If you are ready to invite
and assist in ushering in a New
Consciousness on this Planet, then
welcome to our Spiritual Dialogue
Board
TOTAL AMOUNT OF DAMAGES TO DATE
FOR FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
$28,620,000.00
IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM -- A DIRECTION!!
By Raymond Karczewski©
I invite all to listen to the latest sound files and read the actual paperwork filed regarding JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON's corrupt Court and Justice System (Requires Real Audio Player):
SOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski guests on John Stadtmiller's "Intel Report" Radio Talk Show on Oct. 2, 2003. Subject: The loss of our Rights in this country via a corrupt court and justice system bent on incarceration and cover up. Criminal charges brought against Josephine County Oregon Judges and District Attorney's Office and demand for Investigation. (1 hour 12 minutes running time)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/statrial.htmlSOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski's actual Courtroom Sentencing Hearing on Sept 22, 2003, Accuses Josephine County Oregon Judges of Crimes, No Jail Time, Refuses Probation - Is Set Free!! What's wrong with this picture? (32 minutes running time)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/sentence.htmlSOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski's actual Courtroom Closing Argument before the Jury on Sept. 10th, 2003 regarding Josephine County District Attorney's Trumped up "Paper Terrorism" charge.
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/closing.htmlSOUND FILE: A Moment of Truth on "Truth Talk Radio" Raymond Karczewski talks to John Stadtmiller and Alex Jones on "TRUTH TALK RADIO." March 15th, 2003 (6 minutes 23 seconds)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/aljohn15.htmlSOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski guests on John Stadtmiller's "National Intelligence Report" Radio Talk Show - December 13th, 2002; Subject: Ray talks about his False Arrest, False Imprisonment and Abuse by Josephine County Court System. (46 Minutes running time)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/intelrpt.htmlSOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski's On-Air Conversation with Radio Talk Show Host Alex Jones regarding Resistance and Boycott of Government/Banks/New World Order. (9 Minutes, 38 seconds Running Time)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/boycott.htmlFor an examination of an effective Legal Venue for the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE to take back control of this country and hold Government and Judges accountable, read the actual legal paperwork I filed with the Courts of Josephine County Oregon. This Method of holding our public officials accountable is one which your Justice Officials don't want you to discover!
See Categories "*****" Courts "**" Sovereignty on http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialchst.htmLet us take back our country without bloodshed, without anger, without fear. The way is simple, direct, and indisputable. Withdraw financial support of a government which no longer supports our U.S. Constitution.
See Links (to articles) marked "*******" BOYCOTTRepost this article to all Newsgroups/Forums and Email Groups which demand Responsibility in Government.
Let the Bloodless, Nonviolent Return to Freedom BEGIN!!
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
ReplySPIRITUAL LIBERATION: SURRENDER TO TRUTH!! Roland Croteau (rolandcro@earthlink.net) wrote:Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:
rc: Greetings Ray,
rc: > I hope this finds you and Anita well and in good spirit.
rc: > Am I misunderstanding this (below)? Are you encouraging people to go down the UCC path?
rk: Yes!! Unequivocally and with full steam ahead!!
rc: > I thought we were in agreement.., there is only ONE WAY out of this mess.., the RETURN TO GOD'S LAWS and ONLY HIS LAWS.
rk: We ARE in agreement! THERE IS INDEED only ONE WAY out of this mess on Earth which foolish men have created for themselves.
rk: It is the return to DIVINE INTELLIGENCE which man calls GOD (along with many other names). It is the quieting of the mind, the ending of intellectual noise, the setting aside of the intellect in dealing with matters nontechnical in nature (which is the rest of WHAT IS -- Life itself), the emergence of AWARENESS, which is holistic perception.
rk: In that moment of Direct Awareness, ONE IS THAT!! It is the I AM THAT I AM spoken of by other Spiritual Men throughout history.
rk: It is the return to nondualistic resonance (the Resurrection of the Spirit of Divine Intelligence) at-one with the SPIRITUAL ESSENCE OF TRUTH.
rk: How is it done? By stopping the noise of the conditioned intellect and listen to the voice of TRUTH (GOD) which silently and unerringly guides one through the maze of insanity conjured up by SATANIC (Opposer-dualistic) Intellects which have seduced us from our true heritage of CHRISTHOOD and made this a HELL ON EARTH.
rk: Roland, there is NO RIGHT WAY OR WRONG WAY (such are the seductions of a Satanic Intellect played out by Satanically ruled entities who divide and separate for the purposes of worldly power).
rk: There is ONLY the WAY OF TRUTH. My Spiritual Brother Jesus of Nazareth, a Living Christ (Holistic Consciousness), described it thus: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me. If Ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth, ye know him Him and have seen Him." Do you understand the utter simplicity of that statement, or will a complex intellect interfere with such spiritual revelation?
rk: In other words, SURRENDER TO TRUTH and SATAN BE DAMNED (what else would you call unending conflict, confusion, and violence?). Do you grasp the simple significance of such a statement. If you do it through the intellect, you CANNOT SEE IT, you WILL NOT SEE IT. For the Intellect is eternally limited to its own projections. That is where MOST men live their lives -- in their tortured minds.
rk: My recent experience with the COURT SYSTEM here in Josephine County Oregon was evidence of TRUTH's gentle but unerring guidance of a Spirit who was caused to traverse the pitfalls of man's Satanic Law. The actions of the courts speak for themselves. The end result is SHOCKING to the average person who is trained to live in fear. YET, IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, DOES IT NOT?
rc: > Any other direction is the WRONG WAY.
rc: Response please.
LLTF,
RolandOn Sunday, October 12, 2003, at 12:00 PM, Raymond Karczewski wrote:
IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM -- A DIRECTION!!
By Raymond Karczewski©
I invite all to listen to the latest sound files and read the actual paperwork filed regarding JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON's corrupt Court and Justice System (Requires Real Audio Player):
SOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski guests on John Stadtmiller's "Intel Report" Radio Talk Show on Oct. 2, 2003. Subject: The loss of our Rights in this country via a corrupt court and justice system bent on incarceration and cover up. Criminal charges brought against Josephine County Oregon Judges and District Attorney's Office and demand for Investigation. (1 hour 12 minutes running time)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/statrial.html
SOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski's actual Courtroom Sentencing Hearing on Sept 22, 2003, Accuses Josephine County Oregon Judges of Crimes, No Jail Time, Refuses Probation - Is Set Free!! What's wrong with this picture? (32 minutes running time)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/sentence.html
SOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski's actual Courtroom Closing Argument before the Jury on Sept. 10th, 2003 regarding Josephine County District Attorney's Trumped up "Paper Terrorism" charge.
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/closing.html
SOUND FILE: A Moment of Truth on "Truth Talk Radio" Raymond Karczewski talks to John Stadtmiller and Alex Jones on "TRUTH TALK RADIO." March 15th, 2003 (6 minutes 23 seconds)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/aljohn15.html
SOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski guests on John Stadtmiller's "National Intelligence Report" Radio Talk Show - December 13th, 2002; Subject: Ray talks about his False Arrest, False Imprisonment and Abuse by Josephine County Court System. (46 Minutes running time)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/intelrpt.html
SOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski's On-Air Conversation with Radio Talk Show Host Alex Jones regarding Resistance and Boycott of Government/Banks/New World Order. (9 Minutes, 38 seconds Running Time)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/boycott.html
For an examination of an effective Legal Venue for the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE to take back control of this country and hold Government and Judges accountable, read the actual legal paperwork I filed with the Courts of Josephine County Oregon. This Method of holding our public officials accountable is one which your Justice Officials don't want you to discover!
See Categories "*****" Courts "**" Sovereignty on http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialchst.htm
Let us take back our country without bloodshed, without anger, without fear. The way is simple, direct, and indisputable. Withdraw financial support of a government which no longer supports our U.S. Constitution.
See Links (to articles) marked "*******" BOYCOTT
Repost this article to all Newsgroups/Forums and Email Groups which demand Responsibility in Government.
Let the Bloodless, Nonviolent Return to Freedom BEGIN!!
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
*************************************************************
Let man not Fall for a New World Order.
Let mankind Rise to a New World Consciousness!
Raymond Karczewski http://www.arkenterprises.com
**************************************************************
Reply
THE FOUNDATION OF RAYMOND KARCZEWSKI'S DEFENSE AGAINST UNLAWFUL PROSECUTION BY
THE STATE OF OREGON
Do You Own Yourself?
by Butler ShafferOne of my favorite quotations comes from Thomas Pynchon: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don´t have to worry about answers." Our world is in the mess it is in today because most of us have internalized the fine art of asking the wrong questions.
Contrary to the thinking that would have us believe that the conflict, violence, tyranny, and destructiveness that permeates modern society is the result of "bad" or "hateful" people, disparities in wealth, or lack of education, all of our social problems are the direct consequence of a general failure to respect the inviolability of one another´s property interests!
I begin my Property classes with the question: "do you own yourself?" Most of my students eagerly nod their heads in the affirmative, until I warn them that, by the time we finish examining this question at the end of the year, they will find their answer most troubling, whatever it may be today. "If you do own yourself, then why do you allow the state to control your life and other property interests? And if you answer that you do not own yourself, then what possible objection can you raise to anything that the state may do to you?" We then proceed to an examination of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The question of whether Dred Scott was a self-owning individual, or the property of another, is the same question at the core of the debate on abortion. Is the fetus a self-owning person, or an extension of the property boundaries of the mother? The same property analysis can be used to distinguish "victimizing" from "victimless" crimes: murder, rape, arson, burglary, battery, theft, and the like, are victimizing crimes because someone´s property boundaries were violated. In a victimless crime, by contrast, no trespass to a property interest occurs. If one pursues the substance of the "issues" that make up political and legal debates today, one always finds a property question at stake: is person "x" entitled to make decisions over what is his, or will the state restrain his decision-making in some way? Regulating what people can and cannot put into their bodies, or how they are to conduct their business or social activities, or how they are to educate their children, are all centered around property questions.
"Property" is not simply some social invention, like Emily Post´s guide to etiquette, but a way of describing conditions that are essential to all living things. Every living thing must occupy space and consume energy from outside itself if it is to survive, and it must do so to the exclusion of all other living things on the planet. I didn´t dream this up. My thinking was not consulted before the life system developed. The world was operating on the property principle when I arrived and, like the rest of us, I had to work out my answers to that most fundamental, pragmatic of all social questions: who gets to make decisions about what? The essence of "ownership" is to be found in control: who gets to be the ultimate decision maker about people and "things" in the world?
Observe the rest of nature: trees, birds, fish, plants, other mammals, bacteria, all stake out claims to space and sources of energy in the world, and will defend such claims against intruders, particularly members of their own species. This is not because they are mean-spirited or uncooperative: quite the contrary, many of us have discovered that cooperation is a great way of increasing the availability of the energy we need to live well. We have found out that, if we will respect the property claims of one another and work together, each of us can enjoy more property in our lives than if we try to function independently of one another. Such a discovery has permitted us to create economic systems.
There is no way that I could have produced, by myself, the computer upon which I am writing this article. Had I devoted my entire life to the undertaking, I would have been unable even to have conceived of its technology. Many other men and women, equally unable to have undertaken the task by themselves, cooperated without even knowing one another in its creation. Lest you think that my writing would have to have been accomplished through the use of a pencil, think again: I would also have been unable to produce a pencil on my own, as Leonard Read once illustrated in a wonderful, brief essay.
Such cooperative undertakings have been possible because of a truth acknowledged by students of marketplace economic systems, particularly the Austrians about human nature: each of us acts only in anticipation of being better off afterwards as a result of our actions. Toward whatever ends we choose to act, and such ends are constantly rearranging their priorities within us, their satisfaction is always expressed in terms inextricably tied to decision making over something one owns (or seeks to own). Whether I wish to acquire some item of wealth, or to give it away; whether I choose to write some great novel or paint some wondrous work of art; or whether I just wish to lie around and look at flowers, each such act is premised on the fact that we cannot act in the world without doing so through property interests. It is in anticipation of being able to more fully express our sense of what is important to us, both materially and spiritually, that we cooperate with one another.
"Property" also provides a means for maximizing both individual liberty and peace in society. For once we identify who the owner of some item of property is, that person´s will is inviolate as to such property interest. He or she can do what they choose with respect to what is theirs. If I own a barn, I can set fire to it should I so choose. If I must first get another´s permission, such other person is the owner. Individual liberty means that my decision making is immune from the coercion of others, and coercion is always expressed in terms of property trespasses.
At the same time, the property principle limits the scope of my decision making by confining it to that which is mine to control. This is why problems such as industrial "pollution" are usually misconceived, reflecting the truth of Pynchon´s earlier quote. A factory owner who fails to confine the unwanted byproducts of his activities to his own land, is not behaving as a property owner, but as a trespasser. Economists have an apt phrase for this: socializing the costs. He is behaving like any other collectivist, choosing to extend his decision making over the property of others!
But not all of us choose to pursue our self-interests through cooperation with others. Cooperation can exist only when our relationships with others are on a voluntary basis which, in turn, requires a mutual respect for the inviolability of one another´s property boundaries. Those who seek to advance their interests in non-cooperative ways, create another system: politics. If you can manage to drag your mind away from the drivel placed there by your high school civics class teacher, and look at political systems in terms of what they in fact do, you will discover this: every such system is founded upon a disrespect for privately owned property! All political systems are collectivist in nature, for each presumes a rightful authority to violate the will, including confiscation, of property owners. One can no more conceive of "politics" without "theft" than of "war" without "violence."
Every political system is defined in terms of how property is to be controlled in a given society. In communist systems, the state confiscates all the means of production. In less-ambitious socialist systems, the state confiscates the more important means of production (e.g., railroads, communications, steel mills, etc.). Under fascism, "title" to property remains in private hands, but "control" over such property is exercised by the state. Thus, fascism has given us state regulatory systems, in which property owners, be they farmers, homeowners, or businesses, have the illusion of owning what they believe to be "theirs," while the state increasingly exercises the real ownership authority (i.e., control). In welfare state systems, the state confiscates part of the income of individuals and redistributes it to others.
As stated earlier, property is an existential fact. Whatever the society in which we live, someone will make determinations as to who will live where, what resources can be consumed by whom (and when), and how such property will be controlled. Such decisions can either be made by individual property owners, over what is theirs to control, or by the state presuming the authority to control the lives of each of us. When such decisions are made by the state, it is claiming ownership over our lives.
It is at this point that I let the students in on the secret the political establishment would prefer not to have revealed: the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not end slavery, but only nationalized it! That most Americans acquiesce in such political arrangements, and take great offense should anyone dare to explain their implications, has led me to the conclusion that America may be the last of the collectivist societies to wither away. Most Americans, sad to say, seem unprepared to deny the state´s authority to direct their lives and property as political officials see fit. The reason for this, as my first-day question to students is designed to elicit, is that most of us refuse to insist upon self-ownership.
We may, of course, choose to accept our role as state-owned chattels, particularly if we are well-treated by our masters. We may be so conditioned in our obeisance that, like cattle entering the slaughterhouse, we may pause to lick the hand of the butcher out of gratitude for having been well cared for. On the other hand, we may decide to reclaim our self-ownership by taking back the control over our lives that we have long since abandoned.
Perhaps the insanity of our social destructiveness, including the Bush Administration´s deranged declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world, will bring about an examination of alternative ways of living together in conditions of peace and liberty. Our political systems cannot bring about such harmonious and life-sustaining ways because they are premised on a rejection of the principle of self-ownership. In a society of self-owning individuals, there would be no place for politicians, bureaucrats, and other state functionaries. Like the rest of us, they would have to confine their lives to minding their own business, and deriving whatever benefit they could from persons who chose to cooperate with them.
There is one person who can restore you to a state of self-ownership, however, and that person is you. To do so, you need only assert your claim, not as some empty gesture, but in full understanding of the existential meaning of such a claim, including the willingness to take full control of and responsibility for your life. While your claim will likely evoke cries of contempt from many, you may also find yourself energized by a life force that permeates all of nature; an élan vital that reminds us that life manifests itself only through individuals, and not as collective monstrosities; that life belongs to the living, not to the state or any other abstraction.
February 25, 2002
Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail] teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.
Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com, Reprinted by permission from the author.
Do you OWN YOURSELF?? Important. From: Roland Croteau
To: RolandGroup
Date: Wed, Oct 15, 2003, 5:05 am
To All,
I hope this finds you all well and in good spirit.
You may or may not be aware of Raymond Karczewski. In a nutshell, Ray
spent a considerable period of time in jail striving to make his point
as outlined below. The process, not recognized by statute law, is known
as the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC. I have briefly explained this in
the past but the concept is.., "who owns you? you or the state"?The following essay lays out the principles Ray "stands on". There are
many admirable half-truths in the presentation but the author (Butler
Shaffer).., as deeply as he questions.., does not go deep enough. You
see, even if we "reclaim" our "self's" away from the state (via the
UCC) and believe that through that exercise we "own" ourselves.., we
are yet to understand that is not true either. There are only two
places to "stand".., on God's Laws or man's laws (including the UCC).
There is NO "owning" one's "self".In truth and in fact, we either BELONG to God or we BELONG to the
"state"/god. Bob Dylan once wrote, "everybody has to SERVE somebody".
Those who "serve" (and that is everyone on this planet) can NEVER "own"
anything. Are you not aware this is God's planet and everything here is
on "loan" to us (like props on a grand stage)?We are the "created". And as created souls/beings/entities we may or
may not awaken to realize we stand between two POWERFUL forces. We are
ACTED through. Jesus called what we struggle against "principalities".
He also said we were one with our father, the devil (the father of ALL
lies, chaos and confusion - LOOK around you at this world if you want
PROOF of who we are serving on this planet) and that He was One with
His Father in Heaven.., God. Jesus was and is the perfect example of
God's Will "lived out" on/through the physical.., THROUGH the flesh.Ray wishes to be "free" of the beast system and I know he wishes to
live God's Will.., to "Be One with The Father". For this reason he has
suffered the slings and arrows of the beast system.If I may offer these thoughts/questions: HOW do we find "The Way" to
become ONE with The Father (as taught by Jesus)? Have you realized you
have been one with the devil?Jesus said we must be "Born Again". HOW does one become TRULY "born
again" (in spirit)? If we cannot find out what that means? we remain
children of Satan. Satan/the state "owns us". If we TRULY become "born
again", we become the child of God and God "owns" us for we were
created to "SERVE". We either "serve" the state/beast/consumer system
(meaning the state/god owns us BUT leaves us with the ILLUSION of being
free and "owning" one's "self" unless you get as far as Ray has in
piercing the illusionary veil) OR we wake up, get TRULY "born again"
and SERVE God (meaning God OWNS us). Regardless.., it is impossible to
own one's "self".Have you ever wondered WHY the "patriot community" cannot unite? I will
answer that. They THINK they are serving God but the truth is.., "THEY"
(patriot leaders") wish to (secretly - perhaps even to themselves) be
The Saviour. Every "leader", IF they are to truly fight for God UNDER
His Banner.., MUST enter "The Way" just as Jesus taught BY EXAMPLE. The
FIRST thing He taught BY EXAMPLE was a forty day fast (that is a target
date - it took me 47 to complete mine). Having completed my fast, I can
say it is CRITICAL. No male, unwilling to commit at that spiritual
level (to be AS Jesus, to emulate Him, to be One with Him Who is One
with The Father).., can possibly "lead" and work/win for God because he
is believing the liar still alive and well within him (consequently we
witness DIVISION). My job is to present this information/truth to
"seekers". I have yet to have one.., not one, of the "leaders" in the
"patriot" community put his/her ego aside long enough to understand
this. WHY?? HUGE EGO"S.To sum up.., the "self" we are looking to "reclaim" is the ego-self
and "it" has to DIE so the real "you"/soul, that belongs to God, can be
"born again" and SAVED. During the course of the being "saved
process".., we must learn to OBEY/become The Will of Father here on the
physical plain. Jesus DID it. He IS The Christ. He IS The Saviour. He
is "THE WAY" and He DID His Father's Will. We have to learn to walk
that same walk to go that same way.., The Way. Your will is not your
will but that of Satan who lets you think it is your will (just like
the beast system lets you THINK you are "free") . Lay down your ego. DO
the fast. Emulate The Christ. Learn "The Way". Learn how to truly SERVE
Him. Learn to fight for God with His PLAN, under His banner. THERE IS
NO OTHER WAY. Please see www.i.am/jah/plan.htm and then learn how to
DO.LLTF,
Roland
P.S. Jesus didn't just pray and wait to be "taken up". As miserable as
His mission was from Our Father.., He DID it (and we THINK we can just
do nothing and we'll find ourselves back in Heaven??). He came into
this world KNOWING we would kill him. Why? Because he EXAMPLED The
Father's Love for even His errant children. In our "self"-ish state..,
HOW do we fathom that?? We can't. All we can hope for is to accept it
in humility and to NEVER forget Father's Grace. NEVER! All of this and
much more is explained in "The Way Home or face The Fire". Doesn't the
title tell you something? It is "the little book" spoken of in
Revelations. I strongly recommend obtaining, reading and digesting this
book ASAP.by Butler Shaffer THE FOUNDATION OF RAYMOND KARCZEWSKI'S DEFENSE AGAINST UNLAWFUL PROSECUTION BY
THE STATE OF OREGON
Do You Own Yourself?
Hokey Wolf (hokeywolfrules@hotmail.com) wrote:
"Jack Lancaster" (lancaster@ccountry.com) wrote:
Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:
Date: 2003-10-14 09:08:52 PST
Raymond Karczewski <arkent@arkenterprises.com> wrote in message news:<3F89B06C.F0B4216A@arkenterprises.com>...
hw: > _Obstacles to Personal Responsibility_
hw: > Ray, I'm going to try a different approach to you. I'm not going to be insulting, I am going to render my honest opinion, and you may do with it what you may. I doubt you will take the time to actually consider what I say, but perhaps you will gain some token insight into why people attack and ridicule you.
hw: > Raymond Ronald Karczewski, you are a CONVICTED FELON. I say that as a matter of fact, not ridicule.
rk: On the contrary!! It IS NOT a matter of fact that I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient natural man have been convicted of anything.
rk: Scott Nelson, aka jimmy snibbler, aka hokey wolfe, professor of horticulture, University of Hawaii, and Internet disinformation agent, the facts clearly show that it was the defendant, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, a legal fiction, a juristic person, "en legis," that was convicted in the sham trials conducted in Josephine County Oregon.
rk: I am not the defendant, never have been, never will be. The court was well aware of that fact. That is why it refused to address the jurisdiction and/or claim issue throughout the last 12 months. Yet I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person was falsely arrested, held hostage and imprisoned for the debts of the defendant. That is the extortion perpetrated by the Josephine County judicial authorities upon me from the get-go of this case.
rk: I am the Secured Party, Creditor, and holder in due course over the debts of the defendant. I am neither a surety nor an accomodation party for the defendant, and am thus held harmless from any legal action brought against the defendant RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©. Proof of such hold-harmless/indemity was filed on the court records. That is why the court is not moving toward arresting me for my open court and public refusal to accept probation at the sentencing hearing. Listen to SOUND FILE: Ray Karczewski's actual Courtroom Sentencing Hearing on Sept 22, 2003, Accuses Josephine County Oregon Judges of Crimes, No Jail Time, Refuses Probation - Is Set Free!! What's wrong with this picture? (32 minutes running time)
See: http://www.arkenterprises.com/sentence.html)rk: Even after charging 6 Josephine County Judges along with the District Attorney and members of his staff of "simulation of legal process" and "Official Misconduct in the first degree on the court record, the only option left to the court was to SET ME FREE. Is the public that BRAIN DEAD that such criminal behavior by its trusted court officials shall go UNQUESTIONED? If so, we have already lost our country!!
hw: >You are a CONVICTED FELON because you committed felonies.
rk: NOT SO, SCOT NELSON, aka hokey wolf, aka jimmy snibbler!! See above!
hw: > You embarked upon a FELONY CRIME SPREE which involved failing to appear irt lawful summons rendered unto you in regards to your previous criminal behavior as well as filing fraudulent financial documents, purported to be legally binding.
rk: AGAIN, NOT SO, SCOT NELSON, aka hokey wolf, aka jimmy snibbler. Any special, limited-jurisdiction court whose rulings run counter to the Supreme Law of the Land, i.e., the U.S. Constition, is deemed to be an "Unlawful Court," (unless one waives their rights and consents to jurisdiction); and as such, carries NO FORCE OF LAW in their rulings. It is that which the court was noticed by me at the sentencing hearing and which prevents the JOSEPHINE COUNTY COURT from arresting this Living, Breathing, Flesh and Blood, Sentient Natural Person without having to explain their lack of lawful jurisdiction over me. As you can see, it's all SMOKE AND MIRRORS AND SAVING FACE on the court's part.
hw: > The official charge is "Simulation of a Legal Process" but it is more commonly known as "Paper Terrorism" and is considered a form of blackmail.
rk: . . . and it is the Josephine County Court and District Attorney who is guilty of such behavior, as the facts have clearly shown.
hw: > All you had to do was pay a small fine then apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles to have your driver's license reinstated.
rk: Ah!, SCOT NELSON, aka hokey wolf, aka jimmy snibbler, professor of horticulture and Internet disinformation agent, your words are the words of all abject, broken-spirited slaves, grovelling at the feet of their SATANIC master, are they not?
hw: > Drivers are licensed as a safety mechanism to insure that incompetent or reckless drivers are prevented from endangering the lives of others.
rk: Ah!, but I was not a "DRIVER". I was a TRAVELER! Big difference in the eyes of the law!
hw: > The true irony is that you drive with your highbeams on, which is reckless and demonstrates that you disregard the safety of others.
rk: Or, the simple fact that I was "unaware" that my hi-beams were on (as the uncontradicted evidence in this case shows).
hw: > In my opinion, it indicates that you are a selfish man who doesn't care who he hurts.
rk: The opinion of one who has shown that he lacks integrity is duly noted.
hw: > Another character flaw you readily exhibit is your failure to accept constructive criticism.
rk: Is is really a flaw for an integral man to see, understand, and therefore not accept criticism from foolish, deceptive, unaware, psychologically glitched hypocrites who slink in the shadows of anonymity? How BASSACKWARDS to even consider such nonsense, eh, SCOT NELSON, aka hokey wolf, aka jimmy snibbler?
hw: > Unless another is pandering to your ego, agreeing with your dissertations word-for-word, you attempt to elevate yourself to a position of spiritual superiority while simultaneously delivering crude insults to which you demean their intelligence.
rk: Such is the nature of the "Mirror of Truth." There is no escape from reflecting that which stands before it, is there?
hw: > We who have been trained in the arena of psychology and human behavior have a couple words for that, "avoidance" and "deflection"
rk: That still doesn't save you from observing yourself as other clear-sighted spiritual entities see you. Hell, isn't it?
hw: > You avoid your issues by deflecting the dialogue away from yourself, calling the personal character of the critic into question.
rk: Is that not what a Mirror of Truth does -- reflects WHAT IS?
hw: > This renders you unteachable
rk: Don't you mean "unconditionable?"
hw: > and closed minded which is a serious impediment to personal development and growth.
rk: Don't you mean the BASSACKWARDNESS of "Political Correctness?"
hw: > You also like to broadcast that you are more aware than the average person.
rk: Self-evident, isn't it?
hw: > Awareness requires taking responsibility for choices, and you chose to attack your critics, just as you chose to break the law.
rk: It has yet to be proven the I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural man have broken any law. Do you have even a scintilla of such evidence which you are willing to emerge from your satanic shadows and present at the risk of your own personal, unlimited commercial account? If so, step right up, and let us get on with it!
hw: > You know profess that because you are not subject to the law,
rk: Do not confuse "corporate policy/legislation" with LAW! It only reveals a state of IGNORANCE which you share with millions of other slave-minded individuals.
hw: > you have a right to attack your critics, calling THEM into scrutiny in what can only be considered to be a massive perpetuation of projection.
rk: SCOT NELSON, aka hokey wolf, aka jimmy snibbler, like all hypocrites, your words run shallow, lack depth, and fizzle out for lack of character and substance at the peripheral level of consciousness. But then again, that has been shown over and over for the last eight years on the Internet, has it not? Undiscerning ignoramuses cannot extricate themselves from the tyranny of the "letter of the word," can they? If they did, schmoozy politicians, priests and pandering ministers would be out of a job, would they not?
hw: > You like to exhort unto those you deem to be unaware, holistic theory, but holism includes behavior, and your behavior has been criminal as indicated by your felony convictions.
rk: SCOT NELSON, horticulture professor, aka hokey, wolf aka jimmy snibbler, perhaps you will come up with any such evidence that I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person have been convicted of any felonies. The Josephine County Court certainly hasn't been able to. What makes you think you can?
hw: > Your constant refusal to deal with your own misbehavior smacks of denial.
rk: Existence of misbehavior must first be evident before it can be denied. Aren't you putting the cart before the horse?
hw: This is just a sample of why people reject you and your ideas.
rk: Nah! Could it be that the masses of SATANICALLY conditioned IGNORAMUSES are just too damned dumb and unaware to live as free people, and as such are compelled to cling to the security of their enslavement?
hw: > I believe you have extremely low self esteem, as you have accomplished little, and in retrospect you have found your life to have been insignificant in it's impact upon the world.
rk: The plain and simple fact, which can be verified in the Google Archives, is that you cowardly, anonymous, disinformation agents spend an awful lot of time and effort attempting to discredit such *insignificance,* don't you?
hw: > This is readily demonstrated by your attempts to publish self help material, but what you must realize, is that you must help yourself before you can help others. You have issues that you need to address, although I am sure you never will.
rk: WATCH OUT FOR THAT MIRROR!!!
hw: > Finally, your past (and present) histrionics show you to be an adept actor, but the part you play is overdone. This is highly suggestive of dissatisfaction with your past and serves to reinforce my theory that you suffer low self esteem.
rk: SCOT NELSON, horticulture professor, aka hokey wolf, aka jimmy snibbler, your theories regarding "low self-esteem" tell us more about you than they do about me.
hw: > You strive to overcompensate for whatever it is you have lacked in the past, and in doing so you have succeeded in alienating the world in general.
rk: Are you speaking of the world ruled by SATANIC thought? If so, have you not fully understood why you and the other psychologically glitched government/media disinformation agents are compelled to destroy the simple Truth of a living Christ?
hw: ? We are social creatures, as are you, but without so much as a token amount of cohesiveness on your part, you will never be at peace with yourself, ergo, you will never be at peace with the world.
rk: Look to your own words. You wouldn't know "peace" if it bit you!!
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
jl: The "color of law" jurisdiction is the fictitious world that a hypnotist
puts a subject into where the subject thinks he is a chicken and he acts
like a chicken, this is the same place a citizen or person or artificial
entity operates in and this is the jurisdiction of today's courts...It is
developed under the law of fictions. a corporation is an artificial entity
that has no brains, same as other artificial entities.......jack
From: " harmon" <ooglah@budget.net>
To: "Jack Lancaster" <lancaster@ccountry.com>,
Raymond Karczewski (arkent@arkenterprises.com) wrote:
ra: > I hope you notice, still, He's just not getting it. The underlined portion is an impossibility. The red part his contradiction:
"rk: >> .......it was the defendant, RAYMOND RONALD KARCZEWSKI©, legal fiction, a juristic person, "en legis," that was convicted in the sham trials conducted in Josephine County Oregon.
rk: I am not the defendant, never have been, never will be. The court was well aware of that fact. That is why it refused to address the jurisdiction and/or claim issue throughout the last 12 months. Yet I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person was "
ra: He needs to, at the very least, stop admitting the red part.
rk: "rever ant", you reflect the attitude of a silly, intellectually driven IGNORAMUS who takes great pride in demonstrating your SATANIC ability to play an arm-chair "legal eagle" on the Internet.
rk: Is not the problem our civilized world faces to be found in the flaw of language itself?
rk: Are you getting a glimmer of the True Essence of IGNORANCE yet? Is it not the fact that one is compelled to depend solely upon blind belief in the written or spoken word? Are not such hollow words the very stock-in-trade of manipulative and intriguing polished hypocrites (Lawyers, Judges, Politicians) who exercise control over the masses?
rk: Can it not be seen that spiritually blind men ruled by SATANIC INTELLECT, who are unable to grasp the reality which exists beyond words, are the very blind who seek to lead blind followers into the "Ditch of Despair?" How many times must history repeat itself? How dumb and blind need one be to miss the OBVIOUS?!!
rk: The fact that the world of civilized men ruled by thought from the dawn of civilization does not, cannot, and WILL NEVER TRANSCEND the corruption of such SATANIC (Opposer-Dualistic) bound language is testimony to the IGNORANCE of which I continually write on the Internet.
rk: Such is the nature of ORIGINAL SIN (The Sin of Satanic Contradiction). IGNORAMUSES have, from the beginning of time, debated over their opposing theories of such a concept, YET NOBODY SEES THE SIMPLE REALITY OF TRUTH which is eternally present but lies beyond the word.
rk: Look at the violent world ruled by legalese-spewing, SILLY intellectual IGNORAMUSES. IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, does it not? Hell, isn't it?
rk: Does anybody out there GET THE SIMPLICITY OF IT YET?? If not, history will only repeat itself until the lesson is learned. In the meantime mankind SHALL REAP what it has SOWN. Man will get exactly WHAT HE DESERVES!!!
rk: > > It has yet to be proven that I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural man....
rk: > > any such evidence that I, this living, breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person
ra: > So which is it, a man or a person that is I?
rk: See what I mean about silly "letter of the word"-slinging IGNORAMUSES who are blind to the simple reality which exists beyond words, beyond thought? You dally at the peripheral level of the "letter of the word" instead of HEARING deeply what was being communicated at the "spirit of the word" level.
ra: > Otherwise, the rest of the "discussion" appears to be two guys pissing up a rope.
rk: While you remain trapped utilizing such base imagery, our world races toward self-annihilation. All the while you and your SATANIC opponent merely wind up with a soggy rope. Ah!! those intellectual ties that bind, eh?
ra: > But an additional insight:
hw: > We who have been trained in the arena of psychology and human behavior..... "
ra: > If we didn't know it before, we now have another way to identify a human. These are trained, either overtly or covertly, to that behavior.
Always,
rever ant.
Reserving All Rights, education purpose otherwise, 2003.
Who Are The Meek Who Shall Inherit the Earth?
By Raymond Karczewski
Before reading this article, may I suggest you listen to the Sound File: "The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth" at: http://www.arkenterprises.com/meek.html
Amongst millions and millions of dualistically-thinking, emotionally reacting, fear motivated, fragmented blind believers who through the centuries have been and still are controlled and enslaved from the cradle to the grave by Satanically organized religious and politically ruled civilized authorities, the simple answer to the question of "who are the meek who shall inherit the Earth" has been and still is, quite frankly, well beyond their limited intellectual capacity to grasp; for they can only operate at the level of "blind belief." As such, the direct apprehension of Truth, the "SEEING" of it, eternally eludes them.
Plainly and simply stated, this regenerating multitude of blind believers is the army of conditioned IGNORAMUSES, the unaware offspring of their worldly predecessors, who have FALLEN FROM THE GRACE of Divine Intelligence through the seduction of SATANICALLY (OPPOSER) ruled dualistic thought. They make up the legion of countless minions who are compelled to serve and support the unholy agenda that is HELL ON EARTH.
The question is Why? Why would anyone want to live that way? Why would anyone want to spend their days on Earth in unrelenting confusion, conflict and violence but for the empty promise of SATANIC acquisition of power?
The answer to that lies within your own personal level of consciousness. Which God do you serve?
Are you an aware Child of God? Are you able to directly apprehend the nondualistic essence of TRUTH when IT MANIFESTS in your life? Or to you, is Truth merely an intellectual concept, and an incomprehensible one at that?
The Child of God, a Christ, resonates at-one with the nondualistic essence of Truth.
The minion of Satan lives in the eternal dissonance of never-ending confusion and conflict. When faced with the Mirror of Truth, the latter will opt to waste his life in defense of his rationalized stupidity.
Which LAW do you serve -- GOD'S LAW or MAN'S LAW?
INFINITE INTELLIGENCE --TRUTH -- IS GOD'S LAW!
SATANICALLY RULED INTELLECT-- ILLUSION -- is MAN'S LAW!
MAN'S LAW, the law of hypocrites, of Machiavellian Deceivers who cloak themselves in positive, power-based imagery as they parasitically eat away one's life-sustaining substance is responsible for the HELL which worldy man has wrought upon this Earth. Yet the average IGNORAMUS has been conditioned to be blind to this simple, stark, inarguable observation.
The solution to man's problems has always been present right under his nose. It is found in every moment of existence, in every breath one takes, in every timeless moment of Truth, yet it has been roundly ignored by SATANICALLY ruled, time-bound Intellectual IGNORAMUSES who are busily pursuing tangential illusions.
Can one live life in a complex society today, and do so simply and integrally at-one with GOD'S LAW, the LAW OF TRUTH?
What happens should one stand up, alone if necessary, to expose the SATANIC influence of MAN'S LAW? All HELL breaks loose, doesn't it?
What happens when the "courtroom" is cleared of the "smoke and mirrors" of SATANIC law which is designed to invoke fear, intimidation, and hopelessness in the minds of conditioned masses of IGNORAMUSES, and it is unable to shield itself from the simple, yet penetrating light of Truth?
The House of Cards which was so carefully and painstakingly constructed by "black-robed Pharisees" comes CRASHING DOWN, for the dualistic GATES OF HELL can never PREVAIL AGAINST THE SIMPLE POWER OF NONDUALISTIC TRUTH!
That, my spiritual Brothers and Sisters, is GOD'S LAW MANIFESTED -- AS ABOVE, SO BELOW. NOTHING can stand up to it that is not of its DIVINE NATURE. ILLUSIONS disintegrate --OPPOSITION falls away as Children of GOD do not, will not RESIST EVIL. They merely MIRROR IT.
The change in our world starts within each of us. Change ourselves and the world changes with us. DO NOT RESIST EVIL -- BOYCOTT IT!!
In BOYCOTT there is nothing that need be done other than to withdraw your personal financial or psychological support of evil.
Without such support, your support, SATAN has no power. Put it to the test -- I DID!!
I SERVE GOD'S LAW. I LIVE BY GOD'S LAW.
The LAW of MAN is the LAW of SATAN. I do not grant jurisdiction to MAN'S LAW, for no man can serve two masters.
I'LL NOT SERVE THE LAW OF SATAN.
I INVITE ALL TO READ THE ARTICLES MARKED
"*****" Courts "**" Sovereignty at http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialchst.htmPay particular attention to the sound file: "Ray Karczewski is Sentenced, No Jail Time, Refuses Probation - Is Set Free!!" http://www.arkenterprises.com/sentence.html
There one finds the ultimate answer to living FREE in an UNFREE WORLD.
Those capable of SEEING such simple Truth shall indeed be the MEEK WHO SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH, for all who live by SATANIC OPPOSITION SHALL PERISH BY SATANIC OPPOSITION.
It is the BOYCOTTERS of SATANIC INFLUENCE who shall survive and flourish as GOD'S CHILDREN.
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
GOVERNMENT/MEDIA DISINFORMATION AGENT SPINS COURT'S NONJURISDICTION:
"The Skinny On The kazoo's Probation"From: ed wilkenson aka Agent Sir Ed (agent_sir_ed@hotmail.com) wrote:
Date: 2003-10-20 11:44:20 PST
Well, I talked to XXX in the Probation Office and 'tis true, the kazoo
IS in violation!Apparently the judges haven't done anything yet. I guess the kazoo's
silly website saying he wasn't convicted of anything and urging people
to file liens against people, and the kazoo's being in violation of his
probation is not that big of a deal to them.The Probation Office/Courthouse people are waiting for him to start
filing liens again. I guess when that happens the kazoo will be dealt
with...but until then, it looks like nothing's happening, he's just in
violation but there's no arrest warrant or anything.I suspect the kazoo's smart enough to not file any more fraudulent
liens, as he knows that when he does, he'll go back to prison for the
remainder of his 18-month jail sentence, but that also means he'll
prolly continue to spam our newsgroup with more silly blathering about
how he wasn't convicted, it was his alter ego The Juristic Person!There IS one more caveat...the kazoo is a terrible driver, as we all
know...doesn't use his turn signals, runs red lights and drives with his
high beam on, blinding other drivers, and seeing as how he's addicted to
gambling, it's just a matter of time until he's pulled over for another
driving violation, and then he'll go through the whole process again!Ed
*"I send you out as sheep in
the midst of wolves, be wise
as a serpent and harmless as a dove."*===========================================
INTRODUCTION
When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court (SC) decisions. If I
had tried to use these in court, I would have been convicted.I was involved with a patriot group and I studied supreme
Court cases. I concluded that the SC had declared that I was
not a person required to file an income tax -- that that tax was
an excise tax on privileges granted by government. So I quit
filing and paying income taxes and it was not long before they
came down on me w/a heavy hand. They issued a notice of
deficiency, which had such a fantastic sum on it that the biggest
temptation was to go in with their letter and say "Where in the
world did you ever get that figure?" They claimed I owed them
some $60,000. But even if I had been paying taxes, I never had
that much money, so how could I have owed them that much?NEVER ARGUE THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY
Fortunately, I had been given just a little bit of information:
NEVER ARGUE THE FACTS IN A TAX CASE. If you're not
required to file, what do you care whether they say you owe
sixty dollars or $60,000. If you are not required to file, the
amount doesn't matter. DONT ARGUE THE AMOUNT -- that
is a fact issue. In most instances, when you get a Notice of
Deficiency, it is usually for some fantastic amount. The minute
you say "I don't owe that much," you have agreed that you owe
them something, and you have given them jurisdiction. Just
don't be shocked at the amount on a Notice of Deficiency, (NoD)
even if it is ten million dollars! If the law says that you are not
required to file or pay tax, the amount doesn't matter.By arguing the amount, they will just say that you must go to
tax court and decide what the amount is to be. By the time you
get to tax court, the law issues are all decided. You are only
there to decide HOW MUCH YOU OWE. They will not listen
to arguments of law.So I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't required to
file. He said, "You ARE required to file, Mr. Freeman." But I
had all these SC cases, and I started reading them to him. He
said, "I don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman, but the
Code says that you are required to file, and you're going to pay
that amount or you're going to go to tax court." I thougth that
someone there ought to know something about law, so I asked
to talk to his superior. I went to him and got out my SC cases,
and he wouldn't listen to them. "I don't know anything about
law, Mr. Freeman...." Finally I got to the Problems Resolution
Officer, and he said the same thing. He said that the only
person above him was the District Director. So I went to see
him. By the time I got to his office, they had phoned ahead, and
his secretary said he was out. But I heard someone in his office,
and I knew he was there.I went down the elevator, around the corner to the Federal
Building and into Senator Simpson's office. There was a girl
sitting there at a desk, and she asked me if she could help me. I
told her my problem. I said that I really thought the District
Director was up there. I asked her to call the IRS and tell them
that it was Senator Simpson's office calling and to ask if the
District Director was in. I said, "If you get him on the phone,
tell him that you are from the Senator's office and you have a
person who you are sending over to speak to him -- if he is, can
he wait just five minutes." It worked. He was there, and I ran
back up to his office. His secretary met me when I ame in and
said, "Mr. Freeman, you're so lucky -- the Director just
arrived."The Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies
and we sat and talked. So he asked me what I wanted to talk to
talk to him about. (If you hever have someone say to you, "I'm
from the government and I'm here to do you a favor" watch
out! -- but we can turn that around and approach them the
same way.) So I said, "I thought you ought to know that there
are agents working for you who are writing letters over your
name that you wouldn't agree with. Do you read all the mail
that goes out of this office over your signiture?" The Director
said, "Oh, I couldn't read everything -- it goes out here by the
bagful." That was what I thought. I said, "There are some of
your agents writing letters which contradict the decisions of the
SC of the United States.And they're not doing it over their
name, they're doing it over YOUR name."He was very interested to hear about it and asked if I had any
examples. I just happened to have some w/me, so I got them out
and presented them to him. [Supreme Court cases supporting
his position] He thought it was very interesting and asked if I
could leave this information with him, which I did. He said he
would look it over and contact me w/in 3 days. Three days later
he called me up and said, "I'm sure, Mr. Freeman, that you will
be glad to know that your Notice of Deficiency has been
withdrawn. We've determined that you're not a person
required to file. Your file is closed and you will hear no more
from us." I haven't heard another word from them since. That
was in 1980 and I haven't filed since 1969.The Supreme Court on Trial
I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got charged
w/Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me to help
him. I told him that they would have to prove that he _willfully_
failed to file and I suggested that he should put me on the
witness stand. He should ask me if I spoke at a certain time and
place in Scott's Bluff and did I see him in the audience. He
should then ask me what I spoke of that day. When I got on the
stand. I brought out all of the SC cases I had used w/the District
Director. I thought I would be lucky to get a sentence or two out
before the judge cut me off, but I was reading whole
paragraphs and the judge didn't stop me. I read one and then
another and so on. And finally when I had read just about as
much as I thought I should, the judge called a recess of the
court. I told Bob I thought we had it made. There was just no
way that they could rule against him after all that testimony. So
we relaxed.The prosecution presented it's case and he [Bob] decided to rest
his case on my testimony, which showed that he was not
required to file. and that the SC had upheld this position. The
prosecution then presented it's closing statements and we were
just sure that he had won. But at the very end, _the judge spoke
to the jury and told them, "You will decide the facts of this case
and I will give you the law. The law required this man to file
and Income Tax form; you decide whether or not he filed it."
What a shock! The jury convicted him. Later some of the
members of the jury said, "What could we do? The man had
admitted that he had not filed the form, so we had to convict
him."As soon as the trial was over, I went around to the judge's office
and he was just coming in through his back door. I said,
"Judge, by what authority do you overturn the standing
decisions of the United States SC? You sat on the bench while I
read that case law. Now how do you, a District Court Judge,
have the authority to overturn decisions of the Supreme
Court?" He says, "Oh, those were _old_ decisions." I said,
"Those are _standing_ decisions. They have never been
overturned. I don't care how old they are; you have no right to
overturn a standing decision of the US SC in a District Court."Public Law v. Public Policy
He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court
_after_1938_ and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read
were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked
what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the SC was
dealing w/_Public_Law_; since 1938, the SC has dealt
w/_Public_Policy_. The charge that Mr. S was being tried for is
a _Public_Policy_Statute_, not Public Law, and those SC cases
do not apply to the Public Policy." I asked him what happened
in 1938. He said that he had already told me too much - he
wasn't going to tell me any more.1938 and the Erie Railroad
Well I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of
the *Erie Railroad v. Tompkins* case of the SC. It was also the
year the courts claim they blended _Law_ w/_Equity_. I read
the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie railroad for
damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a
boxcar as he walked along besides the tracks. The district court
had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable
Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract
w/the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue
the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he
would have had the right to sue.This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years.
*Swift v. Tyson* in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of
the SC was that in any case of this type, the court would judge
the case on Common Law of the _state_ where the incident
occurred - in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad
case, the SC ruled that all federal cases will be judged under
the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be _no_ _more_
_decisions_ _based_ _on_ _the_ _Common_ _Law_ at the
federal level. So here we find the blending of the Law w/
Equity.This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I
determined that _all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law
courts and not Common Law Courts._ There were still some
pieces of the puzzle missing.A Friend in the Court
Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't make
friends w/a judge if you go into the court like a "wolf in black
sheep country." You must approach him as though you are the
sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into court as a wolf, you
make demands and tell the judge what the law is -- how he had
better uphold the law or else... Remember the verse: I send you
out as a sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and
harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and
harmless, and not make demands. We must play a _little
dumb_ and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of
questions and boxed the judges into the corner where they had
to give me a victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I
won the case and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's
office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said
"You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in
town, stop by and if I'm not sitting on a case we will visit."America is Bankrupt
Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him my problem
w/the SC cases dealing with Public Policy rather than Public
Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys
and the U.S. Attorneys were called together into a
_secret_meeting_ and this is what we were told:America is a bankrupt nation -- it is owned completely by its
creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own th
executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state
governments._Take silent judicial notice_ of this fact, but _never_ reveal it
openly. Your court is operating in a Admiralty Jurisdiction --
call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.Admiralty Courts
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that
your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction
from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty,
there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid
International contract in dispute. If you know wit is Admiralty
Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are
in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international
maritime contract, to which you are supposedly party, and
which you supposedly have breached, _be placed into
evidence._No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a
valid international maritime contract that has been breeched.So you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew
that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I
deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking
jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so
that I might challenge the validity of the contract." What they
would have do do is place the _national debt_ into evidence. The
would have to admits that the international bankers own the
whole nation, and that we are their slaves.Not Expedient
But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit
that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of
the world. [my note: DAMN RIGHT! "at this time" That is the
KEY behind the building up of the UN as a MILITARY
FORCE! That is the KEY to disarming America, that is the
KEY to "ending" the cold war. Like now we have no more
enemy, so we can melt all our guns. WRONG. The Bankers
PLAN to foreclose, they just don't want their HEADS BLOWN
OFF WHILE DOING IT, so they DICTATE to the "congress"
to get rid of the guns.." eg] The reason they don't want to tell
everyone that they own everything is that there are still too
many privately owned guns. [see! ITYS. :)eg] There are
uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they
can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY,
and all courts into a WORLD COURT, it is not _expedient_ to
admit the jurisdiction of the courts are operating under. When
we understand these things, we realize that there are certain
secrets they don't want to admit, and we can use this to our
benefit.Jurisdiction
The Constitution of the united States mentions three areas of
jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:Common Law
Common Law is based on God's Law: Anytime someone is
charged under the Common Law, there must be a _damaged
party._ You are free under the Common Law to do anything
you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty or
property of someone else. You have a right to make a _fool_ of
yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty or
property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for
any government action which prevents a man from making a
fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in
most states, you well see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR
SEAT BELTS -- IT'S THE LAW." This cannot be Common
Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up?
Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common
Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common
Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.Equity Law
Equity Law is law which _compels performance_. It compels
you to perform to the exact letter of any _contract_ that you are
under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a
contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform
under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil
action -- not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be
tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the
letter of the contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed
by the court, you can be charged with the contempt of court,
this is a criminal action. Are our set belt laws Equity laws? No.
They are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for
not keeping to the letter of the contract. [this has of course
changed since the publishing of the article, so read on....eg]Admiralty/Maritime Law
This ia _civil_ jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which
also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the
contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now
we can see what jurisdiction the seat belt laws (and all traffic
laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc) are under.
Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as
willful failure to file) that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and
there must ba a valid international contract in force.However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating
under Admiralty/Maritime [hereafter noted by A/M]
Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law
Merchant and adopted it into our codes. This is what the SC
decided in the Erie Railroad case - that the decisions will be
based on commercial law or business law and that it will have
criminal penalties associated w/it. Since they were instructed
not to call it A/M Jurisdiction, they call is Statutory
Jurisdiction.[my note: I looked for Statutory Jurisdiction in the 4th edition
of Black's. It's not there, so looked up Statue and under the
definition is this paragraph:This word is used to designate the written law in
contradistinction to the unwritten law. Foster v. Brown, 199 Ga.
444, 34 S.E.2d, 530 535 See Common Law.Unwritten law is common law, contradistinction you can look
up, but it means "as opposed to" "opposite to." Also I looked
up Common Law (w/my new understanding) and it's quite
enlightening! :) ]Courts of Contract
You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be
charged w/failure to wear set belts and be fine for it. Isn't the
judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you
must understand that the Constitution in Art. I, Sect. 10, gives
us the _unlimited right to contract_ as long as we do not
infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.
Contracts _are_ enforceable, and the Constitution gives two
jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced, _Equity_ or
_Admiralty._ But we find them being enforced in _Statutory
Jurisdiction_. This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but
we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own
courts. We will cover this more later.Contracts must be voluntary
_Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is
void and unenforceable._ These are characteristics of a
Common Law contract. There is another characteristic - it
must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to
read, "For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will
paint your house, etc." That was a valid contract -- the dollar
was a genuine silver dollar. Now suppose you wrote a contract
that said, "For one _Federal Reserve Note_ and other
considerations, I will paint your house.." And suppose for
example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go
into a Common Law court and get justice? NO, you could not.
You see a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable" dollar, as it
has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that
contract would be unenforceable.Colorable Money-Colorable Courts
The word "colorable" means something that appears to be
genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it
spends like a dollar, but it if is not redeemable for lawful
money (silver or gold) it is "colorable." If a Federal Reserve
Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a
"colorable" contract. And "colorable" contracts must be
enforced under a "colorable" jurisdiction. So by creating
Federal Reserve Note, the government had to create a
jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that use them. We
now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a
genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is a "colorable" Admiralty
Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using
"colorable money." Colorable Admiralty is now known as
Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's see how we got under this
Statutory Jurisdiction.Uniform Commercial Code
The government setup a "colorable" law system to fit the
"Colorable" currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant
or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt
w/paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But
once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there
had to be a system of law which was completely "colorable"
from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the
Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every
state. This is "colorable" law, and it is used in all the courts.I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is
bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says "Jump!"
then the slave had better jump, because the master has the
right to cut his head off. As slaves we have no rights. But the
creditors/masters had to cover that up, so the created a system
of law called the UCC. This "colorable" jurisdiction under the
UCC is the next key to understanding what has happened.Contract or agreement
One difference between Common Law and the UCC is that in
Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1) knowingly,
(2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally. Under the UCC this is not
so. First of all, contracts are necessary. Under this new law,
"agreements" can be binding, and if you only exercise the
benefits of an "agreement" it is presumed or implied that you
intend to meet the obligations associated w/the those benefits. If
you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are
obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved
w/the that benefit. The method has been to get everybody
exercising a benefit and they don't even have to tell the people
what the benefit is. Some people think it's the driver's license,
the marriage license, or the birth certificate, etc. I believe it's
none of these.Compelled Benefit
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the
_privilege of DISCHARGING [my emphasis eg] debt w/limited
liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give
substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk w/a silver
dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the
dollar -- substance for substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve
Note [hereafter FRN eg] to buy the milk, I have not PAID for
it. [my emphasis eg] There is no substance in the FRN. It is
worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive
value. Congress offers us this benefit:
Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent
all over the continental united States, it will be legal tender for
all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you
cannot be sued for not paying your debts.So now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you
can just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts."
When we use this "colorable" money to discharge our debts, we
cannot use Common Law court. We can only use "colorable
court." We are completely under the jurisdiction of the UCC --
We are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we
are discharging debt rather than paying the debt.Remedy and Recourse
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics:
Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under
the law. The Recourse is if you have been damaged under the
law, you can recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of
Merchants, and even the UCC all have remedy and recourse,
but for a long time we could not find it. If you go to a law
library and ask to see the UCC they will show you a shelf of
books completely filled w/the UCC. When you pick up one
volume and start to read it it will seem to have been
intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to
discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in the
UCC. They were found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-
103.REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves
whatever rights the person then possessed, and prevents the
loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or
estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7)It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we
are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into
court and say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the
Constitution again and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then
we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to
uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be
_charged_ under one jurisdiction and _defend_ under another.
For example, if the French government came to you and asked
where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do
you go to the French Gov. and say, "I demand my
Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is "THE LAW
DOESN'T APPLY TO ME -- I'M NOT A FRENCHMEN."
You must make your reservation of rights under the
jurisdiction in which you are charged - not under some other
jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your
reservation of rights under the UCC 1-207.The UCC 1-207 goes on to say:
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make
a reservation thereof causes a loss of the right, and bars it's
assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9)You have to make your claim known early. Further it says:
The Sufficiency of the Reservation -- Any expression indicating
an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without
prejudice." (UCC 1-207.4)Whenever you sign any legal paper, that deals w/the FRNs in
any way, shape or manner -- under your signature write:
Without Prejudice UCC 1-207. This reserves your rights. You
can show, at 1-207.4 that you have sufficiently reserved your
rights.It is VERY IMPORTANT to understand just what this means.
For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket
was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without
prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court. He had not
tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to
use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant.
When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that
way, he told the judge that he ws not prejudice against anyone...
The judge knew that the man had NO IDEA what it meant and
he lost the case. You MUST know what it means.WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207
When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection
w/your signature, you are saying:"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any
contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter
KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY.
And furthermore, I do not accept that liability of the compelled
benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed
commercial agreement? When you use FRNs instead of silver
dollars is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so you
have to use FRNs -- you have to accept the benefit. The
government has give you the benefit to discharge your debts.
How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under
1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and therefore
obligated to obey every statue, ordinance, and regulation of the
government, at all levels of government - federal, state and
local.If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge
when he asks. And he WILL ask, so be prepared to explain it to
the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103 -- the
argument and the recourse.If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and
photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to
get the Anderson's edition. Some of the law libraries will only
have the West Publishing version and it is very difficult to
understand. In Anderson, it is broken down w/decimals into ten
parts and most importantly, it is written in plain english.RECOURSE
The Recourse appears in the UCC at 1-103.6, which says:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which
remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute
should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless
there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.
This is the argument we use in court.The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not, recognize
the Common Law, the government would have had to admit
that the US is bankrupt, and is completely owned by it's
creditors. But it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was
written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely.
Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit
reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the
statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court
produce the injured person, who has filed a verified complaint.
If, for example, you were charged w/failure to buckle your seat
belt, you may ask the court who was injured as a result of your
failure to "buckle up."However, if the judge won't listen to you, and just moves ahead
w/the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of
1-103.6, which states:The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.
Tell the Judge,
"Your honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for
violating my rights under the UCC." I have a remedy, under
the UCC to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have
exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statue in
harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the
Common Law, you must come forth w/the damaged party.If the judge insists on proceeding w/the the case, just act
confused, and ask this question:"Let me see if I understand, Your Honor: Has this court made
a legal determination that the Sections of 1-207 and 1-103 of the
UCC, which is the system of law you are operating under, are
not valid law before this court?Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one
part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes",
then you say:"I put this court on notice, that I am appealing your legal
determination."Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The
judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a
corner.Practical Applications - Traffic Court
Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us
look at a court situation such as a traffic violation. Assume you
ran through a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic
ticket.1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least
three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant and cooperative
w/the officer. Explain to him that you are very busy and ask if
he could please set your court appearance for about three
weeks away.(At this point we need to remember that government's trick:
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help you." Now we want
to use this approach w/them.)2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and say,
"I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to
save the government some money (this will get his attention.) I
am undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As you know, in an
appeal, I have to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't
have a court reporter. It would be a waste of taxpayers's money
to run me through this court and then have to give me a trial
*de novo* [new trial] in a court of record. I do need a transcript
for appealing, and to save the government some money, maybe
you could schedule me to appear in a court of record."You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually
agree that there is plenty of time to schedule your trial for a
court of record. Now your first appearance is in a court of
record and not in traffic court, where there is no record.When you get into the court there will be a court reporter there
who records every word the judge speaks, so that judge is much
more careful in a court of record. You will be in a much better
situation there than in traffic court. If there is no record, the
judge can say whatever he wants -- he can call you all sorts of
names and tell you that you have no rights, and so on -- and
deny it all later.3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges:
driving through a yellow light, or whatever, and this is in
violation of ordinance xyz. He will ask, "Do you understand the
charge against you?"4. "Well your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask
before I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it could
be answered if I could put the officer on the stand for a moment
and ask him a few short questions.Judge: "I don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and have
him take the stand."5. "Is this the instrument that you gave me?" (handing him the
traffic citation)Officer: "Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has the other
portion of it.""Where did you get my address that you wrote on the citation?"
Officer: "Well I got it from your driver's license."
(Handing the officer you driver's license) "Is this the document
you copied my name and address from?"Officer: "Yes, this is where I got it."
"While you've got that in your hand, would you read the
signature that's on that license?" (The officer reads the
signature) "While you're there, would you read into the record
what it says under the signature?"Officer: "It says, `Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207."
Judge: "Let me see that license!" (He looks and turns to the
officer) "You didn't notice this printing under the signature on
this license, when you copied his name and address onto the
ticket?"Officer: "Oh no. I was just getting the address -- I didn't look
down there."Judge: "You're not very observant as an officer. Therefore, I'm
afraid I cannot accept your testimony in regards to the facts of
this case. This case is dismissed."6. In this case, the Judge found a convenient way out -- he could
say that the officer was not observant enough to be a reliable
witness. He did not want to admit the real nature of the
jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the record that you had
written `Without prejudice UCC 1-207 on your license, the
judge knew that he would have to admit that:a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;
b. you had done it sufficiently by writing `Without prejudice'
UCC 1-207 on your driver's license;c. the statute would now have to be read in harmony with the
Common Law, and the Common Law says the statute exists,
but there is no injured party; andd. since there is no injured party or complaining witness, the
court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.7. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case,
then you will want to ask him the following question:Your Honor, let me understand this correctly: has this court
made a legal determination that it has authority under the
jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two sections of
the Uniform Commercial Code which have been called to it's
attention?If he says yes, tell him that you put the court on notice that you
will appeal that legal determination, and that if you are
damaged by his actions, you will sue him in a common law
action-- under the jurisdiction of the UCC. This will work just
as well with the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, we can use
the UCC w/the IRS before we get to court.Using the Code w/the IRS
If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency this is called a
"presentment" in the UCC. A "presentment" in the UCC is
very similar to the Common Law. First we must understand
just how this works in the Common Law.Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book -- someone I
have never meet. And I send him a bill or invoice on nice
letterhead which says, "For services rendered: $10,000.00" I
send this by certified mail to him at the address taken from the
phone book. The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so
I get a receipt that he received it. When he opens it, he finds an
invoice for $10,000 and the following statement: "If you have
any questions concerning this bill or the services rendered, you
have thirty days to make your questions or objections know."Of course he has never heard of me, so he just throws the bill
away and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of
thirty days, I go to court and get a default judgment against
him. He received a bill for $10,00, was given thirty days to
respond. He failed to object to it or ask any questions about it.
Now he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect the
$10,000.That's common law. The UCC works on the same principle.
The minute you get a notice of Deficiency from the IRS, you
return it immediately with a letter that says:The presentment above is dishonored. ____(your name)_____
has reserved all of his/her rights under the Uniform
Commercial Code at UCC 1-207.This should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing more
that they can do. In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona
who received a Notice of Deficiency. The man sent a letter such
as this, dishonoring the "presentment." The IRS wrote back
that they could not make a determination at that office, but
were turning it over to the Collections Department. A letter was
attached from the Collections Department which said they were
sorry for the inconvenience they had caused him and the NoD
had been withdrawn. So you can see that if it's handled
properly these things are easily resolved.Impending Bankruptcy
On my way here, I had a chance to visit w/the the Governor of
Wyoming. He is very concerned that if he runs for office this
November, that there won't be a State of Wyoming at the end of
four years. He believes that the International Bankers might
foreclose on the nation and officially admit that that they own
the whole world. They could round up everybody in the state
capital building, put them in an internment camp and hold
them indefinitely. They may give them a trial, or they may not.
They may do whatever they want. As I explained earlier, it has
not been expedient to foreclose on the nation until they could get
everything ready. This is where the Federal Emergency
Management Agency comes in. It has been put in place w/o
anyone really noticing it.FEMA
FEMA or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has
been designed for when America is officially declared
bankrupt, which would be a national emergency. In a national
emergency, all Constitutional Rights and all law that previously
existed, would be suspended. FEMA has created large
concentration camps where they would put anyone who might
cause trouble for the orderly plan and process of the new
regime to take over the nation.Even a governor could be thrown into one of these internment
camps, and kept there indefinitely. This is all in place now, and
they are just waiting to declare a national emergency. Then
even state government could be dissolved. Anybody who might
oppose the new regime could be imprisoned until a new set of
laws could be written and a new government set up. The
Governor knows all this, and he is very concerned. He doesn't
want to be in office when all this happens.I visited with him and I told him that there are certain action
we should take right now. I think we should consider the fact
that, according to the UCC, Wyoming is an accommodation
party to the national debt. To understand we must realize that
there are two separate entities know as the United States.The Rothschild Influence
When America was founded, the Rothschild were very unhappy
because it was founded on the Common Law. The Common
Law is based on substance, and this substance is mentioned in
the Constitution as gold or silver. America is a Constitutional
Republic -- that is: a union of the States under the Constitution.
When Congress was working for the Republic, the only thing it
could borrow was gold or silver, and the Rothschild banks did
not load gold or silver. Naturally, they did not like this new
government.The Rothscilds had a deal w/the King of England. He would
borrow paper and agree to repay in gold. But these united
States, with their Constitution, were an obstacle to them, and it
was much to be the Rothschild's advantage to get the colonies
back under the King. So the Rothschilds financed the War of
1812 to bring America back under England. Of course, that
didn't work, so they had to find another way.The Flaw in the Constitution: Two Nations in One.
It was around the time of the American Civil War that they
discovered a flaw in the Constitution. The flaw was Art. I, Sect.
3, Clause 17.Remember that there are two nations called "United States."
What is a nation? See if you would agree to this definition:Whenever you have a governing body, having a prescribed
territory containing a body of people.[this is an easy to understand restatement of how it's presented
in Black's Law Dictionary, btw]Is that a nation? Yes. We have a governing body in the Republic
-- the three branch government. There are the legislative, the
executive and the judicial branches, with a constitution. There
is a prescribed territory containing a body of people. This is a
Constitutional Republic.But, Article I, Sect. 8, Clause 17 gave Congress which is the
legislative branch of the three branch government, exclusive
rule over a given territory known as the District of Columbia,
containing a body of people. Here we have a nation w/in a
nation. This is a legislative democracy w/in a Constitutional
Republic.When Congress was part of a Constitutional Republic, it had
the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its
duty was to coin gold and silver. Anyone who had a piece of
gold or silver could bring it in and have it freely minted into
coin. This was the medium of exchange for the Republic.But in the Legislative Democracy (over Washington DC)
Congress is not limited by the Constitution. Congress has
exclusive rule over the District of Columbia. The legislators can
make the law by a majority vote -- that makes it a democracy;
they have the authority to have administrative agents to enforce
their own law; and they have courts in the legislative branch of
the government, to try their own law. Here we have the
legislature making the law, enforcing the law and trying the
law, all w/in the one branch of government. This is a one branch
government w/in a three branch government.Under the three branch government, the congress passes the
law which has to be in harmony w/the Constitution, the
executive enforces the law passed by the congress, and the
judiciary tries the law, pursuant to the Constitution.THE THREE BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
AND THE ONE BRANCH LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY
are both called the United States. One is the federal United
States, and the other is the continental united States.Are you a United States Citizen?
If you say that you are a United States citizen, which United
States are you referring to? Anyone who lives in the District of
the Columbia is a United States citizen. The remaining
population in the fifty states is the national citizenry of the
nation. We are domiciled in various sovereign states, protected
by the constitutions of those states from any direct rule of
Congress over us. In the democracy, anyone who lives in those
states known as Washington DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, or any of
the other federally held territories is a citizen of the United
States (D.C.)We must be careful with our choice of words -- we are not
citizens of the United States. We are not subject to Congress.
Congress has exclusive rule over a given territory, and we are
not part of that territory.Where did Congress get the authority to write the Internal
Revenue Code? It is found in Art. I, Sect. 8 Clause 17 of the
Constitution. To pass that law, they only needed a majority
vote. There is no other way that they could pass laws directly
affecting individuals. Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, was
passed as law for another nation. (remember our definition of
`nation'), but Title 26 is not consistent w/the Bill of Rights. If
you try to fight the IRS, you have no rights -- the Code does not
give you any of your Constitutional rights. It simply says, "You
failed to file an income tax form -- you filed to perform in some
specific manner."Remember, under the Common Law, you are free to do
whatever you want as long as you do not infringe upon the life,
liberty or property of anyone else. If you do not want to
perform, you don't have to. The only way you can be compelled
to perform under the Constitution in the continental united
States, is if you have entered a contract. But if you are not
under a contract you cannot be compelled to perform. How can
you be compelled to file an income tax form, or any form?When Congress works for the Republic, every law it passes
must be in harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
but when Congress works for the Legislative Democracy, any
law it passes becomes the law of the land (remember, Congress
has exclusive legislative control over federal territory.)If you are charged w/Willful Failure to File an income tax 1040
form, that is a law for a different nation. You are a non-resident
alien to THAT nation. It is a foreign corporation to you. It is not
the Republic of the continental united States coming after you,
it is a foreign nation -- a legislative democracy of a foreign
nation coming after you.If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a
presentment from the federal United States, and then you can
use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention that you
are among the national citizenry of continental united States,
and you are a non-resident alien to the federal United States.
You never lived in a federal territory and never had any income
from the federal United States.Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay taxes under
the compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve Notes
(FRNs), because you have reserved your rights under the
Common Law through the UCC at 1-207Original Intent of the Founders
The Founding Fathers would never have created a government
that was going to boss them around! There were 13 sovereign
States. There were nations, and they joined together for
protection from a foreign enemies. They provided a means by
which the union of the sovereign states could fend off foreign
enemies. But they never gave the congress of the federal United
States direct rule over any citizen of any state. They were not
going to be ordered around by that government they set up.Federal Regions
The supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule what
Congress creates. Congress did not create the States, but
Congress did create federal regions. So Congress can rule the
federal regions, but Congress cannot rule the States. How have
we been tricked into Federal regions?The Zip Code Trick
Remember how the government always comes to use and says,
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." The
government went out into the various states and said, "We
don't want you to have to go to all that trouble of writing three
or four letters to abbreviate the name of the state -- such as
Ariz. for Arizona. Just write AZ instead of Ariz. Or you can
just write WY for Wyoming instead of Wyo." So all of the
states of the union have got a new two letter abbreviation. Even
a state such as Rhode Island has a new abbreviation. It is RI
instead of R.I. The have just left off the periods. When you use
a two letter state abbreviation, you are compelled to use a zip
code, because there are so many states, for example, which
start with `M.' ME is Maine -- MI is Michigan. How many
people do ever `i' or make an i that looks like and `e?' With
MA, MO, MN, MS, etc and some sloppy writing, and you could
not tell one from another. So we have to use the zip code in
order to tell them apart. But if you wrote Mich. or Minn., or
Miss., there would be no real problem telling which state it was.There is no harm in using the zip code, if you lawfully identify
your state. I found out that no state legislature has met to
lawfully change the abbreviation of the state from it's old
abbreviation to the new. Therefore, if you do not use the lawful
abbreviation for your state, but use the shorter new
abbreviation, you have to use the zip code.Look on page 11 of the Zip Code Directory, and it will tell you
that the first digit of your zip code is the federal region in which
you reside. If you us AZ for Arizona, you cannot use the state
constitution to protect you because you did not identify your
state. You used the zip code, which identifies which federal
region you live in. And Congress may rule directly federal
regions, but it cannot rule the citizens of any state.Accommodation Party
Let's look at how the states have become the accommodation
party to the national debt. There are many people I have talked
to, including the Governor, who are very concerned about this,
and who know that it could happen very soon.If America is declared a bankrupt nation, it will be a national
emergency. FEMA will take over, and anyone who opposes the
new government of the creditors can be sent to a detention
camp in Alaska. We will have no rights whatsoever. They have
already setup prison camps w/work camps nearby so the people
can be used for slave labor. It could be the governors,
legislators and other leaders who would be hauled away to
Alaska, while the people now disenfranchised from power
would likely be chosen to run the new government. This could
all happen very soon, as the national debt is so large as to be
unpayable. Even the interest on the debt is virtually unpayable.As I explained, the national debt -- more than three trillion
dollars -- [now almost double that in the 5 years since this was
recorded] is not owed by the Continental united States. It it the
federal United States that had the authority to borrow bank
credit. When Congress worked for the Continental united
States, it could only borrow gold or silver, so the national debts
was borrowed in the names of the federal United States. The
federal United States had to trap the States into assuming the
debt obligation of the federal debt.In the UCC, we find the term, `accommodation party.' How did
the states become the `accommodation party' to the federal
debt? The federal government through our money system made
the states deal in Federal Reserve Notes, which means that
everything the states does is `colorable.' Under the `colorable'
jurisdiction of the UCC, all of the states are the accommodation
party to the federal debt.Now the concern is to find out how we can get out of this
situation. I told the Governor that in the Common Law and the
Law of Merchants -- that's the International Law Merchant --
there is a term called `no-interest contract.' A no-interest
contract is void and unenforceable. What is a no-interest
contract?No-Interest Contract
If I were to insure a house that did not belong to me, that would
be a no-interest contract. I would just want the house to burn
down. I would pay a small premium, perhaps a few hundred
dollars, and insure it for $80,000 against fire. Then I would be
waiting for it to burn down so I could trade my small premium
for $80,000. Under the Common Law, that is called a no-
interest contract, and it is void and unenforceable in any court.Unconscionable Contracts
In the UCC, no-interest contracts are called unconscionable
contracts. The section on unconscionable contracts covers more
than forty pages in the Anderson Code. The federal United
States has involved the states as the accommodation party to
the federal debt, and I believe we could prove this to be an
unconscionable contract. We should get some litigation into the
courts before the government declares a national emergency,
claiming that this state has no lawful responsibility for the
national debt (of the federal United States,) because it became
an accommodation party to this debt through an unconscionable
contract. If we have this litigation before the courts under
International Law when the nation is declared bankrupt, the
creditors would have to settle this matter first, and it would
delay them. They would want the new government to appear to
be legitimate, so they could not just move right in and take over
the state, because it would be in an International Court. This is
very important at this time.Questions and Review:
Note: These are some of the questions asked after the main
lecture. Some are restatements of material presented earlier,
but they contain very valuable information which is worth
repeating.Courtroom Techniques
Q. How did you "box in" the Judge?
A. This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't know
too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a little dumb.If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember that in
a criminal action, you have to understand the law or it is a
reversible error for the court to try you. If you don't
understand the law, they can't try you.In any traffic case or tax case you are called into court and the
judge reads the law and then asks, "Do you understand the
charges?"Defendant: No, Your Honor, I do not.
Judge: Well, what is so difficult about that charge? Either you
drove the wrong way on a one-way street or you didn't. You can
only go one way on that street, and if you go the other way it's a
fifty dollar fine. What's so difficult about this that you don't
understand?D. Well, Your Honor, it's not the letter of the law, but rather
the nature of the law that I don't understand. The Sixth
Amendment of the Constitution gives me the right to request
that court to explain the nature of any action against me, and
upon my request, the court has the duty to answer. I have a
question about the nature of this action.J. Well, what is that -- what do you want to know?
D. Well Your Honor, is this a Civil or a Criminal Action?
J. It is criminal. (If it were a civil action, there could be no fine,
so it has to be criminal.)D. Thank you. Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record
will show that this action against ___(your name)___ is a
criminal action, is that right?J. Yes.
D. I would like to ask another question about this criminal
action. There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the
Constitution.: one is under the Common Law, and the other
deals w/International Maritime Contracts, under an Admiralty
Jurisdiction. Equity is Civil, and you said this is a Criminal
actions, so it seems it would have to be under either Common
Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me, Your Honor, is
that there is no *corpus delecti* here that gives this court
jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common
Law. Therefore, it doesn't appear to me that this court is
moving under Common Law.J. No. I can assure you this court is not moving under the
Common Law.D. Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you make the charge
against me even more difficult to understand. The only other
criminal jurisdiction would apply only if there was an
International Maritime Contract involved, I was a party to it, it
had been breached, and the court was operating in an
Admiralty Jurisdiction.I don't believe I have ever been under any International
Maritime contract, so I would deny that one exists. I would
have to demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be placed
into evidence, so that I may contest it. But surely, this court is
not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.You just put the words in the judges mouth.
J. No, I can assure you, we're not operating under an Admiralty
Jurisdiction. We're not out in the ocean somewhere -- we're
right here in the middle of the state of _____. No this is not an
Admiralty Jurisdiction.D. Thank you Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than
ever. If this charge is not under the Common Law or under
Admiralty -- and those are the only two criminal jurisdictions
mentioned in the Constitution -- what kind of jurisdiction could
this court be operating under?J. It's Statutory Jurisdiction.
D. Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I
have never heard of that jurisdiction. So if I have to defend
under that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal
Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me where I
might find those rules?There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so the judge will
get very angry at this point and say:J. If you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a
licensed attorney -- I'm not allowed to practice law from the
bench.D. Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of
practicing law from the bench if you just answer a few
questions to explain to me the nature of this actions, so that I
may defend myself.J. I told you before, I am not going to answer any more
questions. Do you understand that? If you ask anymore
questions in regards to this, I'm going to find you in contempt of
court! Now if you cant afford a licensed attorney, the court will
provide you w/one. But if you want those questions answered,
you must get yourself a licensed attorney.D. Thank you, Your Honor, but let me just see if I got this
straight.Has this court made a legal determination that it has authority
to conduct a criminal action against me, the accused, under a
secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are known only to this
court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying me that right to
defend in my own person?He has no answer for that. The judge will probably postpone
the case and eventually just let it go. In this way, you can be
wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove, but you mustn't go
into court w/a chip on your shoulder and as a wolf in "black
sheep" country. Remember Jesus's words, "I send you out as
sheep in wolf country, be wise as a serpent, and harmless as a
dove." Sheep do not attack wolves directly. Just be an innocent
little lamb who just can't understand the charge, and
remember -- they can't try you criminally if you don't
understand the charge. That would automatically be a
reversible error on appeal.The Social Security Problem
If I were a young man, 18 or 20 years old and just starting out
in my first job, I would not want Social Security. W/my
signature on the application, I would write, `Without Prejudice'
UCC 1-207, and I would reserve my Common Law rights. But
why wouldn't I want Social Security today?I got into the Social Security system in the 1930's, and I paid
into it dollars that had good purchasing power. Now I'm getting
a promised return in FRNs which have considerably less value.
For example, in 1940 you could buy a deluxe Chevrolet for 800
dollars. With todays FRNs that won't buy the rear fenders and
trunk on a new Chevrolet. If I were a young man, I would not
want to put FRNs into SS now, and get back something later
like the German mark after WWI -- when it took a billion to
buy a loaf of bread. They will give you every FRN back they
promised you, but it might not buy anything.Assurance
Under the UCC, you have the right in any agreement to
demand a guarantee of performance. So, don't go to them and
say, "I want to rescind my SSN," or "I refuse to take it." Just
take it easy and say, "I would be happy to get a SSN and enter
into this contract, but I have a little problem. How can I have
assurance before I enter into this contract that the purchasing
power of the FRNs I get back at the end of the contract will be
as good as the ones that I pay in at the beginning. They can't
guarantee that, and you have a right under the UCC to
assurance of performance under the contract.So tell them, "Well, I can not enter this contract unless the
government will guarantee to pay me at the end of the contract
w/the same value FRNs that I'm paying in. Both may be called
FRNs, but you know that these FRNs don't hold their value. I
want assurance on this contract that the FRNs that I get in my
retirement will buy as much as the ones I'm giving you now in
my working years." They can't make that guarantee. If they
won't give you that guarantee, just say, "I'd be glad to sign this
but if you can't guarantee performance under the contract, I'm
afraid I can not enter the contract."Now, did you refuse or did they refuse? You can get the sections
of the UCC which grant the right to have assurance that the
contract you have entered will be fulfilled properly -- that the
return will equal the investment, and you can reject the
contract using the Code. Using their own system of law, you can
show that they cannot make you get into a contract of that
nature. Just approach them innocently like a lamb.It is very important to be gentle and humble in all dealings with
the government or the courts -- never raise your voice or show
anger. In the courtroom, always be polite, and build the judge
up -- call him "Your Honor." Give him all the `honor' he wants.
It does no good to be difficult, but rather be cooperative and
ask questions in a way that leads the judge to say the things
which you need to have in the record.THE COURT REPORTER
In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He gets
his job at the judge's pleasure, so he doesn't want to displease
the judge. The court reporter is sworn to give an accurate
transcript of every word that is spoken in the courtroom. But if
the judge make a slip of the tongue, he turns to his court
reporter and says, "I think you had better leave that out of the
transcript; just say it got a little to far ahead of you, and you
couldn't quite get everything in." So this will be missing from
the transcript.In one case, we brought a licensed court reporter with us and
the judge got very angry and said, "This court has a licensed
court reporter' right here, and the record of this court is this
court reporter's record. No other court reporter's record
means anything in this court."We responded with, "Of course, Your Honor, we're certainly
glad to use your regular court reporter. But you know, Your
Honor, sometimes things move so fast that a court reporter gets
a little behind, and doesn't quite keep up with it all. Wouldn't it
be nice if we had another licensed court reporter in the
courtroom, just in case your court reporter got a little behind,
so that we could fill in from this other court reporter's data. I'm
sure, Your Honor, that you want an accurate transcript. (I like
to use the saying; give bad dog a good name, and he'll live up to
it!) The judge went along with it, and from that moment on, he
was very careful of what he said.These are little tricks to getting around in court. This is how to
be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove when we enter a
courtroom. There are others using the same information
presented here who end up in jail, handcuffed and hit over the
head, because they approach the situation with a chip on their
shoulder. They try to tell the judge what the law is and he is a
no-good scoundrel and so on. Just be wise and harmless.UCC 1-207 Review
It is so important to know and understand the meaning of
"without prejudice" UCC 1-207, in connection w/your
signature, that we should go over this once more. It is very
likely that a judge will ask you what it means. So please learn
and understand this carefully:The use of "Without prejudice" UCC 1-207 in connection w/my
signature indicates that I have reserved my Common Law right
NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM under any
contract I did not enter into KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY,
and INTENTIONALLY.And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated w/the
the compelled benefit of any UN-REVEALED CONTRACT
OR COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT.Once you state that, that is all the judge needs to hear. Under
the Common Law, a contract must be entered into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally, by both parties or it can be
declared void and unenforceable. You are claiming the right not
to be compelled to perform under any contract that you did not
enter into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And you do
not accept the liability associated w/the compelled benefit of
any unrevealed contract or agreement.The compelled benefit is the privilege to use FRNs to discharge
your debts w/limited liability rather than to pay your debts
w/silver coins. It is a compelled benefit, because there are no
silver coins in circulation. You have to eat, and you can only buy
food w/a medium of exchange provided by the government. You
are not allowed to print your own money, so you are compelled
to use theirs. This is the compelled benefit of an unrevealed
commercial agreement. If you have not made a valid, timely
and explicit reservation of your rights under UCC 1-207, and
you simply exercise this benefit rendered by government, you
will be obligated, under an implied agreement to obey every
statute, ordinance and regulation passed by government, at all
levels -- federal, state and local.==============================================
IN CONCLUSION
The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in putting
this to paper in an effort to make it readable and somewhat
compact. He wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard Freeman
for the opportunity to work w/the information so absolutely
vital to our survival as degnified, unenslaved human beings. He
must also ask Mr. Freeman's forgivness for any errors
committed in getting this to print. [And again to e-test.] It's
purpose, as stated in the Foreword, is to make this knowledge
and wisdom available to as many people as will take the time
and trouble to read it. This is meant to be supplemental to Mr.
Freeman's recorded lectures, not a substitute. Indeed, there is
NO SUBSTITUTE for hearing him present this material in his
own words. It is not just the LAW and the FACTS that are
important here, but the way they are used. His numerous
reminders of Jesus' commission to be "like sheep among
wolves.." cannot be overstated, and is certainly good advice to
us in all dealings -- not just in court or with the government.
Hearing him explain this in his own words brings to life the
practical application and usefullness of being "wise" and
"harmless." In fact, after being introduced to this approach, it
becomes difficult to imagine that any other way of defending
oneself from the government would be effective.It goes without saying that none of this information presented
here is in any way, shape, or form offered as legal advice. For
that, as you know, you must "get yourself a licensed attorney."Having said that, I feel obliged to point out that one of the most
difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney -- even a
good one -- may be knowing just whose side he is on. (he is,
after all, an OFFICER OF THE COURT)! So for those of use
who have concluded that having an attorney means that you will
soon be chained, gagged and lead to the gallows, this
information may be in-dispensable. For the extraordinary
challenges of appearing in court in one's own person -- *pro
per* --there are few reliable sources of information. Learning
to defind ourselves, that is, being *responsible* instead of
turning over one more area of our lives to "professionals" --
may be the only way to have any chance of digging ourselves out
of this pit of legal tyranny. Perhaps the greatest problem we
face in education today is the matter of widespread legal
illiteracy.Naturally, there will always be a number of people who just
don't care about these issues who either:1) have a soft life which is supported and maintained by this
secret system of law and institutions which have grown up
around it (`I can make a bundle buying these IRS seized homes
cheap and reselling them.') or2) don't believe that anything can be done about it (you can't
fight city hall.')3) simply don't have the energy or inclination to do anything
about it. (`that's nice, but let's see what's on TV'.)For those good `citizens' this whole effort may seem useless or
even threatening. But it is this writers view that God did not
intend for us to spend our lives in statutory slavery for the
benefit of a handful of secret world manipulators, even if the
`masters' grant us some token of pleasures and diversions.
Human dignity requires much more than entertainment. The
door is there and the key exists; we must find it and we must
use it tor return to freedom!Let us discover the mistakes we have made, let us find the
truth, let us apply it with meekness and wisdom and let us
gently but firmly reclaim the precious freedom which we have
so foolishly given up.==============================================
Well there you have it, The UCC Connection. There is also a list
of other publications available from American's for
Constitutional Government. If you found this information
useful, I would recommend contacting them for a list of their
materials.I hope I didn't put all this effort in only for someone to tell me
"Yea, that's on the Internet...." I tried to find stuff like this for
some time now and other then John Freemans articles, I found
none. Also, I like the authors approach here. Many of the so
called "patriot" organizations seem to be more "profiteers"
than patriots. I understand bills need to be paid, but after
reading lists and lists of "products available for $xxxx" I saw
this as a little different.Good luck. And a few more quotes:
"When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is
forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all
Americans are in peril."
Harry Truman"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man,
brave hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the
timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Mark Twain"Truth is less than truth until it is made known."
John Wheeler"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of
servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go
home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your
chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye
were our countrymen."
. Samuel Adams, 1776"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
John Hay, 1872Amen.
Mr. Howard Freeman died in 1992, at the age of 92. He gave
lectures all over the country for more than fifty
Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that
King George III's government forced upon them, in common
declared their independence from England in 1776. They were
not expected to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed
people had backed England for two major reasons. First,
our forefathers wanted a rigid, written Constitution "set in
concrete." They were familiar with the so-called Constitution
of England which consisted largely of customs, precedents,
traditions, and understandings, often vague and always
flexible. They wanted the principle of English common law,
that an act done by any official person or law-making body
beyond his or its legal competence was simply void. Second,
the thirteen little colonies desired to base their union on
substance (gold and silver) -- real money.
They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe
were mortgaged to the hilt -- lock, stock, and barrel, the land,
the people, everything -- to certain wealthy men who
controlled the banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent
credit but did not loan gold and silver!The United States of America was made up of a union of what
is now fifty sovereign States, a three-branch (legislative,
executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States
of America, or as termed in this article, the Continental
United States. Its citizenry live in one of the fifty States, and
its laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on
Common Law.Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a
loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning
lawyers in league with the international bankers. They
realized that a separate nation existed, by the same name,
that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
This "United States" is a Legislative Democracy within the
Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United
States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its citizenry, the
residents of the District of Columbia, the territories and
enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico,
etc.), and anyone who is a citizen by way of the 14th
Amendment (naturalized citizens).Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both
nations. One "United States," the Republic of fifty States, has
the "stars and stripes" as its flag, but without any fringe on
it. The Federal United States' flag is the stars and stripes
with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations
of the States of the Continental United States are, with or
without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The
abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal
United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ,
AR, CA, etc. (without any periods).Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic
of the Continental United States provides for legal cases (1) at
Law, (2) in Equity, and (3) in Admiralty:
(1) Law is the collective organization of the individual right
to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the
organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is
the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to
do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful
right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties;
to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign
over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force
against the person, liberty, or property of another
individual, then the common force -- for the same reason
-- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty,
or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do
anything you want to, as long as you don't infringe upon the
life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not
compel performance. Today's so-called laws (ordinances,
statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are
often erroneously perceived as law, but just because
something is called a "law" does not necessarily make it a
law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful."
Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be
lawful.](2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for
any contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in
a particular situation. The term "equity" denotes the
spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing
which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You
have no rights other than what is specified in your
contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal
penalty, a civil contract with a criminal penalty.By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and
equity actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over
legal, equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The
nation was bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the
international bankers) who now owned everything -- the
Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States and their
legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the people.
Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had
gone from being sovereigns over government to subjects
under government, through the use of negotiable instruments
to discharge our debts with limited liability, instead of paying
our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.The remainder of this article explains how this happened,
where we are today, and what remedy we have to protect
ourselves from this system.
Our Present Commercial System of "Law"
and the REMEDY Provided for Our ProtectionThe present commercial system of "law" has replaced the old
and familiar Common Law upon which our nation was
founded. The following is the legal thread which brought us
from sovereigns over government to subjects under
government, through the use of negotiable instruments
(Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our debts with limited
liability instead of paying our debts at common law with gold
or silver coin.The change in our system of law from public law to private
commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Erie Railroad v. Thompkins case of
1938, after which case, in the same year, the procedures of
Law were officially blended with the procedures of Equity.
Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based
upon public law -- or that system of law that was controlled
by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme
Court decisions are based upon what is termed public policy.Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under
the Negotiable Instrument's Law, which is a branch of
the international Law Merchant. This has been codified into
what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which
system of law was made uniform throughout the fifty States
through the cunning of the Congress of the United States
(which "United States" has its origin in Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 of the Constitution, as distinguished from the "United
States," which is the Union of the fifty States).In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve
Notes) which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the
Union for education, highways, health, and other purposes,
Congress bound all the States of the Union into a commercial
agreement with the Federal United States (as distinguished
from the Continental United States). The fifty States accepted
the "benefits" offered by the Federal United States as the
consideration of a commercial agreement between the Federal
United States and each of the corporate States. The
corporate States were then obligated to obey the Congress of
the Federal United States and also to assume their portion of
the equitable debts of the Federal United States to the
international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The
credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants,
was predicated upon equitable paper.This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of
government together in a vast system of commercial
agreements and is what has altered our court system from
one under the Common Law to a Legislative Article I Court,
or Tribunal, system of commercial law. Those persons
brought before this court are held to the letter of every statute
of government on the federal, state, county, or municipal levels
unless they have exercised the REMEDY provided for them
within that system of Commercial Law whereby, when forced
to use a so-called "benefit" offered, or available, to them,
from government, they may reserve their former right,
under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be
bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did
not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and
municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative
Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to
distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin
was in the Union of the Sovereign States.The same national Congress rules the Continental United
States pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority,
while it enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional
limitations, as it legislates for the Federal United States.With the above information, we may ask: "How did we, the
free Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our
guaranteed unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of
the equitable debt obligations of the Federal United States,
and also become subject to that entity of government, and
divorced from our Sovereign States in the Republic, which
we call here the Continental United States?" We do not
reside, work, or have income from any territory subject to
the direct jurisdiction of the Federal United States. These
are questions that have troubled sincere, patriotic Americans
for many years. Our lack of knowledge concerning the
cunning of the legal profession is the cause of that divorce,
but a knowledge of the truth concerning the legal thread,
which caught us in its net, will restore our former status as a
free Preamble citizen of the Republic. The answer follows:Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to
each other, and by legal cunning both are called The United
States. One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the
Constitution, termed in this article the Continental United
States. The other is a Legislative Democracy which has its
origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here
termed the Federal United States. Very few people, when they
see some "law" passed by Congress, ask themselves, "Which
nation was Congress working for when it passed this or that
so-called law?" Or, few ask, "Does this particular law apply
to the Continental citizenry of the Republic, or does this
particular law apply only to residents of the District of
Columbia and other named enclaves, or territories, of the
Democracy called the Federal United States?"Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed
citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for
"cunning" political leadership to seek more power and
authority over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the
medium of "legalese." Congress deliberately failed in its duty
to provide a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the
Republic, in harmony with its Constitutional mandate.
Instead, it created an abundance of commercial credit
money for the Legislative Democracy, where it was not
bound by Constitutional limitations. Then, after having
created an emergency situation, and a tremendous
depression in the Republic, Congress used its emergency
authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and
silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the
Republic, and made the negotiable instrument paper of the
Legislative Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender
for Continental United States citizenry to use in the discharge of
debts.At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the
two nations the "benefit" of limited liability in the discharge
of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver
coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome.
The citizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no
loner needed to pay their debts, that they were now
"privileged" to discharge debt with this more "convenient"
currency, issued by the Federal United States. Consequently,
everyone was forced to "go modern," and to turn in their gold
as a patriotic gesture. The entire news media complex went
along with the scam and declared it to be a forward step
for our democracy, no longer referring to America as a
Republic.From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of
1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal
Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was
caused by a created shortage of real money. There was
created an abundance of debt paper money, so-called, in the
form of interest-bearing negotiable instrument paper called
Federal Reserve Notes, and other forms of paperwork credit
instruments.Since all contracts since Roosevelt's time have the colorable
consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine
consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are
colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to
Black's Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which
is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to
be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."]Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory
jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon
the term colorable contract was changed to the term
commercial agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory
jurisdiction, which is legislative, rather than judicial, in
nature. This jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements
upon implied consent, rather than full knowledge, as it is with
the enforcement of contracts under the Common Law.All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so-
called "statutes" of legislative bodies being enforced in these
Legislative Tribunals are not "statutes" passed by the
legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as
"commercial obligations" to the Federal United States for
anyone in the Federal United States or in the Continental
United States who has used the equitable currency of the
Federal United States and who has accepted the "benefit,"
or "privilege," of discharging his debts with the limited
liability "benefit" offered to him by the Federal United States
... EXCEPT those who availed themselves of the remedy within
this commercial system of law, which remedy is today found
in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 207.When used in conjunction with one's signature, a stamp
stating "Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" is sufficient to
indicate to the magistrate of any of our present Legislative
Tribunals (called "courts") that the signer of the document has
reserved his Common Law right. He is not to be bound to the
statute, or commercial obligation, of any commercial
agreement that he did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally, as would be the case in any Common Law
contract.Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being
enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial
agreement, must now be construed in harmony with the old
Common Law of America, where the tribunal/court must rule
that the statute does not apply to the individual who is wise
enough and informed enough to exercise the remedy provided
in this new system of law. He retains his former status in the
Republic and fully enjoys his unalienable rights, guaranteed to
him by the Constitution of the Republic, while those about
him "curse the darkness" of Commercial Law government,
lacking the truth needed to free themselves from a slave
status under the Federal United States, even while inhabiting
territory foreign to its territorial venue.
# # #
ADDENDUM
U.C.C. 1-207:4 Sufficiency of reservation.
Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is
sufficient, such as "without prejudice," "under protest,"
"under reservation," or "with reservation of all our rights."The Code states an "explicit" reservation must be made.
"Explicit" undoubtedly is used in place of "express" to
indicate that the reservation must not only be "express" but it
must also be "clear" that such a reservation was intended.The term "explicit" as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means "that which
is so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no
doubt as to its meaning." ...U.C.C. 1-207:7 Effect of reservation of rights.
The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves
whatever rights the person then possesses and prevents the
loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or
estoppel ....U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation.
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 ....U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.
The Code is "Complementary" to the common law which
remains in force except where displaced by the Code ....A statute should be construed in harmony with the common
law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the
common law. ... "The Code cannot be read to preclude a
common law action."
THE UCC CONNECTION
by Howard Freeman
forward and concluding remarks by Eric Gray
click here for text versionThis is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of
tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was
prepared to make available the knowledge and experience of
Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible and
understandable explanation of the confusing state of the
government and the courts. It should be helpful to those who
want to develope a deeper understanding of this information
without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded
material.The frustrations many Americans feel about our judicial
system can be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like
most fear, is based on lack of understanding or knowledge.
Those of use how have chosen a path out of bondage and into
liberty are faced, eventually, w/the seemingly tyrannical power
of some governmental agencye and the mystifying and awesome
power of the courts. We have been taught that we must "get a
good lawyer," but that is becoming increasingly difficutl, if not
impossible. If we are defending outselves from the government,
we find that the lawyers quickly take our money adn then tell us
as the ship is sinking, "I can't help you w/that -- I'm an officer
of the court."Utlimately, the only way for us to have ever a "snowballs'
chnage" is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME and to
come to and understanding of the true nature of the Law. The
lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over
this area of human knowledge by implying that the subject is
just too difficult for the AVERAGE PERSON to understand,
and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of
otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem
hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp -- are
lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides,
anyone who has been through a legal battle agaisnt the
government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that
lawyers learn about procedure, not about law. Mr. Freeman
admits he is not a lawyer. and as such, he has a way of
explaining law to use that puts it well w/in our reach. Consider
also that the framer of the Constitution wrote in language
simple enough that the people could understand, specifiically so
that it would NOT have to be interpreted.So again we find, as in many other areas of life, "THE BUCK
STOPS HERE!" It is we who must take the responsibility for
finding and putting to good use the TRUTH! It is we who must
claim and defend our God given rights and our freedom form
those who would take them from us. It is WE who must protect
ourselves, our families, and our posterity from the inevitable
intrusion into our lives by those who live parasitically off the
labor, skill and talents of others.To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful
explanation of our plight and a PEACEFUL method of dealing
w/it. Please take note that this lecture represents one chapter in
the book of his understanding, which he is always refining,
expanding, improvign. It is, as all bits of wisdom are, a point of
departure from which to begin our own journey into
understanding, that we all might be able to pas on to others:
greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of lives lived
in peace, freedom and praise