they own everything is that there are
still too many privately owned guns. There are
uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until
they can gradually consolidate all armies into a
WORLD ARMY and all courts into a single WORLD
COURT, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the
courts are operating under. When we understand these
things, we realize that there are certain secrets they
don't want to admit, and we can use this to our benefit.

JURISDICTION

The Constitution of the united States mentions three
areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:

Common Law

Common Law is based on God's Law. 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

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.

Admiralty/Maritime Law

This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance
which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to
the letter of the contract, but this only applies to
International Contracts. Now we can see what
jurisdiction the 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 be
unenforceable.

COLORABLE MONEY/COLORABLE COURTS

The word "colorable" means something that appears to
be genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and
maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable
for lawful money (silver or gold) it is colorable.' If a
Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the
contract becomes a "colorable" contract. And
"colorable" contracts must be enforced under a
"colorable" jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve
Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to
cover the kinds of contracts which use them. We now
have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a
genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is "colorable"
Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because
we are using "colorable money." Colorable Admiralty is
now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's see how we
got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

The government set up a "colorable" law system to fit
the "colorable" currency. It used to be called the Law
Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments,
because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in
something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve
Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a
system of law which was completely "colorable" from
start to finish. This system of law was codified as the
Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in
every state. This is "colorable" law, and it is used in all
the courts. I explained one of the keys earlier, which is
that the country is bankrupt and we have no rights. If
the master says "Jump!" then the slave had better jump,
because the master has the right to cut his head off. As
slaves we have no rights. But the creditors/masters had
to cover that up, so they created a system of law called
the Uniform Commercial Code. This -colorable'
jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the
next key to understanding what has happened.

CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT

One difference between Common Law and the Uniform
Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts
must be entered into: (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and
(3) intentionally. Under the 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.

COMPELLED BENEFIT

I believe the benefit being used is that we have been
given the privilege of discharging debt with limited
liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we
give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk
with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the
milk bought the dollar--substance for substance. But if I
use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not
paid for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve
Note It is worthless paper given in exchange for
something of substantive value. Congress offers us this
benefit: Debt money, created by the federal United
States, can be spent all over the continental united
States, it will be legal tender for all debts, public and
private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be
sued for not paying your debts. So now they have said,
"We're going to help you out, and you can just
discharge your debts instead of paying your debts."
When we use this -colorable' money to discharge our
debts, we cannot use a Common Law court. We can only
use a "colorable" court. We are completely under the
jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code--we are
using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we
are discharging debt rather than paying debt.

REMEDY AND RECOURSE

Every system of civilized law must have two
characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way
to get out from under that law. The Recourse is if you
have been damaged under the law, you can recover your
loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and
even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy
and recourse, but for a long time we could not find it. If
you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform
Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books
completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code.
When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will
seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing.
It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and
Recourse are found in the UCC. They are found right in
the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.

REMEDY

The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves
whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents
the loss of such rights by application of concepts of
waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7) It is important to
remember when we go into a court, that we are in a
commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into
court and say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS," the judge will most likely say, "You mention
the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of
court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that.
Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule
here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction,
and defend under another. For example, if the French
government came to you and asked where you filed your
French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the
French government and say, "I demand my
Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: THE
LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME--I'M NOT A
FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of
rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged--
not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court,
you must claim your reservation of rights under the
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.

RECOURSE

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 the stand.'

5. -Is this the instrument that you gave me?' (handing
him the traffic citation) Officer: -Yes, this is a copy of it.
The judge has the other portion of it.' -Where did you
get my address that you wrote on that citation?' Officer:
-Well, I got it from your driver's license.' (Handing the
officer your driver's license) Is this the document you
copied my name and address from?' Officer: -Yes, this
is where I got it.' -While you've got that in your hand,
would you read the signature that's on that license?'
(The officer reads the signature) -While you're there,
would you read into the record what it says under the
signature?' Officer: -It says, 'Without prejudice, UCC
1-207.'' Judge: -'Let me see that license!' (He looks at it
and turns to the officer) -You didn't notice this printing
under the signature on this license, when you copied his
name and address onto the ticket?' Officer: -Oh, no. I
was just getting the address--I didn't look down there.'
Judge: -You're not very observant as an officer.
Therefore, I'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.

IMPENDING BANKRUPTCY

On my way here, I had a chance to visit with the
Governor of Wyoming. He is very concerned that if he
runs for office this November, that there won't be a
State of Wyoming at the end of four years. He believes
that the International Bankers might foreclose on the
nation and officially admit that they own the whole
world. They could round up everybody in the state
capitol building, put them in an internment camp and
hold them indefinitely. They may give them a trial, or
they may not. They will do whatever they want. As I
explained earlier, it has not been expedient to foreclose
on the nation until they could get everything ready. This
is where the Federal Emergency Management Agency
comes in. It has been put in place without anyone really
noticing it.

FEMA

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 at 1-207.

ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS The
Founding Fathers would never have created a
government that was going to boss them around! There
were 13 sovereign States. They were nations, and they
joined together for protection from foreign enemies.
They provided a means by which the union of the
sovereign states could fend off foreign enemies. But they
never gave the congress of the federal United States
direct rule over any citizen of any state. They were not
going to be ordered around by that government they set
up.

FEDERAL REGIONS

The supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule
what Congress creates. Congress did not create the
States, but Congress did create federal regions. So
Congress can rule the federal regions, but Congress 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.

ACCOMMODATION PARTY

Let's look at how the states have become the
accommodation party to the national debt. There are
many people I have talked to, including the Governor,
who are very concerned about this, and who know that
it could happen very soon. If America is declared a
bankrupt nation , it will be a national emergency. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency will take over,
and anyone who opposes the new government of the
creditors can be sent to a detention camp in Alaska. We
will have no rights whatsoever. They have already set
up prison camps with work camps nearby so the people
can be used for slave labor. It could be the governors,
legislators, and other leaders who would be hauled away
to Alaska, while the people now disenfranchised from
power would likely be chosen to run the new
government. This could all happen very soon, as the
national debt is so large as to be unpayable. Even the
interest on the debt is virtually unpayable. As I
explained, the national debt--more than three trillion
dollars--is not owed by the Continental united States. It
is the federal United States that had authority to borrow
bank credit. When Congress worked for 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?

NO-INTEREST CONTRACT

If I were to insure a house that did not belong to me,
that would be a no-interest contract. I would just want
the house to burn down. I would pay a small premium,
perhaps a few hundred dollars, and insure it for 80,000
dollars against fire. Then I would be waiting for it to
burn so I could trade my small premium for $80,000.
Under the Common Law and under international law of
the Law Merchant, that is called a no-interest contract,
and it is void and unenforceable in any court.

UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS

In the Uniform Commercial Code, no-interest contracts
are called unconscionable contracts. The section on
unconscionable contracts covers more than forty pages
in the Anderson Code. The federal United States has
involved the states as the accommodation party to the
federal debt, and I believe we could prove this to be an
unconscionable contract. We should get some litigation
into the courts before the government declares a
national emergency, claiming that this state has no
lawful responsibility for the national debt (of the federal
United States), because it became an accommodation
party to this debt through an unconscionable contract.
If we have this litigation before the courts under
International Law when the nation is declared
bankrupt, the creditors would have to settle this matter
first, and it would delay them. They would want the new
government to appear to be legitimate, so they could not
just move right in and take over the state, because it
would be in an International Court. This is very
important at this time.

QUESTIONS AND REVIEW

Note: These are some of the questions asked after the
main lecture. Some are restatements of material
presented earlier, but they contain very valuable
information which is worth repeating.

COURTROOM TECHNIQUES

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 on
appeal.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM

If I were a young man, 18 or 20 years old and just
starting out in my first job, I would not want Social
Security. With my signature on the application I would
write, 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207, and I would
reserve my Common Law rights. But why wouldn't I
want Social Security today? I got into the Social
Security system in the 1930's, and I paid into it dollars
that had good purchasing power. Now I'm getting a
promised return in Federal Reserve Notes which have
considerably less value. For example, in 1940, you could
buy a deluxe Chevrolet for 800 dollars. With today's
Federal Reserve Notes, that won't buy the rear fenders
and trunk on a new Chevrolet. If I were a young man, I
would not want to put Federal Reserve Notes into Social
Security now, and get back something later like the
German mark after World War I--when it took a billion
to buy a loaf of bread. They will give you every Federal
Reserve Note back that they promised you, but it might
not buy anything.

ASSURANCE

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you have the
right in any agreement, to demand a guarantee of
performance. So, don't go to them and say, -I want to
rescind my Social Security number,' or -I refuse to take
it.' Just take it easy and say, -I would be happy to get a
Social Security number and enter into this contract, but
I have a little problem. How can I have assurance before
I enter into this contract that the purchasing power of
the Federal Reserve Notes I get back at the end of the
contract will be as good as the ones that I pay in at the
beginning. They can't guarantee that, and you have a
right under the UCC to assurance of performance under
the contract. So tell them, Well, I 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 record.

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.

IN CONCLUSION

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.