WHY THE UCC FILING?  --- THE ENSLAVEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY  LAWYERS:

Author Unknown:

Short Explanation as is Understood at this Time
(Subject to further clarification)

Around the time of the war between the United States and the southern states of the American union, the United States
was busy putting together a plan that would increase the jurisdiction of the United States. This plan was necessary
because the United States had no subjects and only the land ceded to it from the states, ie. the District which was only
ten miles square and such land as was necessary for forts, magazines, arsenals, etc.

Between the 1860’s and the early 1900’s, banking and taxing mechanisms were changing through legislation. Cunning
people closely associated with the powers in England had great influence on the legislation being passed in the United
States. Of course such legislation did not apply to the states or to the people in the states, but making the distinction was
not deemed to be a necessary duty of the legislators. It was the responsibility of the people to understand their
relationship to the United States and to the laws that were being passed by the legislature. This distinction between the
United States and the states was taught in the homes and the schools and churches. The early admiralty courts did not
interpret legislation as broadly at that time because the people knew when the courts were overstepping their jurisdiction.
The people were in control because they knew who they were and where they were standing in relation to the United
States.

In 1913 the United States added numerous private laws to its books that facilitated the increase of subjects and property
for the United States. The 14th Amendment provided for a new class of citizens – United States citizens, that had not
formerly been recognized. Until the 14th Amendment in 1868, there were no persons born or naturalized in the United
States. They had all been born or naturalized in one of the several states. United States citizenship was a result of state
citizenship. After the Civil War, a new class was recognized, and was the beginning of the democracy sited in the District
of Columbia. The American people in the republic sited in the several states, could choose to benefit as one of these new
United States citizens BY CHOICE. The new class of citizens was given the right to vote in the democracy in 1870 by
the 15th Amendment. All it required was an application. Benefits came with this new citizenship, but with the benefits,
came duties and responsibilities that were totally regulated by the legislature for the District of Columbia. Edward
Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American
people. (1) The 13th Amendment in 1865 opened the way for the people to volunteer into slavery to accept the benefits
offered by the United States. Whether House actually spoke the words or not , is really irrelevant because the scenario
detailed in the statement attributed to him has clearly been implemented. Central banking for the United States was
legislated with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The ability to decrease the currency in circulation through taxation was
legislated with the 16th Amendment in 1913. Support for the presumption that the American people had volunteered to
participate in the United States democracy was legislated with the 17th Amendment in 1913. The path was provided for
the control of the courts, with the creation of the American Bar Association in 1913.

In 1917 the United States legislature passed the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Emergency War Powers Act,
opening the doors for the United States to suspend limitations otherwise mandated in the Constitution. Even in times of
peace, every contrived and created social, political, or financial emergency was sufficient authority for the officers of the
United States to overstep its peace time powers and implement volumes of “law” that would increase the coffers of the
United States. There is always a declared emergency in the United States and its States, but it only applies to their
subjects.

In the 1920’s the States accelerated the push for mothers to register their babies. Life was good and people were not
paying attention to what was happening in government. The stock market crashed, and those who were not on the inside
were not warned to take their money out before they lost everything.

In the 1930’s federal legislation provided for registration of babies through applications for birth certificates, so
government workers could get maternity leave with pay. The States pushed for registration of cars through applications
for certificates of title, and for registration of land through registration of deeds of trust. Constructive trusts secretly were
created as each of the people blindly walked into the United States democracy, thereby agreeing to be sureties for the
debts of the United States. The great depression supplied the diversion to keep the people’s attention off what
government was doing. The Social Security program was implemented, along with numerous other United States
programs that invited the American people to volunteer to be the sureties behind the United States’ new registered
property and adhesion contracts through the new United States subjects.

The plan was well on its path by 1933. Massive registration of property through United States agencies, including the
State of _______ subdivisions, was assuring the United States and its officers would get rich beyond their wildest
expectations, as predicted by Mendall House. All of this was done without disclosure of the material facts that
accompanied each application for registration – fraud. The fraud was a sufficient reason to charge all the United States
officers with treason, UNLESS a remedy could be supplied for the people to recoup their property and collect for the
damages they suffered as a result of the fraud.

If a remedy were available, and the people chose not to or failed to use their remedy, no charge of fraud could be
sustained even in a common law court. The United States only needed to provide the remedy. It was not required to
explain it or even tell the people where the remedy could be found. The attorneys did not even have to be taught about
the remedy. That gave them plausible deniability when the people struggled to understand the new laws. The legislators
did not have to have the intricate details of the law explained to them regarding the bills they were passing. That gave
them plausible deniability. If the people failed to use their remedy, the United States came out the winner every time. If
the people did discover their remedy, the United States had to honor it and release the registered property back to the
people, but only if the people knew they had a remedy, and only if they requested it in the proper manner. It was a great
plan.

With plausible deniability, even when the people knew they had a remedy and pursued it, the attorneys, judges, and
legislators could act like they did not understand the people’s claims. Requiring the public schools to teach civics,
government, and history classes out of approved politically correct text books also assured the people would not find the
remedy for a long time. Passing new State and Federal laws that appeared to subject the people to rules and regulations,
added another level of protection against the people finding their remedy. The public media was molded to report
politically correct, though substantially incorrect, news day after day, until few people would even think there could be a
remedy available to them. The people could be separated from their money and their time to pursue the remedy long
enough for the solutions to be lost in the pages of millions of books in huge law libraries across the country. So many
people know there is something wrong with all the conflicts in the laws with the “facts” taught in the schools. How can
the American people be free and subject to a sovereign governments whims at the same time? Who would ever have
thought the people would be resourceful enough to actually find the remedy? BUT they did!

In 1933 the United States put its insurance policy into place with House Joint Resolution 192 (2) and recorded it in the
Congressional Record. It was not required to be promulgated in the Federal Register. An Executive Order issued on
April 5, 1933 paving the way for the withdrawal of gold in the United States. Representative Louis T. McFadden
brought formal charges on May 23, 1933 against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the
Comptroller of the Currency, and the Secretary of the United States Treasury (Congressional Record May 23, 1933
page 4055-4058). HJR 192 passed on June 3, 1933. Mr. MaFadden claimed on June 10, 1933: “Mr. Chairman, we
have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board
and the Federal Reserve Banks…” HJR 192 is the insurance policy that protects the legislators from conviction for fraud
and treason against the American people. It also protects the American people from damages caused by the actions of
the United States.

HJR 192 provided that the one with the gold paid the bills. It removed the requirement that the United States subjects
and employees had to pay their debts with gold. It actually prohibited the inclusion of a clause in all subsequent contracts
that would require payment in gold. It also cancelled the clause in every contract written prior to June 5, 1933, that
required an obligation to be paid in gold – retroactively. It provided that the United States subjects and employees could
use any type of coin and currency to discharge a public debt as long as it was in use in the normal course of business in
the United States. For a time, United States Notes were the currency used to discharge debts, but later the Federal
Reserve and the United States provided a new medium of exchange through paper notes, and debt instruments that
could be passed on to a debtor’s creditors to discharge the debtor’s debts. That same currency is available to us to use
to discharge public debts.

In the 1950’s the Uniform Commercial Code was presented to the States as a means of unifying the generally accepted
procedures for handling the new legal system of dealing with commercial fictions as though they were real. Security
instruments replaced substance as collateral for debts. Security instruments could be supported by presumptive
contracts. Debt instruments with collateral, and accommodating parties, could be used instead of money. Money and the
need for money was disappearing, and a uniform system of laws had to be put in place to allow the courts to uphold the
security instruments that depended on commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance. All this
was accomplished by the mid 1960’s.

The commercial code is merely a codification of accepted and required procedures all people engaged in commercial
activities must follow. The basic principles of commerce had been settled thousands of years ago, but were refined as
commerce become more sophisticated over the years. In the 1900’s the age-old principles of commerce shifted from
substance to form. Presumption became a big part of the law. Without giving a degree of force to presumption, the new
direction in enforcing commercial claims could not be supported in courts. If the claimants were required to produce
their claims every time they tried to collect money or time from the people, they would seldom be successful. The
principles expressed in the code combine the means of dealing with substantive commercial activities with the means of
dealing with presumptive commercial activities. These principles work as well for the people as they do for the
deceivers. The rules do not respect persons.

Those who enticed the people to register their things with the United States and its sub-divisions, gained control of the
substance through the registrations. The United States became the Holder of the titles to many things. The definition of
“property” is the interest one has in a thing. The thing is the principal. The property is the interest in the thing. Profits
(interest) made from the property of another, belong to the owner of the thing. Profits were made by the deceivers by
pledging the registered property in commercial markets, but the profits do not belong to the deceivers. The profits
belong to the owners of the things. That is always the people. The corporation only shows ownership of paper – titles to
things. The substance cannot appear in the fiction. [[Watch the movie Last Action Hero and watch the confusion created
when they try to mix substance and fiction.]] Sometimes the fiction is made to look very much like substance, but fiction
can never become substance. It is an impossibility.

The profits from all the registered things had to be put into trust (constructive) for the benefit of the owners. If the profits
were put into the general fund of the United States and not into separate trusts for the owners, the scheme would
represent fraud. The profits for each owner could not be commingled. If the owner failed to use his available remedy
(fictional credits held in a constructive trust account, fund, or financial ledger) to benefit from the profits, it would not be
the fault of the deceivers. If the owner failed to learn the law that would open the door to his remedy, it would not be the
fault of the deceivers. The owner is responsible for learning the law, so he understands that the profits from his things are
available for him to discharge debts or charges brought against his public person by the United States.

If the United States has the “gold”, the United States pays the bills (from the trust account, fund, or financial ledger). The
definition of “fund” is money set aside to pay a debt. The fund is there to discharge the public debts attributed to the
United States subjects, but ultimately back to the accommodating parties – the American people. The national debt that
is owed is to the owners of the registered things – the American people, as well as to other creditors.

If the United States owes a debt to the owner of the thing, and the owner is presumed (by accommodation) to owe a
public debt to the United States, the logical thing is to ask the United States to discharge that public debt from the trust
fund. The way for the United States to get around having to pay the public debts for the people is to claim the owner
cannot be an owner if he agreed to be the accommodating party for a debtor person. If the people are truly the principle,
then they know how to handle their financial and political affairs, ULNESS they have never been taught. If the owner
admits by his actions out of ignorance, that he is an accommodating party, he has taken on the debtor’s liabilities without
getting consideration in exchange. Here lies the fiction again. The owner of the thing does not have to knowingly agree to
be the accommodating party for the debtor person; he just has to act like he agreed. That is easy if he has a choice of
going to jail or signing for the debtor person. The presumption that he is the accommodating party is strong enough for
the courts to hold the owner of the thing liable for a tax on the thing he actually owns.

Debtors may have the use of certain things, but the things belong to the creditors. The creditor is the master. The debtor
is the servant. The Uniform Commercial Code is very specific about the duties and responsibilities a debtor has. If the
owner of the thing is presumed to be a debtor because of his previous admissions and adhesion contracts, he is going to
have a difficult time convincing the United States that it has a duty to discharge public debts for him. In addition, the
courts are staffed with loyal judges who will look for every mistake the people make when trying to use their remedy.

There is a very powerful tool the people can use to help them get to the real issues when they find themselves up against
the power of presumption. The law provides for either party of an admiralty court action to OBJECT to a line of
questioning. When you object in that court setting, you must tell the judge why you object, or he will overrule your
objection. The reason is:

“This line of questioning assumes facts not in evidence.”

You can request that evidence of the Plaintiff’s claim be entered as evidence. If the judge overrules this fundamental,
basic, underlying, necessary principle of establishing jurisdiction and right to make a charge, there is a major procedural
error in the proceeding. Granting impersonam jurisdiction to get to the bottom of the issue is vastly better than arguing,
“I’m not that person.”

The owner of the thing, after learning the law and discovering who he is in relation to the United States, can file a UCC
Financing Statement and Security Agreement registering his interest in the artificial entity (PERSON) the United States
created after Mom applied for a birth certificate. That was the act of registering her biological property, her baby
(substance), with the State of _______. The United States holds the paper title (form), not the substance (baby). Until
your Financing Statement is filed, the United States is the holder of the title to the artificial entity. Its name is spelled in all
capital letter – JOHN HENRY DOE. When John Henry Doe files the Financing Statement supported by a Security
Agreement signed by the artificial entity (JOHN) and the owner (John), he becomes the holder in due course of the title
to JOHN. The UCC and the State commercial law are very specific about the effect of a registered security interest. It
has priority over most other interest claimed (only claimed) in the same thing. The evidence that is missing in the court, is
the registered claim over the person (JOHN).

The owner also must notify the Secretary of the Treasury that he is going to handle his own affairs in the future. He can
file a Bill of Exchange with the Secretary through which he exchanges his person’s accepted-for-value birth certificate
and social security numbers, for a chargeback of all the presumed charges brought against his person since the birth
certificate was issued.

The owner can also reserve a noncash Federal Reserve routing number and any number of noncash instrument numbers
by filing an amendment to his Financing Statement or just including his reservation on his original Financing Statement.
Each bank account opened in the name of the owner’s person has a routing number. If an account is open, it is available
to process cash items. If you write a check to the plumber, it can be converted to cash at your bank. You cannot write a
check on an account that has been closed. Those accounts and their routing numbers are reserved for noncash items for
the person (JOHN) that opened the account originally. Accounts that have been closed by the bank instead of the
person, should not be used for noncash items. Once this is done, you are in a position to begin receiving reimbursements
against the obligation the United States owes to you for money and time it has received that belong to you.

The owner of registered things, who has learned the law and what his rights are, and has filed his Financing Statement,
Security Agreement, and Bill of Exchange, and reserved his noncash account routing numbers, can issue an instrument
indicating his UCC registration number, his registered Federal Reserve routing number, the name of the public party
making a charge against his person, and the amount of the debt to be discharge.

Think of the whole transaction in relation to a dead battery. The batter represents your public person (JOHN), which is
a dead entity that can function within the public maize of fiction, transmitting benefits from the public to you in the private
IF it is charged up. You cannot go into the public because you are not a fiction. JOHN has no power until it is charged
with some energy. That energy comes from an IRS default notice, court judgment, credit card bill, utility bill, traffic
ticket, or some other instrument that has a $ amount and JOHN’s name on it as the presumed debtor. The bill is the
energy. It charges the dead JOHN. You can now discharge JOHN and put JOHN’s accrual account with the charging
party back to a zero balance. You as the secured party over the assets put up as security by JOHN to you as collateral
for the debt JOHN owes you, can discharge JOHN with a negotiable instrument for the same $ amount as the charging
instrument. The charging party that receives your noncash item can 1) process it through a United States department, 2)
give it to a third party, 3) keep it to increase its liquidity.

When you, as the owner of a thing, registered it with the United States or one of its subdivisions, you let the United
States hold the legal title to your thing based on misrepresentation and failure to disclose material facts to you at the time
of registration. You probably retained possession of the thing. The United States invested the title and made a profit. If
you did not specifically authorize the United States and its agents to invest the legal title, the profits made from that title
belong to you, because as the owner, you remain the equitable title holder. Legally all the profits from the investment of
the titles to all your registered things must go into a fund for your benefit. If they did not put the profits in a trust fund of
some sort, it would be fraud.

Just acquiring the titles through what is promoted as mandatory registration, is fraud. If the scenario attributed to Mandell
House is now in full application in the United States, which it is, the officers of the United States could be charged and
convicted with treason IF they had not provided a remedy, which they did. -- House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5,
1933. This is their insurance policy to assure they are not convicted of treason. That does not mean they cannot be
charged with treason, but the courts will dismiss based on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Because you have a remedy outside the court, you cannot sustain a charge of treason.

The problem in the past with trying to discharge public debts with instruments that could not be processed through your
bank on the corner, was that those discharge instruments did not route through the Federal Reserve. It is the bean
counter for the national debt. That debt is first and primarily owed to the people who are the equitable titleholders of all
the substance in this country. If you try to discharge a public debt with your discharge instrument, and you do not route it
through the Federal Reserve, it appears you are receiving a benefit from the United States without exchanging it for
something of value. This is not technically correct because you have a right to be reimbursed, whether or not you apply it
toward the debt the United States owes you. You are the substance; it is the fiction.

If you do route your discharge instrument through the Federal Reserve, where the national debt owed to you can be
reduced by the amount of the instrument, you have made an exchange that fits nicely into their accrual bookkeeping
system. Your PERSON’s charge from the charging party within the United States commercial scheme is discharged, and
the debt the United States owes to you is discharged by the same amount. That is a quid pro quo, and everyone is
happy, EXCEPT those who are not interested in the money but just want to be in control from behind the scenes.

To accomplish this quid pro quo exchange:

1. your claim to being one of the people must appear on a public register (the Secretary of State),

2. you must have an account with the banker for the United States (the Secretary of the Treasury),

3. you must have given notice of your reservation of routing numbers through the national debt accountant (the Federal
Reserve),

4. you must refer to the insurance policy that covers your remedy (House Joint Resolution 192),

5. you must make your instrument negotiable so it can be used by the United States for a profit,

6. you must transmit your instrument back into the public through an agent (your registered debtor),

7. you must only use a noncash item for this exchange,

8. you must do a banker’s acceptance of a charging instrument to attach to your noncash item, and

9. you must understand that you are not getting something for nothing

Reserving your routing numbers to use on your discharge instruments is not as difficult as was thought during the previous
decade. Every person has opened bank accounts in the past that have been closed for one reason for another. On the
bottom of the checks for those closed bank accounts is a routing number to the particular bank and a routing number to
the particular account. Each check has a check number. When you put the check number together with the two routing
numbers, you have a means of tracking each item that goes through the worldwide banking system. The routing numbers
on the bottom of the checks from accounts your person has closed will never be reassigned. They are attached to your
person’s NAME forever and kept in the records of the Federal Reserve.

Bank accounts that are still open and active are used for cash items. Checks written on these open bank accounts can
be taken to the particular bank and CASHED. This is the type of instrument used in commercial transactions everyday.
There is a fund attached to the check from which the debt evidenced by the check can be paid.

Bank accounts that are no longer open and active cannot be used to process cash items. They can only be used to
process noncash items. They require special handling. Title 12 of USC and CFR explain how and when receiving banks
are to process noncash items. A closed bank account associated with your debtor’s NAME, has routing numbers that
can route your discharge instrument through the Federal Reserve to reduce the national debt to you and increase the
balance of the bank account of the party that is charging your debtor. It is a WIN WIN situation.

The charging party is instructed to mail the discharge instrument to the Secretary of Transportation. Title 46 has sufficient
evidence to support the proposition that the Secretary is the trustee over some or all vessels mortgaged by the United
States. If your debtor PERSON is presumed to be a vessel, it is regulated by the Secretary of Transportation through
the Maritime Ministries Administration, that is the proper party to assist in processing your noncash item. The Secretary
of Transportation can forward the item to the Secretary of the Treasury, who already has been notified to prepare for
noncash activity in your treasury direct account on the Bill of Exchange. The Secretary of the Treasury is directly related
to the Federal Reserve. Between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, your noncash item can be directed to the
proper parties to settle the account and get everyone into that quid pro quo position we want.

The United States and its co-business partners are debtors to you. You are the creditor, not only over your debtor
PERSON, but also over the United States, the legal titleholder over the registered things to which you are the equitable
titleholder. You are the primary creditor, so if the United States has other creditors, like the international bankers, they
cannot jump to the front of the line. Their claims are subordinated to your claims if your claims are registered and if you
understand the law surrounding what you are doing.

LEARN THE LAW FIRST, THEN JUMP OFF THE CLIFF!!!!!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 This article has been completely revised in light of our inability to confirm the reality of the notion that the US Treasury
actually issues electronic credits in response to legitimate banking instruments used to access a Treasury UCC Contract
Trust Account.
See instead http://www.liferepatterning.com/UCC-TreasuryDischarge_revised.htm.
 
Discharge of public debts of Citizens of the American Republic by the US Treasury

Preface

        It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I
believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
        — Henry Ford

There is nothing superficial about the reasons why the U.S. Treasury is willing and legally obligated to discharge the
public debt of American citizens.  See
http://www.liferepatterning.com/US_secretly_secured_as_collateral_by_foreign_bankers.htm
 
Discharge of debts by the Treasury is anything but publicly acknowledged, however.  In fact, as you will see, the
government goes out of its way to give the impression that this obligation of the Treasury is merely a fantasy promoted
by the deluded.

Are you a debtor or a creditor within the legal setup of the UNITED STATES?

One fact stands out as preeminent.  Everyone in this country who has not taken appropriate legal steps to change their
standing within the system from a legal identity of a DEBTOR who owes the debt created by the fraudulent borrowings
of the United States Corporation, to a CREDITOR who is owed that debt (by virtue of the unlawfulness of, and lack of
consideration for the debt's creation), is a DEBTOR in the eyes of the current legal setup.  We have blindly walked into
the United States democracy, thereby agreeing to be sureties for the debts of the United States.  For a sensitively written
discussion titled "WHY THE UCC FILING?," see http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/ucc-print.htm.

A quote from the above article:

    "The 14th Amendment provided for a new class of citizens – United States citizens, that had not formerly been
recognized. Until the 14th Amendment in 1868, there were no persons born or naturalized in the United States. They
had all been born or naturalized in one of the several states. United States citizenship was a result of state citizenship.
After the Civil War, a new class was recognized, and was the beginning of the democracy sited in the District of
Columbia. The American people in the republic sited in the several states, could choose to benefit as one of these new
United States citizens BY CHOICE. The new class of citizens was given the right to vote in the democracy in 1870 by
the 15th Amendment. All it required was an application. Benefits came with this new citizenship, but with the benefits,
came duties and responsibilities that were totally regulated by the legislature for the District of Columbia. Edward
Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American
people. (1) The 13th Amendment in 1865 opened the way for the people to volunteer into slavery to accept the benefits
offered by the United States.

    "Whether House actually spoke the words or not , is really irrelevant because the scenario detailed in the statement
attributed to him has clearly been implemented. Central banking for the United States was legislated with the Federal
Reserve Act in 1913.  The ability to decrease the currency in circulation through taxation was legislated with the 16th
Amendment in 1913. Support for the presumption that the American people had volunteered to participate in the United
States democracy was legislated with the 17th Amendment in 1913."

A 14th Amendment citizen is obligated on a huge debt that he/she had no part in creating, and from which he/she does
not benefit.  See http://www.taxtruthnews.com/textonly/08_27_02/08_27_02e.htm (alternative link:
http://www.liferepatterning.com/Letter_Of_Sovereign_State_Citizenship.htm)

How can one become a CREDITOR who is OWED the debt?  Let us consider an analogy.  If you discovered that your
family had been fraudulently induced to borrow a huge fortune (to make an investment let's say) that was promptly
squandered by this inducer (because the investment was known by the inducer to be worthless), and that your family's
wealth had thereby been stolen, you would have a cause of action against the defrauding party.  You, as a representative
of your family, would be owed the wealth that had been thus stolen.  It is not different if you expand your conception of
"family" to embrace the nation.  Our nation's wealth HAS been stolen by fraudulently induced borrowing of a
corporation that did not represent the interests of We the People when this corporation colluded with bankers to create
this corporation's incomprehensibly huge $6.8 trillion "national debt".  This debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.59 billion per day since September 30, 2002!  See Congressman McFadden's Speech On the Federal Reserve
Corporation --
http://www.liferepatterning.com/Congressman_McFadden's_Speech_On_the_Federal_Reserve_Corporation.html.

For an interesting collection of links and extended discussion materials related to this subject, see
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/index-links.html, http://www.xat.org/xat/index.html, http://www.xat.org/,
http://www.xat.org/xat/history1.html, http://www.xat.org/xat/history2.html, http://www.xat.org/xat/history3.html, and
http://users.netmatters.co.uk/startingout/xat/history2.html.

For a modern response to our government having departed from its original purpose, see http://www.startup-
enterprises.com/doi2003.html -- The unanimous Declaration of Independence of the fifty united States of America.
________________________________________________________________________________
 

Introduction: From here this document prints as about 26-29 pages.  In the next TWO PAGES, however, we undertake
this challenge: to help you revise your paradigm/model-of-reality of this country, and of the legal aspects of the world
you live in -- within this two page Introduction extending from here to End of Introduction.

Discharge of Public Debts by the US Treasury for Citizens of the American Republic

Hold on to your hat.
A bit of history severely compressed:
The Revolutionary War was about money.  Specifically, it was about the requirement, imposed by the Crown upon the
Colonies, to extract substance money from the Colonies, that taxes be paid in gold.  We lost that war.  The military
aspect was a fight to a standoff.  British troops stepped onto their ships, undefeated, carrying their weapons.  From
thenceforth British bankers took up the fight, in alliance with the international banking community.

The efforts of the international bankers have resulted in three National Banks in this country; the first two Banks had their
charters revoked after a 20 year trial period each, the latest goes under the incongruous name, The Federal Reserve.
The Fed is no more Federal than Federal Express, and until recently it had no reserves.

http://www.rense.com/ufo2/fedrez.htm, http://www.rense.com/politics6/fedres.htm,
http://www.rense.com/politics5/cashtax_p.htm, and http://www.rense.com/politics4/jflandfed.htm <-- Executive Order
11110.

For a more thorough treatment of John F. Kennedy's June 4, 1963 Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN
FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, which was his attempt to give the
government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to
create the new money, see http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm,
www.LifeRepatterning.com/Kennedy_executive_order11110.htm or contact your Congressional representative to get a
copy directly from them.

 
Andrew Jackson -- Why is he on Federal Reserve $20 Notes?  Jackson was the Foremost Presidential OPPONENT
of imposition of a Central Bank in the United States.  President Andrew Jackson stated in reference to the bankers in a
speech on the state of his administration: "You are a den of vipers and thieves.  I intend to rout you out, and by the
Eternal God, I will rout you out."  Is the Fed thumbing its nose ("Gotcha!") at Andrew Jackson and the American public
by putting Andrew Jackson's portrait on the most frequently used large bill?

The US national debt, divided by the population, comes to a little more than $23,000.  To see how fast the National
Debt is growing minute by minute repeatedly refresh the page linked here --> --> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/.
$23,000 is a figure that is far in excess of the average net worth of the first 40% of all Americans.  For all Americans
average net worth was found by a Federal Reserve report excerpt on recent trends of wealth and ownership of
American Families from 1980 through 1998 to be $79,000.  Thus the collateral interest of bankers and other holders of
US obligations, considering just the national debt, is almost 1/3 of all private wealth in this country.  This is not an
accident.  This is the intentional design of international bankers who put the Federal Reserve in place in 1913.  See
article on Ownership of the Federal Reserve at http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml, but for a
contradictory article see http://www.usagold.com/FederalReserve.html.  20 years after the creation of the Fed, at the
height of a Fed-induced Depression (See http://www.perfecteconomy.com/principal---federal-reserve-system.html),
President Roosevelt declared bankruptcy, arguably on March 9, 1933 when he closed the banks.  This bankruptcy was
codified at 12 U.S.C. 95a http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/95.html

Shortly after the country was arguably bankrupted by closing the banks, the Gold Clause was abrogated by HJR 192,
June 5, 1933  http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/HJR192.htm, and it was declared that debts payable in dollars were
henceforth to be discharged (note the absence of any indication of Satisfaction) dollar for dollar by any currency in use in
the US; the Constitutional commitment of the United States to back its currency in gold was thenceforth abrogated.  This
means that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Corporation can now print money at will to pay for anything and
everything it needs because absence of gold backing removes all limits on the issuance of currency.  This permits
systematic price inflation and currency value erosion -- theft by titration.

Under existing arrangements between the U.S. Treasury and the Fed, currency of all kinds issued or permitted by the
Treasury to circulate (known technically as M1, M2 & M3) needs to be borrowed at interest from our private national
bank (the Fed).  It is claimed that profits from this collection of interest are largely paid back to the Treasury after a
considerable time delay (during which time the money is available for who knows what).  There has NEVER been any
audit-style accounting to the American people of the financial aspects of the Fed.  Therefore despite protests by
defenders of the Fed to the effect that the Fed returns most of the interest paid by the Treasury, back to the Treasury,
these assertions are unsupported by evidence of the total picture of the Fed's finances.  If the interest actually is largely
returned, why is it collected?  This question is never addressed by defenders of the Fed.
 
The taxing power of the fraudulent U.S. corporation is used to extract substance from the American people to pay
interest on a "floating debt" that has been designed to be completely unrepayable because the legal currency to repay the
debt must be borrowed.  Analogy: You can not pay off your credit card using cash advances from the card.  The
success of this scheme to drown the UNITED STATES corporation in debt is seen in the fact that a huge percentage,
reportedly now as much as 100% of all tax revenues of this corporation now go to pay the INTEREST (only) on the
National Debt.

Fraudulent image:

The above image created by the Congressional Budget Office, on the web at
http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/365001.gif, is a flat lie, so far as I can tell, in that it shows Income Taxes, Social Security
Taxes and Other Taxes and Receipts split between Social Security Benefits, Medicare and Other Entitlements,
Discretionary Spending and Interest on Debt.  In fact, according to President Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission and
calculating the escalation in the national debt since that time, it is clear that 100% of taxes go to pay the Interest on the
National Debt.  The funds to pay Social Security Benefits, Medicare and Other Entitlements and Discretionary Spending
MUST ALL BE BORROWED!

I believe it is also false that taxes go to the Treasury at all.  The reason for this belief is that I believe the IRS is an agency
of the Federal Reserve, not the Treasury.  When you look at the top of any tax form it says Department of the Treasury-
--Internal Revenue Service.  My information is that this is the IRS Department of the Treasury in Puerto Rico, not the
US Treasury in Washington, DC!  If all taxes go to pay interest on the debt, why would they go from the IRS
Department of the Treasury in Puerto Rico, through the U.S. Treasury, and on to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest
owed to the Fed.  This is a minor point, but it indicates the level of deception that appears to pervade everything to do
with the finances of the UNITED STATES corporation.

President Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission reported in 1984 that every penny spent to run the government, for
example to run the National Parks, invade Iraq etc., is borrowed printing press money.
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm  The Grace Commission report was was dated January 12, 1984.  Today
with the huge increase of debt incurred recently by the US corporation, it is certain that funds used to pay Social
Security and other entitlement transfer payments are now borrowed as well.  We the People were conned through
stealth and cunning to believe that WE are obligated by the borrowings of this fraudulent U.S. Corporation!

HJR 192 enacted June 5, 1933 includes a provision that "... payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or
in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy" and "Every
obligation ... shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any ... coin or currency [including fiat currency
having no substance or value] which at the time is legal tender for public and private debts."  

"Every obligation ... shall be discharged ..."   What does this mean?  It means that the debt remains and the obligation to
tender currency is discharged.  The debt remains perpetual until PAID (in gold or something of real value).
 
As a result of HJR 192, and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one in this nation has been able to lawfully pay a
debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do is tender in transfer of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The
suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts removed the substance on which our common law
previously operated, and created a void as far as the law is concerned.  Gold based substance was replaced with a
"PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM" wherein debt, including Federal Reserve NOTES that are nothing but "I
Owe You" debt instruments, is/are "LEGAL TENDER".  This means that in a very important sense there is no money.
When Congress passed the law in 1933 making Federal Reserve Notes "legal tender," they thereby transferred the
power to coin and issue our nation's money from Congress to the Federal Reserve

We have been under martial law since the "national emergency" declared by President Lincoln. Under martial law, title is
a mere fiction, since all property belongs to the military except for that property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in
his benevolence, exempt from taxation and seizure and upon which he allows the "enemy" to reside.

HJR 192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution, the treasury offered the
public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause.  HJR 192 states that one cannot
demand a certain form of currency that one wants to receive if the obligation is to be discharged dollar for dollar.

In case the point was not made clear before, the UNITED STATES corporation referred to above is what runs this
country.  This is the Federal UNITED STATES.  It was created by Act of a Congress that could only have been bought
and paid for when they created it in conjunction with the The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 that created a
private corporation owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of
the government under martial law (Click on "martial law" link for a very illuminating historical outline).   All states in the
Union were apparently reformed as franchisees or political subdivisions of the corporation known as the UNITED
STATES, hence creating a new union of American STATES.  UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, 3002(15)(A),
basically reiterates that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.  What was not said in 1871, but was implicit, was what
is plainly stated at Title 28, 3002(15)(B) & (C): That all departments of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION are
part of the corporation.

The other united States is the Continental united States.  This is the country founded by the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution for the United States.

Where did the Congress find authority in the Constitution to reconstitute any part of the united States as a corporation?
To outward appearances this was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten
mile square of Washington, District of Columbia.  Arguably, the 1791 Constitution was set aside to make room for the
corporation.  Did this Act benefit the Republic?  No.  Corporate, private bottom line is profit. The municipal, public
bottom line is service. To replace our service-oriented form of government with a profit-oriented government without our
knowledge or consent can only be described as treason.

Through registration of our Birth Certificates at the Department of Commerce as registrable securities (today  State and
Local offices simply transmit the data) and through taxation under the rubric of Income Tax and FICA for Social
Security and Medicare, all Americans have been, and all "income" in the United States has been involuntarily pledged for
repayment of the debt of the fraudulent UNITED STATES corporation.  Under the rubric of Estate Taxes all property
has been similarly pledged -- all without consideration flowing to We the People because the taxes do not go to run the
country.  See the Grace Commission report: http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm.

End of Introduction

As a result of HJR 192, it is against Congressional and public policy for you to "pay" your debts!  You can only
discharge them!  Removal of Americans' ability to pay their obligations places all Americans technically in a situation
analogous to the negotiable instruments law concept of "Dishonor".   See § 3-502.(a)(1) DISHONOR.  (See
http://www.liferepatterning.com/DISHONOR_of_a_negotiable_instrument.htm.  Being in dishonor with respect to an
obligation to pay for something you purchase, because you do not pay for it with substance currency, means that you do
not lawfully own it even after your purchase obligation has been discharged by tender of fiat currency because you gave
nothing of value.

This imposed condition of dishonor gives rise to the obligation accepted by the Treasurer of the United States as Trustee
in bankruptcy for the US corporation (an obligation accepted as well by the Governor of every State as the State's
Trustee in Bankruptcy for the same US corporation) to compensate Americans for this theft of their lawful money and of
their ability to PAY debts (and thereby lawfully own anything).  The obligation accepted by the Treasurer is to discharge
Americans' unpayable public debts through issuance of bookkeeping credits, even though these credits represent nothing
of substance.  These credits do, however, discharge the debt under the "PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM".

As a result of my investigations, I now believe the US Treasury HONORS this obligation in practice every day for those
(mostly "insiders") who obtain a Personal Treasury UCC Contract Trust Account, set up to discharge personal debts
owed to public entities.  Who can apply?  -- Anyone with a SSN#.  However, one must gain standing to apply by legally
distinguishing oneself from the status of "US Person," "individual," and other terms that designate a "person" obligated to
pay interest on the US National Debt (by paying taxes).  We have discovered how to legally establish this requisite
standing to apply for the Account as well as how to apply for the account itself.  Successfully apply?  Stay tuned.
 
As with any understanding that exposes the deception gluing together the status quo, there is plenty of disinformation
around.  The Arizona Republic published a general article on this subject on Oct. 26 titled "Mortgage-nullifying plans are
scams"
 
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1027action27.html. In this article it references a letter circulated
to banks by the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  This letter is Alert 2003-7  -
www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/alert/2003-7.txt
 
Relevant text from this letter includes:
 
"... worthless items entitled Bill of Exchange, Due Bill, and Redemption Certificate are being presented for payment at
banks and other businesses.  Regardless of how these documents are titled or whether they appear authentic, they are
not payable through the U.S. Treasury or the Comptroller of the Currency, and they have no financial value or legal
validity."   [Note the tautology -- "worthless items" have no financial value.]
 
The letter goes on:
 
"The creation and presentment of these documents may be a violation of section 18 USC 514, Fictitious Obligations,
and the person(s) using such fictitious instruments may be subject to criminal prosecution.  If one of these documents is
presented to your institution for payment, do not return it.  Retain the document and file a Suspicious Activity Report
(SAR).  Deliver the original fictitious instrument and a copy of the SAR to the local office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.  Please also provide the OCC with a copy of the documents and the SAR." [emphasis added]

    [Note an important use of language here:  A "person" is a DEBTOR, which means that a person is, by definition, one
who is {fraudulently} obligated by the US corporation's "National Debt" and therefore NOT eligible for a special
Treasury account.  This OCC letter is truthful in saying that "person(s) using such fictitious instruments may be subject to
criminal prosecution".  A person, by definition {in their unique use of the word person} does not have standing to apply
for a special Treasury account and therefore could not possibly have one.  This obscure use of language is central to the
scheme of control employed by those in charge to attempt to befuddle anyone who ventures into this field.  They "lie" by
telling the truth in a language you do not understand.

    The Comptroller of the Currency is perfectly willing to issue this vague and threatening letter that fails to clearly define
what constitutes a "worthless item" and forgets to mention that the unique use of the word "person" noted above, in fact,
defines any such item used by a "person" as worthless because a "person" lacks the requisite legal standing to use the
item.

    Telephone discussion with a representative of the OCC resulted in a parole definition as follows:

         "There are no Treasury accounts upon which such items could be drawn and therefore every such item that claims
to be drawable against such a Treasury account is worthless."

    When asked if he would change his opinion on this subject if presented with documentary evidence showing that the
Treasury does in fact issue electronic credits in discharge of some of these items, he simply got angry and redoubled his
insistence that there are no such accounts.  When asked if he would put this in a writing, notarized and sworn under
penalty of perjury, he naturally declined to do so.  It is my opinion that he was either misinformed or lying.  He certainly
was not attempting to bring clarity to the discussion.

    The above referenced OCC letter can accurately be seen as an attempt to intimidate through vague references to its
subject matter, an apparent threat of prosecution and urging the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) by a the
receiving institution.  Of course, if a Bank officer reads this letter and does not realize what is being done with the
obscure use of the word person and files a wrongful SAR on someone who has a valid special account at the Treasury,
the OCC has plausible deniability in that their attorneys can truthfully assert that no person can possibly have a valid
special Treasury account.

    There is another interesting angle to this OCC letter.  Neither the OCC nor the FBI are actually an agencies, even of
the fraudulent UNITED STATES corporation.  They are BOTH agencies of the International Monetary Fund.
Therefore, when the OCC letter suggests that a receiving institution "Deliver the original fictitious instrument and a copy
of the SAR to the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," this can be interpreted as giving the FBI an
opportunity to sell the supposedly "fictitious instrument" (i.e. steal it).  It is now common knowledge that our CIA
imports drugs into this country.  During the Vietnam era they stuffed the body cavities of dead G.I.'s with drugs from
southeast Asia and got the drugs into this country inside the body bags.  Unfortunately, despite the valid role played by
the FBI in its investigative role, the FBI is simply being accommodated by the OCC in this letter and handed a golden
opportunity to steal.

    Also, although it would be ideal if bank officers had no motivation to game the system, they are actually offered a
bounty for turning in these supposedly "fictitious instruments."   Therefore, it is necessary in dealing with everyone
involved in a transaction involving a Bill of Exchange payable through the Treasury, to utilize procedures that guard
against fraudulent behavior on the part of anyone and everyone in the chain of custody.  Two witnesses to the mailing of
the instrument to the Treasury via Registered Mail, with notarized affidavits (testifying to the witnessed signing and
mailing of the documents) is NOT overkill and such procedures should definitely be followed.  These procedures are
simply prudent preparation for Notarial Protest, it that procedure is needed later.

Looking at the language of the OCC letter more closely, the first quoted paragraph above is a tautology and therefore
says nothing.
 
Instruments that legitimately fall in the category of "worthless items" obviously by definition "have no financial value or
legal validity".  It is worth pointing out that the letter specifically does NOT state that "items entitled Bill of Exchange,
Due Bill, and Redemption Certificate" are worthless.  This would be an absurd proposition.  Every bank check is a
special form of Bill of Exchange known as a demand Bill of Exchange or draft.  Bills of Exchange are used in
international transactions every day.  The entire paragraph is rendered meaningless by presupposing that the subject of
the paragraph is "worthless items".  Obviously "worthless items" are worthless and "not payable through the U.S.
Treasury" and by definition "have no financial value or legal validity".  The OCC avoids stating a lie by not saying
anything at all.
 
The UNITED STATES corporation finds itself having to fend off people who are waking up to the facts described
herein.  It therefore needs to behave like the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and friends entered his chamber and the dog
Toto pulled back the curtain revealing a little man frantically pulling levers to create a grand illusion.  This is how I view
the above referenced letter from the Comptroller of the Currency.

Notwithstanding its bluster and serious threat, the OCC letter is essentially a piece of fluff because it says almost nothing.
It does not indicate that a receiving bank that ignores its suggestions is doing anything wrong.  It does suggest that a
receiving bank exercise unguided judgment and, on its own, undertake to interfere in the commerce of potentially
innocent parties who present what may be valid banking instruments.  Aside from this, it does not say anything.  A
receiving bank that follows this gratuitous suggestion by the OCC is given no immunity from prosecution for interfering
with the commerce of parties so interfered with.  They are simply urged to send potentially valuable banking instruments
to the FBI and to tortiously (acting in such a way as to give rise to an action in Tort) "file a Suspicious Activity Report
(SAR)".

The people at the Office of the Comptroller decline to either offer or accept proof as to the facts and they decline to
back up their assertions when asked to do so.
 
Suffice it to say, I am actively researching the considerable community of people who are pursuing the possibility of debt
discharge through the Treasury.  I am seeking to obtain additional documentary evidence of discharge of public debt of
Citizens of the American Republic.  My aim is to establish that this is an ongoing activity of the US Treasury.  One
member of our community successfully discharged over $250,000 of IRS, Iowa State tax and Student Loan debt over
the past five years, and he has a letter from the relevant Iowa State tax officials as evidence that his obligation to them is
discharged.  If additional evidence proves unobtainable, obviously this subject begins to take on the appearance of a
castle in the air.  I don't think it is and if you send an email to the Webmaster@LifeRepatterning.com identifying yourself
and your interest, I will be happy to keep you posted regarding my findings.

If you review the article Modern Money Mechanics (http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/modernMoney.htm), once issued
by the Federal Reserve but no longer available from them, you will discover that all currency is your credit!   What does
"your credit" mean in this context?  If you can borrow money at a bank, you can be said to have credit at that bank.  If
you are a DEBTOR within the system, all US currency is created by a borrowing on your behalf from the Fed by the
corporation.  The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt."
In the 1990s the federal government created $2.8 trillion of new debt;
more than created in the nation's entire history prior to 1990.

Fiscal Year 2000 ended with the highest dollar debt
in U.S. history - despite more claims of a 'surplus'
and,  Fiscal Year 2001 debt was higher than that
and, 2002 debt was $420 billion higher than 2001
and, 2003 debt was $555 billion higher than 2002.

In the 4 years 1997-2001, before 9-11, total federal debt increased $438 billion,
a period when politicians bragged about a $557 billion surplus.
That's a $1 Trillion creditability gap.
(Some might suggest Enron and others learned reporting gimmickry from government practices)
 
Nearly another $1 trillion additional debt was added in 2002-2003

If one owes more money on a house than the house is worth, this is called having negative equity.  America's Total Debt
in addition to federal government debt, includes debt of state & local government, foreign debt, and private sector debt
of households, business and the financial sector.  All these sum up to $34 Trillion, or $119,000 per man, woman and
child.  If the Federal Reserve's figure of $79,000 average American net worth is accurate, by my reckoning, without
being able to cite a formal study or authority, this figure of $119,000 of total debt per US  person would seem to put all
US persons, including the richest, collectively "under water" in a negative equity situation, because the $79,000 figure
does not count federal government debt, debt of state & local government, foreign debt, or business and the financial
sector debt, but ONLY considers private sector debt of households.  If those of us who have not distinguished ourselves
from the status of "person" obligated by the US ""national debt" are collectively "under water" this means that everything
you see when you look out the window or even if you gaze at your own hand is equitably owned as collateral by
bankers somewhere.

This situation has been manipulated into existence in many ways, starting with the completely bizarre arrangement in
which our US Treasury asks permission and borrows from the Federal Reserve all currency in circulation (M1, M2 &
M3) that the Treasury could simply issue under its own Constitutional authority, and US taxpayers pay interest on all this
debt to whoever owns the Federal Reserve.  The claim that the Fed's profits are largely paid back to the Treasury
remains unproved and implausible because:

    1) There is no publicly available internal accounting at the Fed.

    2) The origin of the Fed was clandestine for a reason.  Any innocent explanation of the Fed that does not account for
this extreme secrecy is de facto a deception.  (For background on the Fed's origin listen to this INTERVIEW with G.
Edward Griffin, Author The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at The Federal Reserve.)

    3) The Fed's role is extractor of substance from the American people by soaking up tax monies for payment of
interest on the "National Debt" (See http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm).

The extremely intelligent international bankers behind this banking "coup de grace" know it is NOT feasible, in a
Universe ruled by Natural Law, to be 100% destructive, thieving, rapacious, etc.  They have arranged to get the United
States into "negative equity" territory financially.  We generally do not own anything in this country for TWO reasons: 1)
We are indebted more than the value of our corresponding equity (namely EVERYTHING in this country, and 2) We
have no money of substance with which to lawfully pay for anything.  See "Bankers-Manifesto-of1892"
http://www.eliminatecreditcarddebt.cc/manifesto.pdf.  This is why those who manipulated "the system" into its present
configuration are sneaky about everything connected with it.

Let us take an example.  Perhaps you infer that the name on the tax statement is yours and so you respond as though it
were. This is voluntary servitude. To make this servitude legal it was necessary to “cut a hole in the fence.”  No matter
that the escape route is hidden, obscured by legal brambles to make escape difficult. That it is not used presumes
consent.  It is not impossible, just seemingly difficult and even implausible.

They created the current situation in which there is NO MONEY of substance in this country with which any American
can PAY debts.  That was a thieving act.  The very best we can now do, short of acquiring gold or other valuable
commodities and paying with substance, is to DISCHARGE our electric bill, our dental bill, our mortgage, bank loans,
etc..  This means that the debt remains, and the obligation to PAY is merely postponed.  To create a compensation
within Natural Law for this very real theft on a scale that sounds like science fiction, they left a back door, originally
intended, however, to be used exclusively by insiders because they did not tell anyone.

According to the best information available to me, the Secretary of the Treasury, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the
UNITED STATES corporation, stands ready, willing and able to discharge the public debt (defined as debt owed to
public entities, such as our electric bill, our dental bill, our mortgage, bank loans, etc.) of any American citizen who
properly applies.  (Excluded is anyone identified as a U.S. Person, an "individual," a "person," you as YOUR NAME in
ALL CAPS, or other sneaky obscure designations of you as DEBTOR with respect to the borrowings of the US
corporation.)
Examples of designations of YOU
that exclude you from having standing
to apply successfully to the Treasury
for an account to discharge your debts,
unless you legally distinguish your identity from these designations,
[from http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm]
 
"Prisoner of war" name
Fictitious " nom de guerre " name
for a non-living entity:
also referred to as the "STRAWMAN"
and/or "Transmitting Utility"

JOHN DOE
Note: all caps

John C. Doe
Note: middle initial
(No name at all--A fiction)

First Name: JOHN
Middle Initial: C.
Last Name: DOE

A fictional persona
being surety for the debt
as a fiction in commerce

Look at the name on your Drivers Licenses, Social Security cards, Credit Cards, Deeds, Bank Accounts, etc.

The first step in qualifying for a special Treasury account, that the IRS will set up if the requisite conditions are met, is to
distinguish oneself from the status of "U.S. Person," "individual," "person" and similar terms that denote one who has
been fraudulently identified as obligated to pay interest on the debt of the UNITED STATES corporation -- generally
the status of DEBTOR.  Next time you open a bank account, look at what you are asked to sign after your have signed
into all the other contracts of adhesion implicit in the signature card.  You are then asked to affirm with your signature
that you are a "US Person".  You see, they trick you into volunteering to be obligated on the US national debt.  I always
cross out the words "US Person" and write instead "American citizen".  

The requisite status needed to qualify for a special Treasury account for discharge of debt in our understanding is to
change one's standing within the system to CREDITOR -- one who is owed the fraudulently arranged debt as distinct
from one who owes it.

This shift of legal status and standing is accomplished by filing a standard UCC 1 financing statement on the legal fictional
identity imposed upon Americans by issuance of a Social Security card, and if they were born in this country, by the
registration with the Department of Commerce of their Notification of Live Birth.  This fictional "STRAWMAN" or
"STRAW MAN" identity is a corporate identity because it was supplied by a corporation, and a corporation can supply
no higher identity than it itself has.  Our fictional corporate identity is OUR LEGAL NAME in ALL CAPS.   

This STRAW MAN is identified in the UCC 1 Financing Statement as DEBTOR and everything this DEBTOR does
own or could ever hope to own is claimed as collateral by You (the natural human) as the Secured Party.  Our natural
human name at birth is identified in the UCC 1 Financing Statement as Secured Party (birth name in Upper/lower case).
This is a formal public filing under the Law Merchant known as the Uniform Commercial Code and is effective as a
prior-in-time/prior-in-right claim, as against all subsequent and therefore inferior claims on the STRAW MAN
DEBTOR.

Secured Party status has broad implications.  For example it exempts one from jurisdiction of Courts of Commerce,
such as all courts sitting in Admiralty Jurisdiction, including virtually all courts in the United States today. This is because
a Court of Commerce can "SEE" corporate fictions only.  When natural human beings come to a Court of Commerce
they must be tricked into submitting to its jurisdiction by identifying themselves as the "PERSON" named as
DEFENDANT or PLAINTIFF.  For example, one is asked, "Is your name 'JOHN DOE'?"  This sounds the same as
"John Doe" but is legally very different.  If one declines to so identify oneself, and without argument accepts every charge
presented in such a court upon proof of whatever claim is asserted, the court, having jurisdiction ONLY over Cases and
Controversies will have no choice but to dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction.  (No appropriate party, no
controversy and no claim upon which relief can be granted.)

Actually learning how to prepare your legal status to have standing to apply for a Treasury account through which you
can discharge your public debts, and learning how to avoid volunteering into the deceptive Admiralty jurisdiction of
nearly all American courts involves taking a series of whole day courses.  It should be emphasized that at this time (11-
10-03) those of us who have applied for a special Treasury account, with the one exception of someone who applied
five years ago, have not had time for the requisite 30 banking days to pass since the signing of the green Registered Mail
return receipt from the Treasury indicating that the Treasury properly received our application.   Therefore, we do not
know from direct experience if what we have done will prove to be effective or not.  Stay tuned.



 

For those interested in exploring further the reason why and how it is possible that the U.S. Treasury is willing and legally
obligated to discharge the public debts of Citizens of the American Republic, See the items linked and copied below.

1) Linked: A history of the secret financial dealings within this country and between this country and international bankers
since Revolutionary War times: (about 31 pages printed)
http://www.liferepatterning.com/US_secretly_secured_as_collateral_by_foreign_bankers.htm

2) Linked: A point-by-point comparison between the elements of the world as we are led to understand it, and the
world as it actually is: (about 25 pages printed)
http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

3) Linked: See a list of questions relating to the Federal Reserve about 1/4 down the page at
http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionFed.htm

    This is a marvelous introduction to important distinctions in banking, such as that, whereas Federal Reserve Notes are
units of exchange, bank money (credit money) is units of account.  Absent a higher reserve requirement imposed by the
Fed, based on the quality of a bank's loan portfolio, a bank can expand deposit accounts to 9+ times exchange (that is,
lend nine times its reserves).  Thus if a customer borrows $100,000 and deposits that entire amount into the same bank,
for as long as that deposit remains in the bank, the bank can loan out and additional $800,000 that is NOT kept on
deposit at this bank.  The "discount rate," one of the "levers" manipulated by the Fed to control the money supply, is
simply the interest rate charged to banks by the Fed if banks borrow "reserves" (units of account).  Banks then lend out
these borrowed units of account reserves, nine to one.

    4) Linked: A detailed investigative report on some critical issues relating to Treasury Discharge of debt. (8 page .pdf
document -- InvestigativeReportOnUCC )

    5) Linked: The "bankster" mentality of bankers in 1892.   (1 page http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/bankers-
manifesto.html )

    6) Copied below -- a wide ranging introduction to the entire field of study related to debt discharge by the U.S.
Treasury: (about 19 pages printed)

    http://www.thetruthseekers.com/money/article_496.shtml

    The UCC Connection
    by Howard Freeman
    Source: View Source

    "I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."

    This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman.
It was prepared to make available the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible and
understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and the courts. It should be helpful to those who
may have difficulty learning from such lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this information
without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded material.

    The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like
most fear, is based on lack of understanding or knowledge. Those of us who have chosen a path out of bondage and
into liberty are faced, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the mystifying
and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we must "get a good lawyer," but that is becoming
increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers
quickly take our money and then tell us as the ship is sinking, "I can't help you with that--I'm an officer of the court."
Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a 'snowball's chance' is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to
come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law.

    The lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the
subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English
words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp--
are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against
the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law.

    Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a lawyer, and as such, he has a way of explaining law to us that puts it well within
our reach. Consider also that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could
understand, specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted. So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that -
THE BUCK STOPS HERE!' It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the TRUTH.
It is we who must claim and defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take them from us. It
is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by-those who
live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents of others. To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation
of our plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it.

    Please take note that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his understanding, which he is always refining,
expanding, improving. It is, as all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to begin our own journey into
understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to others: greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of lives
lived in peace, freedom and praise.

    INTRODUCTION

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

    NEVER ARGUE THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY

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

    So I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't required to file. He said, "You are required to file, Mr. Freeman."
But I had all these supreme Court cases, and I started reading them to him. He said, "I don't know anything about law,
Mr. Freeman, but the Code says that you are required to file, and you're going to pay that amount or you're going to go
to tax court." I thought that someone there ought to know something about law, so I asked to talk to his superior. I went
to him and got out my Supreme Court Cases, and he wouldn't listen to them. "I don't know anything about law, Mr.
Freeman...." Finally I got to the Problems Resolution Officer, and he said the same thing. He said that the only person
above him was the District Director. So I went to see him. By the time I got to his office, they had phoned ahead, and
his secretary said he was out. But I heard someone in his office, and I knew he was in there. I went down the elevator,
around the corner to the Federal Building and into Senator Simpson's office. There was a girl sitting there at a desk, and
she asked if she could help me. I told her my problem. I said that I really thought the District Director was up there. I
asked her to call the IRS and tell them that it was Senator Simpson's office calling and to ask if the District Director was
in. I said, "If you get him on the phone, tell him that you are from the Senator's office and you have a person who you are
sending over to speak to him--if he is can he wait just five minutes." It worked. He was there, and I ran back up to his
office. His secretary met me when I came in and said, "Mr. Freeman, you're so lucky--the Director just arrived." The
Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies and we sat and talked. So he asked me what I wanted to talk
to him about. (If you ever have someone say to you, "I'm from the government and I'm here to do you a favor", watch
out!--but we can turn that around and approach them the same way.) So I said, "I thought you ought to know that there
are agents working for you who are writing letters over your name that you wouldn't agree with. Do you read all the mail
that goes out of this office over your signature?" The Director said, "Oh, I couldn't read everything--it goes out of here
by the bagful." That was what I thought. I said, "There are some of your agents writing letters which contradict the
decisions of the supreme Court of the United States. And they're not doing it over their name, they're doing it over your
name." He was very interested to hear about it and asked if I had any examples. I just happened to have some with me,
so I got them out and presented them to him. He thought it was very interesting and asked if I could leave this
information with him, which I did. He said he would look it over and contact me in three days. Three days later he called
me up and said, "I'm sure, Mr. Freeman, that you will be glad to know that your Notice of Deficiency has been
withdrawn. We've determined that you're not a person required to file. Your file is closed and you will hear no more
from us." I haven't heard another word from them since. That was in 1980, and I haven't filed since 1969.

    THE SUPREME COURT ON TRIAL

    I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got charged with Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me
to help him. I told him that they have to prove that he willfully failed to file, and I suggested that he should put me on the
witness stand. He should ask me if I spoke at a certain time and place in Scott's Bluff, and did I see him in the audience.
He should then ask me what I spoke of that day. When I got on the stand, I brought out all of the Supreme Court cases
I had used with the District Director. I thought I would be lucky to get a sentence or two out before the judge cut me off,
but I was reading whole paragraphs-- and the judge didn't stop me. I read one and then another, and so on. And finally
when I had read just about as much as I thought I should, the judge called a recess of the court. I told Bob I thought we
had it made. There was just no way that they could rule against him after all that testimony. So we relaxed. The
prosecution presented its case and he decided to rest his defense on my testimony, which showed that he was not
required to file, and that the Supreme Court had upheld this position. The prosecution then presented its closing
statements and we were just sure that he had won. But at the very end, the judge spoke to the jury and told them, "You
will decide the facts of this case and I will give you the law. The law required this man to file an Income Tax form; you
decide whether or not he filed it." What a shock! The jury convicted him. Later some members of the jury said, "What
could we do? The man had admitted that he had not filed the form, so we had to convict him". As soon as the trial was
over I went around to the 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 supreme Court. You sat on the
bench while I read that case law. Now how do you, a District Court Judge, have the authority to overturn decisions of
the Supreme Court?" He says, "Oh, those were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions. They have never
been overturned. I don't care how old they are; you have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United States
Supreme Court in a District Court."

    PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY

    He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were
prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the
Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge
that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply
to Public Policy." I asked him what happened in 1938. He said that he had already told me too much--he wasn't going
to tell me any more.

    1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad
v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the
Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a
boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable
Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to
sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue. This overturned a
standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the supreme
Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state where the
incident occurred--in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the supreme Court ruled that all federal cases
will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at
the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with Equity. This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces
together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There
were still some pieces of the puzzle missing.

    A FRIEND IN THE COURT

    Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't make friends with a judge if you go into court like a 'wolf in
black sheep country.' You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into court as a
wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what the law is--how he had better uphold the law or else. Remember the
verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. We have to go into court
and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked
a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn't want
to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get some papers. One of the judges
stopped and said, "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by, and if I'm not sitting on a
case we will visit.

    AMERICA IS BANKRUPT

    Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the supreme Court cases dealing with Public
Policy rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were
called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: America is a bankrupt nation--it is owned completely by its
creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state
governments. Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in a Admiralty
Jurisdiction--call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.

    ADMIRALTY COURTS

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

    NOT EXPEDIENT

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

    JURISDICTION

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

    Common Law

    Common Law is based on God's Law. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a
damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the
life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the
life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a
man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in most states, you will see a sign which
says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS--IT'S THE LAW.' This cannot be Common Law, because who would you
injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel
performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

    Equity Law

    Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you
are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled
to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action--not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction,
you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to
perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seat
belt laws Equity laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a
contract.

    Admiralty/Maritime Law

    This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of
the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the 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 be a valid international contract in force.
However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the
international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the supreme Court decided in the Erie
Railroad case--that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties
associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

    COURTS OF CONTRACT You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to
wear seat belts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand
that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the
life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where
contracts can be enforced--Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the
embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own courts. We will cover
this more later.

    CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

    Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties
or it is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is another characteristic--it
must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, "For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I
will paint your house, etc." That was a valid contract--the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a
contract that said, -For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house....' And suppose, for
example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could
not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable" dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction,
that contract would be unenforceable.

    COLORABLE MONEY/COLORABLE COURTS

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

    UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

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

    CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT

    One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must
be entered into: (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally. Under the UCC., this is not so. First of all, con-
tracts are un-necessary. Under this new law, -agreements' can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of a -
agreement,' it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept
a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that
benefit. The method has been to get everybody exercising a benefit, and they don't even have to tell the people what the
benefit is. Some people think it is the driver's license, the marriage license or the birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none
of these.

    COMPELLED BENEFIT

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

    REMEDY AND RECOURSE

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

    REMEDY

    The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the
loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7) It is important to remember when
we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, "I DEMAND MY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in
contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule
here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government
came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government
and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME--I'M
NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged--not
under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under the UCC. 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say: When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes
a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9) You have to make your claim known early.
Further, it says: The Sufficiency of the Reservation--Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient,
such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4) Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes-
-in any way, shape or manner--under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207. This reserves your rights.
You can show, at 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights. It is very important to understand just what
this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant
by writing -without prejudice UCC 1-207' on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts
involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him
what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone.... The judge knew
that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means.

    WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207

    When you use -without prejudice' UCC 1-207 in connection with your signature, you are saying: - I reserve my right
not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily
and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
commercial agreement.' What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use
Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so you have to use
Federal Reserve Notes--you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your
debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your
rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute,
ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of government--federal, state and local. If you understand this,
you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You
will also need to understand UCC 1-103--the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law
library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson edition. Some of the law
libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down
with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.

    RECOURSE

    The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says: The Code is complimentary to the
Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony
with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law. This is the argument we
use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would
have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to
admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a
sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in
harmony with the Common Law. If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured
person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your 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 with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 1-103.6, which states: The Code
cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action. Tell the judge, - Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common
Law, for violating my right under the Uniform Commercial Code.' I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights
under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the
Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party.' If the judge
insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: -Let me see if I understand, Your Honor:
Has this court made a legal determination that the sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is
the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?' Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the
court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, - yes,' then you say: - I put this court on notice
that I am appealing your legal determination.' Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge
knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.

    PRACTICAL APPLICATION--TRAFFIC COURT (Note: We have been given a better procedure than this that
takes us out of jurisdiction entirely -- very simply -- no muss, no fuss.  It is called the "Name/Claim" procedure.)

    Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us look at a court situation such as a traffic violation.
Assume you ran through a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic ticket.

    1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant and
cooperative with the officer. Explain to him that you are very busy and ask if he could please set your court appearance
for about three weeks away. (At this point we need to remember the government's trick: - I'm from the government, I'm
here to help you.' Now we want to use this approach with them.)

    2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and say, - I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because
I want to save the government some money (this will gets his attention). I am undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As
you know, in an appeal, I have to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't have a court reporter. It would be a
waste of taxpayer's money to run me through this court and then to have to give me a trial de novo in a court of record. I
do need a transcript for appealing, and to save the government some money, maybe you could schedule me to appear in
a court of record.' You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually agree that there is plenty of time to
schedule your trial for a court of record. Now your first appearance is in a court of record and not in a traffic court,
where there is no record. When you get into court there will be a court reporter there who records every word the judge
speaks, so the judge is much more careful in a court of record. You will be in a much better situation there than in a
traffic court. If there is no record, the judge can say whatever he wants--he can call you all sorts of names and tell you
that you have no rights, and so on--and deny it all later.

    3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges: driving through a yellow light, or whatever, and this is a
violation of ordinance XYZ. He will ask, -Do you understand the charge against you?'

    4. -Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask before I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it
could be answered if I could put the officer on the stand for a moment and ask him a few short questions.' Judge: -I
don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and have him take the stand.'

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

    6. In this case, the Judge found a convenient way out--he could say that the officer was not observant enough to be a
reliable witness. He did not want to admit the real nature of the jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the record that
you had written 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 on your license, the judge knew that he would have to admit that:

    a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;

    b. you had done it sufficiently by writing 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 on your driver's license;

    c. the statute would now have to be read in harmony with the Common Law, and the Common Law says the statute
exists, but there is no injured party; and

    d. since there is no injured party or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.

    7. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case, then you will want to ask him the following question:
Your Honor, let me understand this correctly: has this court made a legal determination that it has authority under the
jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which have been called to
its attention? If he says yes, tell him that you put the court on notice that you will appeal that legal determination, and that
if you are damaged by his actions, you will sue him in a common law action--under the jurisdiction of the UCC. This will
work just as well with the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, we can use the UCC with the IRS before we get to court.

    USING THE CODE WITH THE IRS

    If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called a presentment' in the Uniform Commercial Code. A -
presentment' in the UCC is very similar to the Common Law. First we must understand just how this works in the
Common Law. Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book--someone I have never met. And I send him a bill or
invoice on nice letterhead which says, -For services rendered: $10,000.00.' I send this by Certified Mail to him at the
address taken from the phone book. The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so I get a receipt that he received
it. When he opens it, he finds an invoice for $10,000 and the following statement: -If you have any questions concerning
this bill or the services rendered, you have thirty days to make your questions or objections known.' Of course, he has
never heard of me, so he just throws the bill away and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of thirty days, I go
to court and get a default judgment against him. He received a bill for $10,000, was given thirty days to respond. He
failed to object to it or ask any questions about it. Now he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect the
$10,000. That's Common Law. The UCC works on the same principle. The minute you get a Notice of Deficiency from
the IRS, you return it immediately with a letter that says: The presentment above is dishonored. your name has reserved
all of his/her rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1-207. This should be all that is necessary, as there is
nothing more that they can do. In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona who received a Notice of Deficiency. The
man sent a letter such as this, dishonoring the 'presentment.' The IRS wrote back that they could not make a
determination at that office, but were turning it over to the Collections Department. A letter was attached from the
Collections Department which said they were sorry for the inconvenience they had caused him and that the Notice of
Deficiency had been withdrawn. So you can see that if it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved.

    IMPENDING BANKRUPTCY

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

    FEMA

    FEMA, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been designed for when America is officially declared
bankrupt, which would be a national emergency. In a national emergency, all Constitutional Rights and all law that
previously existed, would be suspended. FEMA has created large concentration camps where they would put anyone
who might cause trouble for the orderly plan and process of the new regime to take over the nation. Even a governor
could be thrown into one of these internment camps, and kept there indefinitely. This is all in place now, and they are just
waiting to declare a national emergency. Then even state governments could be dissolved. Anybody who might oppose
the new regime could be imprisoned until a new set of laws could be written and a new government set up. The
Governor knows all this, and he is very concerned. He doesn't want to be in office when all this happens. I visited with
him and I told him that there are certain action we should take right now. I think we should consider the fact that,
according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Wyoming is an accommodation party to the national debt. To under-stand
this we must realize that there are two separate entities known as the United States.

    THE ROTHSCHILD INFLUENCE

    When America was founded, the Rothschilds were very unhappy because it was founded on the Common Law. The
Common Law is based on substance, and this substance is mentioned in the Constitution as gold or silver. America is a
Constitutional Republic--that is: a union of the States under the Constitution. When Congress was working for the
Republic, the only thing it could borrow was gold or silver, and the Rothschild banks did not loan gold or silver.
Naturally, they did not like this new government. The Rothschilds had a deal with the King of England. He would
borrow paper and agree to repay in gold. But these united States, with their Constitution, were an obstacle to them, and
it was much to the Rothschild's advantage to get the colonies back under the King. So the Rothschilds financed the War
of 1812 to bring America back under England. Of course, that didn't work, so they had to find another way.

    THE FLAW IN THE CONSTITUTION: TWO NATIONS IN ONE

    It was around the time of the American Civil War that they discovered a flaw in the Constitution. The flaw was Article
I, Section 8, Clause 17. Remember that there are two nations called -United States.' What is a nation? See if you would
agree to this definition: Whenever you have a governing body, having a prescribed territory containing a body of people.
Is that a nation? Yes. We have a governing body in the Republic--the three branch government. There are the legislative,
the executive and the judicial branches, with a constitution. There is a prescribed territory containing a body of people.
This is a Constitutional Republic. But, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 gave Congress, which is the legislative branch of
the three branch government, exclusive rule over a given territory known as the District of Columbia, containing a body
of people. Here we have a nation within a nation. This is a legislative democracy within a Constitutional Republic. When
Congress was a part of the Constitutional Republic, it had the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its
duty was to coin gold or silver. Anyone who had a piece of gold or silver could bring it in and have it freely minted into
coin. This was the medium of exchange for the Republic. But, in the Legislative Democracy (over Washington D. C.),
Congress is not limited by the Constitution. Congress has exclusive rule over the District of Columbia. The legislators can
make the law by a majority vote--that makes it a democracy; they have the authority to have administrative agents to
enforce their own law; and they have courts in the legislative branch of government, to try their own law. Here we have
the legislature making the law, enforcing the law and trying the law, all within the one branch of government. This is a one
branch government within a three branch government. Under the three branch government, the congress passes law
which has to be in harmony with the Constitution, the executive enforces the law passed by the congress, and the
judiciary tries the law, pursuant to the Constitution.

    THE THREE BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the ONE BRANCH LEGISLATIVE
DEMOCRACY are both called THE UNITED STATES. One is the federal United States, and the other is the
continental united States.

    ARE YOU A UNITED STATES CITIZEN?

    If you say that you are a United States citizen, which United States are you referring to? Anyone who lives in the
District of Columbia is a United States citizen. The remaining population in the fifty states is the national citizenry of the
nation. We are domiciled in various sovereign states, protected by the constitutions of those states from any direct rule of
Congress over us. In the democracy, anyone who lives in those states known as Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico,
or any of the other federally held territories is a citizen of the United States [D.C.]. We must be careful with our choice
of words--we are not citizens of the United States. We are not subject to Congress. Congress has exclusive rule over a
given territory, and we are not part of that territory. Where did Congress get the authority to write the Internal Revenue
Code? It is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. To pass that law, they only needed a majority
vote. There is no other way that they could pass laws directly affecting individuals. Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code,
was passed as law for another nation (remember our definition of 'nation'), but Title 26 is not consistent with the Bill of
Rights. If you try to fight the IRS, you have no rights--the Code does not give you any of your constitutional rights. It
simply says, -You failed to file an income tax form--you failed to perform in some specific manner.' Remember, under
the Common Law, you are free to do whatever you want as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty or property
of anyone else. If you do not want to perform, you don't have to. The only way you can be compelled to perform under
the Constitution in the continental united States, is if you have entered a contract. But if you are not under a contract you
can not be compelled to perform. How can you be compelled to file an income tax form, or any form? When Congress
works for the Republic, every law it passes must be in harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but when
Congress works for the Legislative Democracy, any law it passes becomes the law of the land (remember, Congress has
exclusive legislative control over federal territory). If you are charged with Willful failure to file an income tax 1040 form,
that is a law for a different nation. You are a non-resident alien to that nation. It is a foreign corporation to you. It is not
the Republic of the continental united States coming after you, it is a foreign nation--a legislative democracy of a foreign
nation coming after you. If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a presentment from the federal United
States, and then you can use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention that you are among the national citizenry
of continental united States, and you are a non-resident alien to the federal United States. You never lived in a federal
territory and never had any income from the federal United States. Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay
taxes under the compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve Notes, because you have reserved your rights under the
Common Law through the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-207.

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

    FEDERAL REGIONS

    The supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule what Congress creates. Congress did not create the States,
but Congress did create federal regions. So Congress can rule the federal regions, but Congress can not rule the States.
How have we been tricked into federal regions?

    THE ZIP CODE TRICK

    Remember how the government always comes to us and says, -I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'
The government went out into the various states and said, -We don't want you to have to go to all that trouble of writing
three or four letters to abbreviate the name of the state--such as Ariz. for Arizona. Just write AZ, instead of Ariz. Or you
can just write WY for Wyoming instead of Wyo.' So all of the states of the union have got a new two-letter
abbreviation. Even a state such as Rhode Island has a new abbreviation. It is RI, instead of R.I. They have just left off
the periods. When you use a two-letter state abbreviation, you are compelled to use a zip code, because there are so
many states, for example, which start with M. ME is Maine--MI is Michigan. How many people dot every 'i', or make
an 'i' that looks like an 'e'? With MA, MO, MN, MS, etc., and some sloppy writing, and you could not tell one from
another. So, we have to use the zip code in order to tell them apart. But if you wrote Mich., or Minn., or Miss., there
would be no real problem telling which state it was. There is no harm in using the zip code, if you lawfully identify your
state. I found out that no state legislature has met to lawfully change the abbreviation of the state from the old
abbreviation to the new. Therefore, if you do not use the lawful abbreviation for your state, but use the shorter new
abbreviation, you have to use the zip code. Look on page 11 of the Zip Code Directory, and it will tell you that the first
digit of your zip code is the federal region in which you reside. If you use AZ for Arizona, you cannot use the state
constitution to protect you because you did not identify your state. You used the zip code, which identifies which federal
region you live in. And Congress may rule directly federal regions, but it cannot rule the citizens of any state.

    ACCOMMODATION PARTY

    Let's look at how the states have become the accommodation party to the national debt. There are many people I
have talked to, including the Governor, who are very concerned about this, and who know that it could happen very
soon. If America is declared a bankrupt nation , it will be a national emergency. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency will take over, and anyone who opposes the new government of the creditors can be sent to a detention camp in
Alaska. We will have no rights whatsoever. They have already set up prison camps with work camps nearby so the
people can be used for slave labor. It could be the governors, legislators, and other leaders who would be hauled away
to Alaska, while the people now disenfranchised from power would likely be chosen to run the new government. This
could all happen very soon, as the national debt is so large as to be unpayable. Even the interest on the debt is virtually
unpayable. As I explained, the national debt--more than three trillion dollars--is not owed by the Continental united
States. It is the federal United States that had authority to borrow bank credit. When Congress worked for Continental
united States, it could only borrow gold or silver, so the national debt was borrowed in the name of the federal United
States. The federal United states has been bankrupt since 1938, but the federal United States had to trap the States into
assuming the debt obligation of the federal debt. In the Uniform Commercial Code, we find the term, 'accommodation
party.' How did the states become the 'accommodation party' to the federal debt? The federal government, through our
money system, made the states deal in Federal Reserve Notes, which means that everything the states do is 'colorable.'
Under the 'colorable' jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code, all of the states are the accommodation party to the
federal debt. Now the concern is to find out how we can get out of this situation. I told the Governor that in the
Common Law and the Law of Merchants--that's the International Law Merchant--there is a term called no-interest
contract. A no-interest contract is void and unenforceable. What is a no-interest contract?

    NO-INTEREST CONTRACT

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

    UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS

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

    QUESTIONS AND REVIEW

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

    COURTROOM TECHNIQUES

    Question: How did you -box in' the Judge?

    Answer: This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't know too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a
little dumb. If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember that in a criminal action, you have to understand the
law or it is a reversible error for the court to try you. If you don't understand the law, they can't try you. In any traffic
case or tax case you are called into court and the judge reads the law and then asks, -Do you understand the charges?'
Defendant: No, Your Honor, I do not. Judge: Well, what's so difficult about that charge? Either you drove the wrong
way on a one-way street or you didn't. You can only go one way on that street, and if you go the other way it's a fifty
dollar fine. What's so difficult about this that you don't understand? Defendant: Well, Your Honor, it's not the letter of the
law, but rather the nature of the law that I don't understand. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution gives me the right
to request the court to explain the nature of any action against me, and upon my request, the court has the duty to
answer. I have a question about the nature of this action. Judge: Well, what is that--what do you want to know? Always
ask them some easy questions first, as this establishes that they are answering. You ask: Defendant: Well, Your Honor,
is this a Civil or a Criminal Action? Judge: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action there could be no fine, so it has to be
criminal) Defendant: Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will show that this action against (your
name) is a criminal action, is that right? Judge: Yes. Defendant: I would like to ask another question about this criminal
action. There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: one is under the Common Law, and the other
deals with International Maritime Contracts, under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is Civil, and you said this is a
Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me,
Your Honor, is that there is no corpus delecti here that gives this court a jurisdiction over my person and property under
the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't appear to me that this court is moving under the Common Law. Judge: No, I
can assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law. Defendant: Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you
make the charge against me even more difficult to understand. The only other criminal jurisdiction would apply only if
there was an International Maritime Contract involved, I was a party to it, it had been breached, and the court was
operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction. I don't believe I have ever been under any International Maritime contract, so I
would deny that one exists. I would have to demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be placed into evidence, so that
I may contest it. But surely, this court is not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. You just put the words in the
judges mouth. Judge: No, I can assure you, we're not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. We're not out in the
ocean somewhere--we're right here in the middle of the State of __(any state)___. No, this is not an Admiralty
Jurisdiction. Defendant: Thank you Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than ever. If this charge is not under the
Common Law, or under Admiralty--and those are the only two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution--
what kind of jurisdiction could this court be operating under? Judge: It's Statutory Jurisdiction. Defendant: Oh, thank
you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I have never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend under
that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me where I might find
those rules? There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so the judge will get very angry at this point and say: Judge: If
you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a licensed attorney--I'm not allowed to practice law from the
bench. Defendant: Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of practicing law from the bench if you just
answer a few questions to explain to me nature of this action, so that I may defend myself. Judge: I told you before, I am
not going to answer any more questions. Do you understand that? If you ask any more questions in regards to this, I'm
going to find you in contempt of court! Now if you can't afford a licensed attorney, the court will provide you with one.
But if you want those questions answered, you must get yourself a licensed attorney. Defendant: Thank you, Your
Honor, but let me just see if I got this straight. Has this court made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct a
criminal action against me, the accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are known only to this court and
licensed attorneys, thereby denying me the right to defend in my own person? He has no answer for that. The judge will
probably postpone the case and eventually just let it go. In this way, you can be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as
a dove, but you mustn't go into court with a chip on you shoulder and as a wolf in -black sheep' country. Remember
Jesus' words, -I send you out as sheep in wolf country, be wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove.' Sheep do not
attack wolves directly. Just be an innocent little lamb who just can't understand the charge, and remember--they can't try
you criminally if you don't understand the charge. That would be automatically a reversible error on appeal.

    THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM

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

    ASSURANCE

    Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you have the right in any agreement, to demand a guarantee of performance.
So, don't go to them and say, -I want to rescind my Social Security number,' or -I refuse to take it.' Just take it easy and
say, -I would be happy to get a Social Security number and enter into this contract, but I have a little problem. How can
I have assurance before I enter into this contract that the purchasing power of the Federal Reserve Notes I get back at
the end of the contract will be as good as the ones that I pay in at the beginning. They can't guarantee that, and you have
a right under the UCC to assurance of performance under the contract. So tell them, Well, I can not enter this contract
unless the government will guarantee to pay me at the end of the contract with the same value Federal Reserve Notes
that I'm paying in. Both may be called Federal Reserve Notes, but you know that these Federal Reserve Notes don't
hold their value. I want assurance on this contract that the Federal Reserve Notes that I get in my retirement will buy as
much as the ones that I'm giving you now in my working years.' They can't make that guarantee. If they won't give you
that guarantee, just say, -I'd be glad to sign this, but if you can't guarantee performance under the contract, I'm afraid I
can not enter the contract. Now, did you refuse or did they refuse? You can get the sections of the Uniform Commercial
Code which grant the right to have assurance that the contract you have entered will be fulfilled properly--that the return
will equal the investment, and you can reject the contract using the Code. Using their own system of law, you can show
that they cannot make you get into a contract of that nature. Just approach them innocently like a lamb. It is very
important to be gentle and humble in all dealings with the government or the courts--never raise your voice or show
anger. In the courtroom, always be polite, and build the judge up--call him 'Your Honor.' Give him all the 'honor' he
wants. It does no good to be difficult, but rather to be cooperative and ask questions in a way that leads the judge to say
the things which you need to have in the record.

    THE COURT REPORTER

    In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He gets his job at the judges pleasure, so he doesn't want to
displease the judge. The court reporter is sworn to give an accurate transcript of every word that is spoken in the
courtroom. But if the judge makes a slip of the tongue, he turns to his court reporter and says, -I think you had better
leave that out of the transcript; just say it got a little too far ahead of you, and you couldn't quite get everything in.' So this
will be missing from the transcript. In one case, we brought a licensed court reporter with us and the judge got very
angry and said, -This court has a licensed court reporter right here, and the record of this court is this court reporter's
record. No other court reporter's record means anything in this court.' We responded with, -Of course, Your Honor,
we're certainly glad to use your regular court reporter. But you know, Your Honor, sometimes things move so fast that a
court reporter gets a little behind, and doesn't quite keep up with it all. Wouldn't it be nice if we had another licensed
court reporter in the courtroom, just in case your court reporter got a little behind, so that we could fill in from this other
court reporter's data. I'm sure, Your Honor, that you want an accurate transcript. (I like to use the saying; give a bad
dog a good name, and he'll live up to it!) The judge went along with it, and from that moment on, he was very careful of
what he said. These are little tricks to getting around in court. This is how to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove
when we enter into a courtroom. There are others using the same information presented here who end up in jail,
handcuffed and hit over the head, because they approach the situation with a chip on their shoulder. They try to tell the
judge what the law is and that he is a no-good scoundrel and so on. Just be wise and harmless.

    UCC 1-207 REVIEW

    It is so important to know and understand the meaning of Without prejudice' UCC 1-207, in connection with you
signature, that we should go over this once more. It is very likely that a judge will ask you what it means. So please learn
and understand this carefully: The use of -'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207,' in connection with my signature indicates that
I have reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled
benefit of any un-revealed contract or commercial agreement. Once you state that, it is all the judge needs to hear.
Under the Common Law, a contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, by both parties, or it
can be declared void and unenforceable. You are claiming the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract
that you did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And you do not accept the liability associated with the
compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or agreement. The compelled benefit is the privilege to use Federal
Reserve Notes to discharge your debts with limited liability rather than to pay your debts with silver coins. It is a
compelled benefit, because there are no silver coins in circulation. You have to eat, and you can only buy food with the
medium of exchange provided by the government. You are not allowed to print your own money, so you are compelled
to use theirs. This is the compelled benefit of an unrevealed commercial agreement. If you have not made a valid, timely
and explicit reservation of your rights under UCC 1-207, and you simply exercise this benefit rendered by government,
you will be obligated, under an implied agreement, to obey every statute, ordinance and regulation passed by
government, at all levels--federal, state and local.

    IN CONCLUSION

    The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in putting this to paper in a effort to make it readable and
somewhat compact. He wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard Freeman for the opportunity to work with information
so absolutely vital to our survival as dignified, unenslaved human beings. He must also ask Mr. Freeman's forgiveness for
any errors committed in getting this in print. Its purpose, as stated in the Foreword, is to make this knowledge and
wisdom available to as many people as will take the time and trouble to read it. This is meant to be supplemental to Mr.
Freeman's recorded lectures, not a substitute. Indeed, there is no substitute for hearing him present this material in his
own words. It is not just the law and the facts that are important here, but the way they are used. His numerous
reminders of Jesus' commission to be -...like sheep among wolves...' cannot be overstated, and is certainly good advice
to us in all dealings--not just in court or with the government. Hearing him explain this in his own words brings to life the
practical application and usefulness of being -wise' and -harmless.' In fact, after being introduced to this approach, it
becomes difficult to imagine that any other way of defending oneself from the government would be effective. It goes
without saying that none of this information presented here is in any way, shape or form offered as legal advice. For that,
as you know, you must -get yourself a licensed attorney.' Having said that, I feel obliged to point out that one of the most
difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney--even a good one--may be knowing just whose side he is on (he is,
after all, an officer of the court)! So for those of us who have concluded that having an attorney means that you will soon
be chained, gagged and lead to the gallows, this information may be in-dispensable. For the extraordinary challenges of
appearing in court in one's own person--pro per--there are few reliable sources of information. Learning to defend
ourselves, that is, being responsible instead of turning over one more area of our lives to -professionals'--may be the only
way to have any chance of digging ourselves out of this pit of legal tyranny. Perhaps the greatest problem we face in
education today is the matter of widespread legal illiteracy. Naturally, there will always be a number of people who just
don't care about these issues who either:

    (1), have a soft life which is supported and maintained by this secret system of law and the institutions which have
grown up around it ('I can make a bundle buying these IRS-seized homes cheap and reselling them'), or

    (2), don't believe that anything can be done about it ('you can't fight city hall'), or

    (3), simply don't have the energy or inclination to do anything about it ('that's nice, but let's see what's on TV').

    For those good 'citizens' this whole effort may seem useless, or even threatening. But it is this writer's view that God
did not intend for us to spend our lives in statutory slavery for the benefit of a handful of secret world manipulators, even
if the 'masters' grant us some token pleasures and diversions. Human dignity requires much more than entertainment. The
door is there and the key exists; we must find it and we must use it to return to freedom! Let us discover the mistakes we
have made, let us find the truth, let us apply it with meekness and wisdom and let us gently but firmly reclaim the precious
freedom which we have so foolishly given up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 This page is a revised version of   http://www.liferepatterning.com/UCC-TreasuryDischarge.htm.
 
Discharge of public debts of Citizens of the American Republic by the US Treasury:
This apparently is a fantasy, albeit supported by real facts, presented by Guy Kirkwood and others.

Preface

        It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I
believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
        — Henry Ford

There is nothing superficial about the reasons presented by Guy Kirkwood (and by many people online) to explain why
the U.S. Treasury is willing and legally obligated to discharge the public debt of American citizens.  See
http://www.liferepatterning.com/US_secretly_secured_as_collateral_by_foreign_bankers.htm  However, after almost
100 of us in a small Midwest US town explored this teaching with great sincerity for months, our current conclusion it
that this idea is without facts to back up the assertion that the Treasury issues electronic credits to discharge debts.
 
Discharge of debts by the Treasury is certainly not publicly acknowledged.  In fact, as you will see, the government goes
out of its way to give the impression that this obligation by the Treasury is merely a fantasy promoted by the deluded, a
conclusion that seems now to have real merit.  However, if it is a fact that the Treasury does NOT issue electronic
credits (equivalent to cash for purposes of discharge only) this disappointing reality does NOT by any means negate the
substantial reasons offered by Kirkwood and others to suggest that there is a solid historical reason why the Treasury
SHOULD do this.

The central reality presented by Kirkwood and others revolves around the question: Are you a debtor or a creditor
within the legal setup of the UNITED STATES?

One fact stands out as preeminent.  Everyone in this country who has not taken appropriate legal steps to change their
standing within the system from the legal identity of DEBTOR, is a DEBTOR in the eyes of the current legal setup.  The
idea that the US Treasury discharges debts of citizens of the American Republic is founded on the idea that one can
change one's standing within the system from that of a DEBTOR who owes the debt created by the fraudulent
borrowings of the United States Corporation, to a CREDITOR who is owed that debt (by virtue of the unlawfulness of,
and lack of consideration for the debt's creation).

It is also a fact that we have blindly allowed those intent upon undermining the Republic founded by our Founding
Fathers to transform the United States into a democracy, thereby creating a situation that is ripe for manipulation via
control of "public opinion," which turns out to be amazingly easy to control.

A sensitively written discussion of this situation is titled "WHY THE UCC FILING?" See
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/ucc-print.htm.  This piece accepts the notion that the Treasury discharges debt via
electronic credits, a position we have explored without result.

A quote from the above article:

    "The 14th Amendment provided for a new class of citizens – United States citizens, that had not formerly been
recognized. Until the 14th Amendment in 1868, there were no persons born or naturalized in the United States. They
had all been born or naturalized in one of the several states. United States citizenship was a result of state citizenship.
After the Civil War, a new class was recognized, and was the beginning of the democracy sited in the District of
Columbia. The American people in the republic sited in the several states, could choose to benefit as one of these new
United States citizens BY CHOICE. The new class of citizens was given the right to vote in the democracy in 1870 by
the 15th Amendment. All it required was an application. Benefits came with this new citizenship, but with the benefits,
came duties and responsibilities that were totally regulated by the legislature for the District of Columbia. Edward
Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American
people. (1) The 13th Amendment in 1865 opened the way for the people to volunteer into slavery to accept the benefits
offered by the United States.

    "Whether House actually spoke the words or not , is really irrelevant because the scenario detailed in the statement
attributed to him has clearly been implemented. Central banking for the United States was legislated with the Federal
Reserve Act in 1913.  The ability to decrease the currency in circulation through taxation was legislated with the 16th
Amendment in 1913. Support for the presumption that the American people had volunteered to participate in the United
States democracy was legislated with the 17th Amendment in 1913."

A 14th Amendment citizen is obligated on a huge debt that he/she had no part in creating, and from which he/she does
not benefit.  See http://www.taxtruthnews.com/textonly/08_27_02/08_27_02e.htm (alternate link:
http://www.liferepatterning.com/Letter_Of_Sovereign_State_Citizenship.htm)

A very interesting videotape has been created to educate Americans about the true nature of the law regarding the
Income Tax.  This tape does NOT rely on any theory of what the law ought to say or the validity of the law, it focuses
on what the Internal Revenue Code actually says.  This is a factual education on what the law enforced by the IRS says,
not a manual on how to address the IRS on this issue.  See http://www.theft-by-deception.com/outline.html (alternate
link: http://www.liferepatterning.com/Theft_By_Deception.htm)

How can one become a CREDITOR who is (theoretically at least) OWED the debt?  Let us consider an analogy.  If
you discovered that your family had been fraudulently induced to borrow a huge fortune (to make an investment let's
say) that was promptly squandered by this inducer (because the investment was known by the inducer to be worthless),
and that your family's wealth had thereby been stolen, you would have a cause of action against the defrauding party.
You, as a representative of your family, would be owed the wealth that had been thus stolen.  It is not different if you
expand your conception of "family" to embrace the nation.  Our nation's wealth HAS been stolen by fraudulently induced
borrowing of a corporation that did not represent the interests of We the People when this corporation colluded with
bankers to create this corporation's incomprehensibly huge $6.8 trillion "national debt".  This debt has continued to
increase an average of $1.59 billion per day since September 30, 2002!  See Congressman McFadden's Speech On the
Federal Reserve Corporation --
http://www.liferepatterning.com/Congressman_McFadden's_Speech_On_the_Federal_Reserve_Corporation.html.

For an interesting collection of links and extended discussion materials related to the History of Money, see
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/index-links.html, http://www.xat.org/xat/index.html, http://www.xat.org/,
http://www.xat.org/xat/history1.html, http://www.xat.org/xat/history2.html, http://www.xat.org/xat/history3.html, and
http://users.netmatters.co.uk/startingout/xat/history2.html.

For a modern response to our government having departed from its original purpose, see http://www.startup-
enterprises.com/doi2003.html -- The unanimous Declaration of Independence of the People of the fifty united States of
America.
________________________________________________________________________________
 

Introduction: From here this document prints as about 26-29 pages.  In this next brief introduction, we undertake this
challenge: to help you revise your paradigm/model-of-reality of this country, and of the legal aspects of the world you
live in -- within a brief Introduction extending from here to End of Introduction.
Discharge of public debts of Citizens of the American Republic by the US Treasury:
apparently a fantasy supported by real facts, presented by Guy Kirkwood and others

This is a quick historical review of facts behind the proposition that the Treasury discharges debts.

Hold on to your hat.  A bit of history severely compressed:
The Revolutionary War was about money.  Specifically, it was about the requirement, imposed by the Crown upon the
Colonies, to extract substance money from the Colonies, that taxes be paid in gold.  We lost that war.  The military
aspect was a fight to a standoff.  British troops stepped onto their ships, undefeated, carrying their weapons.  From
thenceforth British bankers took up the fight, in alliance with the international banking community.

The efforts of the international bankers have resulted in three National Banks in this country; the first two Banks had their
charters revoked after a 20 year trial period each, the latest goes under the incongruous name, The Federal Reserve.
The Fed is no more Federal than Federal Express, and until recently it had no reserves.

http://www.rense.com/ufo2/fedrez.htm, http://www.rense.com/politics6/fedres.htm,
http://www.rense.com/politics5/cashtax_p.htm, and http://www.rense.com/politics4/jflandfed.htm <-- Executive Order
11110.

For a more thorough treatment of John F. Kennedy's June 4, 1963 Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN
FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, which was his attempt to give the
government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to
create the new money, see http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm,
www.LifeRepatterning.com/Kennedy_executive_order11110.htm or contact your Congressional representative to get a
copy directly from them.

 
Andrew Jackson -- Why is he on Federal Reserve $20 Notes?  Jackson was the Foremost Presidential OPPONENT
of imposition of a Central Bank in the United States.  President Andrew Jackson stated in reference to the bankers in a
speech on the state of his administration: "You are a den of vipers and thieves.  I intend to rout you out, and by the
Eternal God, I will rout you out."  Is the Fed thumbing its nose ("Gotcha!") at Andrew Jackson and the American public
by putting Andrew Jackson's portrait on the most frequently used large bill?

The US national debt, divided by the population, comes to a little more than $23,000.  To see how fast the National
Debt is growing minute by minute repeatedly refresh the page linked here --> --> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/.
$23,000 is a figure that is far in excess of the average net worth of the first 40% of all Americans.  For all Americans
average net worth was found by a Federal Reserve report excerpt on recent trends of wealth and ownership of
American Families from 1980 through 1998 to be $79,000.  Thus the collateral interest of bankers and other holders of
US obligations, considering just the national debt, is a little more than 1/3 of all private wealth in this country.  This is not
an accident.  This is the intentional design of international bankers who put the Federal Reserve in place in 1913.  See
article on Ownership of the Federal Reserve at http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml.  For a
contradictory article see http://www.usagold.com/FederalReserve.html.  20 years after the creation of the Fed, at the
height of a Fed-induced Depression (See http://www.perfecteconomy.com/principal---federal-reserve-system.html),
President Roosevelt declared bankruptcy, arguably on March 9, 1933 when he closed the banks.  This bankruptcy was
codified at 12 U.S.C. 95a http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/95.html

Shortly after the country was arguably bankrupted by closing the banks, the Gold Clause was abrogated by HJR 192,
June 5, 1933  http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/HJR192.htm, and it was declared that debts payable in dollars were
henceforth to be discharged (note the absence of any indication of Satisfaction) dollar for dollar by any currency in use in
the US; the Constitutional commitment of the United States to back its currency in gold was thenceforth abrogated.  This
means that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Corporation can now print money at will to pay for anything and
everything it needs because absence of gold backing removes all limits on the issuance of currency.  This permits
systematic price inflation and currency value erosion -- theft by titration.

Under existing irrational arrangements between the U.S. Treasury and the Fed, currency of all kinds issued or permitted
by the Treasury to circulate (known technically as M1, M2 & M3) needs to be borrowed at interest from our private
national bank (the Fed).  It is claimed that profits from this collection of interest are largely paid back to the Treasury
after a considerable time delay (during which time the money is available for who knows what).  There has NEVER
been any audit-style accounting to the American people of the financial aspects of the Fed.  Therefore despite protests
by defenders of the Fed to the effect that the Fed returns most of the interest paid by the Treasury, back to the Treasury,
these assertions are unsupported by evidence of the total picture of the Fed's finances.  If the interest actually is largely
returned, why is it collected?  This question is never addressed by defenders of the Fed.
 
The taxing power of the fraudulent U.S. corporation is used to extract substance from the American people to pay
interest on a "floating debt" that has been designed to be completely unrepayable because the legal currency to repay the
debt must be borrowed.  Analogy: You can not pay off your credit card using cash advances from the card.  The
success of this scheme to drown the UNITED STATES corporation in debt is seen in the fact that a huge percentage,
reportedly now as much as 100% of all tax revenues of this corporation now go to pay the INTEREST (only) on the
National Debt.

The image below is a Fraudulent image:

The above image created by the Congressional Budget Office, on the web at
http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/365001.gif, is a flat lie, so far as I can tell, in that it shows Income Taxes, Social Security
Taxes and Other Taxes and Receipts split between Social Security Benefits, Medicare and Other Entitlements,
Discretionary Spending and Interest on Debt.  In fact, according to President Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm and calculating the escalation in the national debt since that time, it is clear
that 100% of taxes go to pay the Interest on the National Debt.  The funds to pay Social Security Benefits, Medicare
and Other Entitlements and Discretionary Spending MUST ALL BE BORROWED!

Every penny to invade Iraq and everything else the government does is borrowed money!

I believe without proof that it is false that taxes go to the Treasury at all.  The reason for this belief is that I believe the
IRS is a Trust located in Puerto Rico, an agency of the Federal Reserve, not the Treasury.  When you look at the top of
any tax form it says Department of the Treasury---Internal Revenue Service.  My information is that this is Department
of the Treasury of the IRS in Puerto Rico, not the US Treasury in Washington, DC!  If all taxes go to pay interest on the
debt, why would they go from the IRS Department of the Treasury in Puerto Rico, through the U.S. Treasury, and on to
the Federal Reserve to pay the interest owed to the Fed.  This is a minor point, but it indicates the level of deception that
appears to pervade everything to do with the finances of the UNITED STATES corporation.

President Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission reported in 1984 that every penny spent to run the government, for
example to run the National Parks, invade Iraq etc., is borrowed printing press money.
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm  The Grace Commission report was was dated January 12, 1984.  Today
with the huge increase of debt incurred recently by the US corporation, it is certain that funds used to pay Social
Security and other entitlement transfer payments are now borrowed as well.  We the People were conned through
stealth and cunning to believe that WE are obligated by the borrowings of this fraudulent U.S. Corporation!

HJR 192 enacted June 5, 1933 includes a provision that "... payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or
in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy" and "Every
obligation ... shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any ... coin or currency [including fiat currency
having no substance or value] which at the time is legal tender for public and private debts."  

"Every obligation ... shall be discharged ..."   What does this mean?  It means that the debt remains and the obligation to
tender currency is discharged.  The debt remains perpetual until PAID (in gold or something of real value).
 
As a result of HJR 192, and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one in this nation has been able to lawfully pay a
debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do is tender in transfer of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The
suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts removed the substance on which our common law
previously operated, and created a void as far as the law is concerned.  Gold based substance was replaced with a
"PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM" wherein debt, including Federal Reserve NOTES that are nothing but "I
Owe You" debt instruments, is/are "LEGAL TENDER".  This means that in a very important sense there is no money.
When Congress passed the law in 1933 making Federal Reserve Notes "legal tender," they thereby transferred the
power to coin and issue our nation's money from Congress to the Federal Reserve

We have been under martial law since the "national emergency" declared by President Lincoln. Under martial law, title is
a mere fiction, since all property belongs to the military except for that property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in
his benevolence, exempt from taxation and seizure and upon which he allows the "enemy" to reside.

HJR 192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution, the treasury offered the
public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause.  HJR 192 states that one cannot
demand a certain form of currency that one wants to receive if the obligation is to be discharged dollar for dollar.

In case the point was not made clear before, the UNITED STATES corporation referred to above is what runs this
country.  This is the Federal UNITED STATES.  It was created by Act of a Congress that could only have been bought
and paid for when they created it in conjunction with the The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 that created a
private corporation owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of
the government under martial law (Click on "martial law" link for a very illuminating historical outline).   All states in the
Union were apparently reformed as franchisees or political subdivisions of the corporation known as the UNITED
STATES, hence creating a new union of American STATES.  UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, 3002(15)(A),
basically reiterates that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.  What was not said in 1871, but was implicit, was what
is plainly stated at Title 28, 3002(15)(B) & (C): That all departments of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION are
part of the corporation.

The other united States is the Continental united States.  This is the country founded by the Declaration of Independence
and by the Constitution for the United States.

Where did the Congress find authority in the Constitution to reconstitute any part of the united States as a corporation?
To outward appearances this was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten
mile square of Washington, District of Columbia.  Arguably, the 1791 Constitution was set aside to make room for the
corporation.  Did this Act benefit the Republic?  No.  Corporate, private bottom line is profit. The municipal, public
bottom line is service. To replace our service-oriented form of government with a profit-oriented government without our
knowledge or consent can only be described as treason.

Through registration of our Birth Certificates at the Department of Commerce as registrable securities (today State and
Local offices simply transmit the data) and through taxation under the rubric of Income Tax and FICA for Social
Security and Medicare, all Americans have been, and all "income" in the United States has been involuntarily pledged for
repayment of the debt of the fraudulent UNITED STATES corporation.  Under the rubric of Estate Taxes all property
has been similarly pledged -- all without consideration flowing to We the People because the taxes do not go to run the
country.  See the Grace Commission report: http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm.  Regarding Income Tax see
http://www.theft-by-deception.com/outline.html.

End of Introduction

As a result of HJR 192, it is against Congressional and public policy for you to "pay" your debts!  You can only
discharge them!  Removal of Americans' ability to pay their obligations places all Americans technically in a situation
analogous to the negotiable instruments law concept of "Dishonor".   See § 3-502.(a)(1) DISHONOR.  (Also see
http://www.liferepatterning.com/DISHONOR_of_a_negotiable_instrument.htm.)  Being in dishonor with respect to an
obligation to pay for something you purchase, because you do not pay for it with substance currency, means that you do
not lawfully own it, even after your purchase obligation has been discharged by tender of fiat currency, because you gave
nothing of value.

This imposed condition of dishonor gives rise to the theoretical obligation, supposedly accepted by the Treasurer of the
United States as Trustee in bankruptcy for the US corporation (according to the teaching of Guy Kirkwood and others,
an obligation said to be accepted as well by the Governor of every State as the State's Trustee in Bankruptcy for the
same US corporation) to compensate Americans for this theft of their lawful money and of their ability to PAY debts
(and thereby lawfully own anything).  The obligation said to be accepted by the Treasurer is to discharge Americans'
unpayable public debts through issuance of bookkeeping credits, even though these credits represent nothing of
substance.  These credits are said, however, to discharge the debt under the "PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT
SYSTEM".

As a result of my investigations, I now believe the US Treasury does NOT HONOR this obligation in practice, except
possibly for "insiders".  The idea promoted by Guy Kirkwood and others, that the US Treasury HONORS this
obligation for anyone who obtains a Personal Treasury UCC Contract Trust Account, set up to discharge personal
debts owed to public entities, appears at this point to be a well documented and plausible illusion.  Who can theoretically
apply?  -- Anyone with a SSN#.  The idea promoted by Guy Kirkwood and others is that one must gain standing to
apply by legally distinguishing oneself from the status of "US Person," "individual," and other terms that designate a
"person" obligated to pay interest on the US National Debt (by paying taxes).  Mr. Kirkwood teaches how to legally
establish this requisite standing to apply for the Account as well as how to apply for the account itself.  Successfully
apply?  We are still waiting for the FIRST piece of evidence that this is real for anyone other than "insiders," and we
have NOT discovered how to be treated as an "insider".
 
As with any understanding that exposes the deception gluing together the status quo, there is plenty of disinformation
around.  The Arizona Republic published a general article on this subject on Oct. 26 titled "Mortgage-nullifying plans are
scams".  http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1027action27.html. In this article it references a letter
circulated to banks by the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  This letter is Alert 2003-7  -
www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/alert/2003-7.txt  Also see Alert 2003-12 - www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/alert/2003-12.txt.
 
Relevant text from this letter includes:
 
"... worthless items entitled Bill of Exchange, Due Bill, and Redemption Certificate are being presented for payment at
banks and other businesses.  Regardless of how these documents are titled or whether they appear authentic, they are
not payable through the U.S. Treasury or the Comptroller of the Currency, and they have no financial value or legal
validity."   [Note the tautology -- "worthless items" have no financial value.]  It is curious that this tautological structure,
that essentially says NOTHING, is used if the Comptroller of the Currency has something substantive to say here.
 
The letter goes on:
 
"The creation and presentment of these documents may be a violation of section 18 USC 514, Fictitious Obligations,
and the person(s) using such fictitious instruments may be subject to criminal prosecution.  If one of these documents is
presented to your institution for payment, do not return it.  Retain the document and file a Suspicious Activity Report
(SAR).  Deliver the original fictitious instrument and a copy of the SAR to the local office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.  Please also provide the OCC with a copy of the documents and the SAR." [emphasis added]

    [Note an important use of language here:  A "person" is a DEBTOR, which means that a person is, by definition, one
who is {fraudulently} obligated by the US corporation's "National Debt" and therefore NOT eligible for a special
Treasury account.  This OCC letter is truthful in saying that "person(s) using such fictitious instruments may be subject to
criminal prosecution".  A person, by definition {in their unique use of the word person} does not have standing to apply
for a special Treasury account and therefore could not possibly have one.  This obscure use of language is central to the
scheme of control employed by those in charge to attempt to befuddle anyone who ventures into this field.  They "lie" by
telling the truth in a language you do not understand.

    The Comptroller of the Currency is perfectly willing to issue this vague and threatening letter that fails to clearly define
what constitutes a "worthless item" and forgets to mention that the unique use of the word "person" noted above, in fact,
defines any such item used by a "person" as worthless because a "person" lacks the requisite legal standing to use the
item.

    Telephone discussion with a representative of the OCC resulted in a parole definition as follows:

         "There are no Treasury accounts upon which such items could be drawn and therefore every such item that claims
to be drawable against such a Treasury account is worthless."

    When asked if he would change his opinion on this subject if presented with documentary evidence showing that the
Treasury does in fact issue electronic credits in discharge of some of these items, he simply got angry and redoubled his
insistence that there are no such accounts.  When asked if he would put this in a writing, notarized and sworn under
penalty of perjury, he naturally declined to do so.  It is my opinion that he was either misinformed or lying.  He certainly
was not attempting to bring clarity to the discussion.

    The above referenced OCC letter can accurately be seen as an attempt to intimidate through vague references to its
subject matter, an apparent threat of prosecution and urging the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) by a the
receiving institution.  Of course, if a Bank officer reads this letter and does not realize what is being done with the
obscure use of the word person and files a wrongful SAR on someone who has a valid special account at the Treasury,
the OCC has plausible deniability in that their attorneys can truthfully assert that no person can possibly have a valid
special Treasury account.

    Never mind that we have found no evidence that the Treasury issues electronic credits to non-insiders who have such
accounts, it is still possible that a Bill of Exchange (BoE) or other instrument issued by a non-insider may be honored by
the Treasury if that BoE is stolen by an insider (a corporation or pseudo government agency) and presented to the
Treasury for credit.  This would explain why so many people find that their BoE's seem to be stolen by corporations
who are supposed to be the payee, and then not acknowledged or returned.

    There is another interesting angle to this OCC letter.  Neither the OCC nor the FBI are actually agencies, even of the
fraudulent UNITED STATES corporation.  Our understanding is that they are BOTH agencies of the International
Monetary Fund.  Therefore, when the OCC letter suggests that a receiving institution "Deliver the original fictitious
instrument and a copy of the SAR to the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," this can be interpreted as
giving the FBI an opportunity to sell or submit the supposedly "fictitious instrument" to the Treasury for credit to the FBI
(i.e. steal it).  It is now common knowledge that our CIA imports drugs into this country.  During the Vietnam era they
stuffed the body cavities of dead G.I.'s with drugs from southeast Asia and got the drugs into this country inside body
bags.  Unfortunately, despite the sometimes valid role played by the FBI in its investigative role, the FBI is simply being
accommodated by the OCC in this letter and handed a golden opportunity to steal.

    Also, although it would be ideal if bank officers had no motivation to "game the system," they are actually offered a
bounty for turning in these supposedly "fictitious instruments."   Therefore, if the Treasury honors these instruments at all,
it is necessary in dealing with everyone involved in a transaction involving a Bill of Exchange payable through the
Treasury, to utilize procedures that guard against fraudulent behavior on the part of anyone and everyone in the chain of
custody.  Two witnesses to the mailing of the instrument to the Treasury via Registered Mail, with notarized affidavits
(testifying to the witnessed signing and mailing of the documents) is NOT overkill and such procedures should definitely
be followed if one believes that the Treasury will respond to the instrument.  These procedures are simply prudent
preparation for Notarial Protest, it that procedure is needed later.

Looking at the language of the OCC letter more closely, the first quoted paragraph above is a tautology and therefore
says nothing.
 
Instruments that legitimately fall in the category of "worthless items" obviously by definition "have no financial value or
legal validity".  It is worth pointing out that the letter specifically does NOT state that "items entitled Bill of Exchange,
Due Bill, and Redemption Certificate" are worthless.  This would be an absurd proposition.  Every bank check is a
special form of Bill of Exchange known as a demand Bill of Exchange or draft.  Bills of Exchange are used in
international transactions every day.  The entire paragraph is rendered meaningless by presupposing that the subject of
the paragraph is "worthless items".  Obviously "worthless items" are worthless and "not payable through the U.S.
Treasury" and by definition "have no financial value or legal validity".  The OCC avoids stating a lie by not saying
anything at all.
 
The UNITED STATES corporation finds itself having to fend off people who are waking up to the facts described
herein.  It therefore needs to behave like the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and friends entered his chamber and the dog
Toto pulled back the curtain revealing a little man frantically pulling levers to create a grand illusion.  This is how I view
the above referenced letter from the Comptroller of the Currency, notwithstanding our discovery that the Treasury seems
not to respond to attempts by ordinary people to access a UCC Contract Trust Account via instruments like a Bill of
Exchange.

Notwithstanding its bluster and serious threat, the OCC letter is essentially a piece of fluff because it says almost nothing.
It does not indicate that a receiving bank that ignores its suggestions is doing anything wrong.  It does suggest that a
receiving bank exercise unguided judgment and, on its own, undertake to interfere in the commerce of potentially
innocent parties who present what may be valid banking instruments.  Aside from this, it does not say anything.  A
receiving bank that follows this gratuitous suggestion by the OCC is given no immunity from prosecution for interfering
with the commerce of parties so interfered with.  They are simply urged to send potentially valuable banking instruments
to the FBI and to tortiously (acting in such a way as to give rise to an action in Tort) "file a Suspicious Activity Report
(SAR)".

The people at the Office of the Comptroller decline to either offer or accept proof as to the facts and they decline to
back up their assertions when asked to do so.
 
Suffice it to say, we comprise a considerable community of people who have pursued the possibility of debt discharge
through the Treasury.  We have sought documentary or even verbal evidence of discharge of public debt for Citizens of
the American Republic, attempting to establish that this is an ongoing activity of the US Treasury.  So far, we have failed
to uncover a single confirmed instance of this.  One member of our community thought he had successfully discharged
over $250,000 of IRS, Iowa State tax and Student Loan debt over the past five years, and he has a letter from the
relevant Iowa State tax officials that he thought constituted  evidence that his Iowa State Tax obligation had been
discharged.  This proved to be a misunderstanding of the content of the letter.

This subject has now taken on the appearance of a castle in the air.  If you send an email to the
Webmaster@LifeRepatterning.com identifying yourself and your interest, I will be happy to keep you posted regarding
our findings.

If you review the article Modern Money Mechanics (http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/modernMoney.htm), once issued
by the Federal Reserve but no longer available from them, you will discover that all currency is your credit!   What does
"your credit" mean in this context?  If you can borrow money at a bank, you can be said to have credit at that bank.  If
you are a DEBTOR within the system, all US currency is created by a borrowing on your behalf from the Fed by the
corporation.  The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt."
In the 1990s the federal government created $2.8 trillion of new debt;
more than created in the nation's entire history prior to 1990.

Fiscal Year 2000 ended with the highest dollar debt
in U.S. history - despite more claims of a 'surplus'
and,  Fiscal Year 2001 debt was higher than that
and, 2002 debt was $420 billion higher than 2001
and, 2003 debt was $555 billion higher than 2002.

In the 4 years 1997-2001, before 9-11, total federal debt increased $438 billion,
a period when politicians bragged about a $557 billion surplus.
That's a $1 Trillion creditability gap.
(Some might suggest Enron and others learned reporting gimmickry from government practices)
 
Nearly another $1 trillion additional debt was added in 2002-2003

If one owes more money on a house than the house is worth, this is called having negative equity.  America's Total Debt
in addition to federal government debt, includes debt of state & local government, foreign debt, and private sector debt
of households, business and the financial sector.  All these sum up to $34 Trillion, or $119,000 per man, woman and
child.  If the Federal Reserve's figure of $79,000 average American net worth is accurate, by my reckoning, without
being able to cite a formal study or authority, this figure of $119,000 of total debt per US  person would seem to put all
US persons, including the richest, collectively "under water" in a negative equity situation, because the $79,000 figure
does not count federal government debt, debt of state & local government, foreign debt, or business and the financial
sector debt, but ONLY considers private sector debt of households.  If those of us who have not distinguished ourselves
from the status of "person" obligated by the US ""national debt" are collectively "under water" this means that everything
you see when you look out the window or even if you gaze at your own hand is equitably owned as collateral by
bankers somewhere.

This situation has been manipulated into existence in many ways, starting with the completely bizarre arrangement in
which our US Treasury asks permission and borrows from the Federal Reserve all currency in circulation (M1, M2 &
M3) that the Treasury could simply issue under its own Constitutional authority, and US taxpayers pay interest on all this
debt to whoever owns the Federal Reserve.  The claim that the Fed's profits are largely paid back to the Treasury
remains unproved and implausible because:

    1) There is no publicly available internal accounting at the Fed.

    2) The origin of the Fed was clandestine for a reason.  Any innocent explanation of the Fed that does not account for
this extreme secrecy is de facto a deception.  (For background on the Fed's origin listen to this INTERVIEW with G.
Edward Griffin, Author The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at The Federal Reserve.)

    3) The Fed's role is extractor of substance from the American people by soaking up tax monies for payment of
interest on the "National Debt" (See http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm).

The extremely intelligent international bankers behind this banking "coup de grace" have arranged to get the United
States into "negative equity" territory financially.  We generally do not own anything in this country for TWO reasons: 1)
We are indebted more than the value of our corresponding equity (namely EVERYTHING in this country, and 2) We
have no money of substance with which to lawfully pay for anything.  See "Bankers-Manifesto-of1892"
http://www.eliminatecreditcarddebt.cc/manifesto.pdf.  This is why those who manipulated "the system" into its present
configuration are sneaky about everything connected with it.

Let us take an example.  Perhaps you infer that the name on the tax statement is yours and so you respond as though it
were. This is voluntary servitude. To make this servitude legal it was necessary to “cut a hole in the fence.”  No matter
that the escape route is hidden, obscured by legal brambles to make escape difficult. That it is not used presumes
consent.  It may not be impossible, just seemingly difficult and even implausible.  On the other hand, whereas we were
under the impression that we had discovered this "hole in the fence," in the form of procedures taught by Guy Kirkwood
to do a UCC 1 filing on our STRAW MAN corporate identifier (name in ALL CAPS), and to apply via specific
procedures for a Treasury UCC Contract Trust Account, we currently have NO evidence that these procedures can
result in discharge of debt.

The international bankers created the current situation in which there is NO MONEY of substance in this country with
which any American can PAY debts.  That was a thieving act.  The very best we can now do, short of acquiring gold or
other valuable commodities and paying with substance, is to DISCHARGE our electric bill, our dental bill, our mortgage,
bank loans, etc..  This means that the debt remains, and the obligation to PAY is merely postponed.  The story told by
Guy Kirkwood is that to create a compensation within Natural Law for this very real theft on a scale that sounds like
science fiction, they left a back door, originally intended, however, to be used exclusively by insiders because they did
not tell anyone.  So far as we have been able to discover, if this back door exists, it may be available for use by insiders,
but we have not discovered a way to use it ourselves.

According to the best information available to me, the Secretary of the Treasury, despite his alleged role as Trustee in
Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES corporation, DOES NOT stand ready, willing and able to discharge the public
debt (defined as debt owed to public entities, such as our electric bill, our dental bill, our mortgage, bank loans, etc.) of
any American citizen who properly applies.  This privilege is reserved for insiders, if it is available to anyone, so far as
we have been able to determine.

The story told by Guy Kirkwood is that you are excluded if you are identified as a U.S. Person, an "individual," a
"person," you as YOUR NAME in ALL CAPS, or other sneaky obscure designations of you as DEBTOR with respect
to the borrowings of the US corporation.)
Examples of designations of YOU
that exclude you from having standing
to apply successfully to the Treasury
for an account to discharge your debts,
unless you legally distinguish your identity from these designations,
[from http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm]
 
"Prisoner of war" name
Fictitious " nom de guerre " name
for a non-living entity:
also referred to as the "STRAWMAN"
and/or "Transmitting Utility"

JOHN DOE
Note: all caps

John C. Doe
Note: middle initial
(No name at all--A fiction)

First Name: JOHN
Middle Initial: C.
Last Name: DOE

A fictional persona
being surety for the debt
as a fiction in commerce

Look at the name on your Drivers Licenses, Social Security cards, Credit Cards, Deeds, Bank Accounts, etc.

The first step in qualifying for a special Treasury account, that the IRS supposedly will set up if the requisite conditions
are met, is to distinguish oneself from the status of "U.S. Person," "individual," "person" and similar terms that denote one
who has been fraudulently identified as obligated to pay interest on the debt of the UNITED STATES corporation --
generally the status of DEBTOR.  Next time you open a bank account, look at what you are asked to sign after your
have signed into all the other contracts of adhesion implicit in the signature card.  You are then asked to affirm with your
signature that you are a "US Person".  You see, they trick you into volunteering to be obligated on the US national debt.
I always cross out the words "US Person" and write instead "American citizen".  

The requisite status needed to qualify for a special Treasury account for discharge of debt is said by Guy Kirkwood and
others to be to change one's standing within the system to CREDITOR -- one who is owed the fraudulently arranged
debt as distinct from one who owes it.

This shift of legal status and standing is said to be accomplished by filing a standard UCC 1 financing statement on the
legal fictional identity imposed upon Americans by issuance of a Social Security card, and if they were born in this
country, by the registration with the Department of Commerce of their Notification of Live Birth.  This fictional
"STRAWMAN" or "STRAW MAN" identity is a corporate identity because it was supplied by a corporation, and a
corporation can supply no higher identity than it itself has.  Our fictional corporate identity is OUR LEGAL NAME in
ALL CAPS.   

In the procedure advocated by Guy Kirkwood and others, this STRAW MAN is identified in the UCC 1 Financing
Statement as DEBTOR and everything this DEBTOR does own or could ever hope to own is claimed as collateral by
You (the natural human) as the Secured Party.  Our natural human name at birth is identified in the UCC 1 Financing
Statement as Secured Party (birth name in Upper/lower case).  This is a formal public filing under the Law Merchant,
now known as the Uniform Commercial Code and is potentially effective as a prior-in-time/prior-in-right claim, as
against all subsequent and therefore inferior claims on the STRAW MAN DEBTOR.  Asserting this claim, however,
may be tricky in our thoroughly corrupt court system.

Secured Party status has broad implications.  For example it theoretically exempts one from jurisdiction of Courts of
Commerce, such as all courts sitting in Admiralty Jurisdiction, including virtually all courts in the United States today. This
is because a Court of Commerce can "SEE" corporate fictions only.  When natural human beings come to a Court of
Commerce they must be tricked into submitting to its jurisdiction by identifying themselves as the "PERSON" named as
DEFENDANT or PLAINTIFF.  For example, one is asked, "Is your name 'JOHN DOE'?"  This sounds the same as
"John Doe" but is legally very different.  If one declines to so identify oneself, and without argument accepts every charge
presented in such a court upon proof of whatever claim is asserted, the court, having jurisdiction ONLY over Cases and
Controversies will have no choice but to dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction.  (No appropriate party, no
controversy and no claim upon which relief can be granted.)  See http://www.geocities.com/jtrooper_2000/COURT.htm
or www.LifeRepatterning.com/COURT_SURVIVAL_GUIDE.htm.



 

For those interested in exploring further the reason why and how it is taught (likely in error) that the U.S. Treasury is
willing and legally obligated to discharge the public debts of Citizens of the American Republic, See the items linked and
copied below.

1) Linked: A history of the secret financial dealings within this country and between this country and international bankers
since Revolutionary War times: (about 31 pages printed)
http://www.liferepatterning.com/US_secretly_secured_as_collateral_by_foreign_bankers.htm

2) Linked: A point-by-point comparison between the elements of the world as we are led to understand it, and the
world as it actually is: (about 25 pages printed)
http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

3) Linked: See a list of questions relating to the Federal Reserve about 1/4 down the page at
http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionFed.htm

    This is a marvelous introduction to important distinctions in banking, such as that, whereas Federal Reserve Notes are
units of exchange, bank money (credit money) is units of account.  Absent a higher reserve requirement imposed by the
Fed, based on the quality of a bank's loan portfolio, a bank can expand deposit accounts to 9+ times exchange (that is,
lend nine times its reserves).  Thus if a customer borrows $100,000 and deposits that entire amount into the same bank,
and if all subsequent loan customers did the same and deposited their loan proceeds in the same lending bank, the bank
could loan out and additional $800,000.

    Another excerpt: The "discount rate," one of the "levers" manipulated by the Fed to control the money supply, is
simply the interest rate charged to banks by the Fed if banks borrow "reserves" (units of account).  Banks then lend out
these borrowed units of account reserves, nine to one.

    4) Linked: A detailed investigative report on some critical issues relating to Treasury Discharge of debt.  The
confirmation of debt discharge in this document is NOT supported by our experience. (8 page .pdf document --
InvestigativeReportOnUCC )

    5) Linked: The "bankster" mentality of bankers in 1892.   (1 page http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/bankers-
manifesto.html )

    6) Copied below -- a wide ranging introduction to the entire field of study related to debt discharge by the U.S.
Treasury: (about 19 pages printed)  The confirmation of debt discharge in the article copied below is NOT supported by
our experience, but otherwise it contains much useful information.

    http://www.thetruthseekers.com/money/article_496.shtml

    The UCC Connection
    by Howard Freeman
    Source: View Source

    "I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."

    This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman.
It was prepared to make available the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible and
understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and the courts. It should be helpful to those who
may have difficulty learning from such lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this information
without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded material.

    The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like
most fear, is based on lack of understanding or knowledge. Those of us who have chosen a path out of bondage and
into liberty are faced, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the mystifying
and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we must "get a good lawyer," but that is becoming
increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers
quickly take our money and then tell us as the ship is sinking, "I can't help you with that--I'm an officer of the court."
Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a 'snowball's chance' is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to
come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law.

    The lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the
subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English
words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp--
are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against
the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law.

    Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a lawyer, and as such, he has a way of explaining law to us that puts it well within
our reach. Consider also that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could
understand, specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted. So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that -
THE BUCK STOPS HERE!' It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the TRUTH.
It is we who must claim and defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take them from us. It
is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by-those who
live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents of others. To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation
of our plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it.

    Please take note that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his understanding, which he is always refining,
expanding, improving. It is, as all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to begin our own journey into
understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to others: greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of lives
lived in peace, freedom and praise.

    INTRODUCTION

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

    NEVER ARGUE THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY

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

    So I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't required to file. He said, "You are required to file, Mr. Freeman."
But I had all these supreme Court cases, and I started reading them to him. He said, "I don't know anything about law,
Mr. Freeman, but the Code says that you are required to file, and you're going to pay that amount or you're going to go
to tax court." I thought that someone there ought to know something about law, so I asked to talk to his superior. I went
to him and got out my Supreme Court Cases, and he wouldn't listen to them. "I don't know anything about law, Mr.
Freeman...." Finally I got to the Problems Resolution Officer, and he said the same thing. He said that the only person
above him was the District Director. So I went to see him. By the time I got to his office, they had phoned ahead, and
his secretary said he was out. But I heard someone in his office, and I knew he was in there. I went down the elevator,
around the corner to the Federal Building and into Senator Simpson's office. There was a girl sitting there at a desk, and
she asked if she could help me. I told her my problem. I said that I really thought the District Director was up there. I
asked her to call the IRS and tell them that it was Senator Simpson's office calling and to ask if the District Director was
in. I said, "If you get him on the phone, tell him that you are from the Senator's office and you have a person who you are
sending over to speak to him--if he is can he wait just five minutes." It worked. He was there, and I ran back up to his
office. His secretary met me when I came in and said, "Mr. Freeman, you're so lucky--the Director just arrived." The
Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies and we sat and talked. So he asked me what I wanted to talk
to him about. (If you ever have someone say to you, "I'm from the government and I'm here to do you a favor", watch
out!--but we can turn that around and approach them the same way.) So I said, "I thought you ought to know that there
are agents working for you who are writing letters over your name that you wouldn't agree with. Do you read all the mail
that goes out of this office over your signature?" The Director said, "Oh, I couldn't read everything--it goes out of here
by the bagful." That was what I thought. I said, "There are some of your agents writing letters which contradict the
decisions of the supreme Court of the United States. And they're not doing it over their name, they're doing it over your
name." He was very interested to hear about it and asked if I had any examples. I just happened to have some with me,
so I got them out and presented them to him. He thought it was very interesting and asked if I could leave this
information with him, which I did. He said he would look it over and contact me in three days. Three days later he called
me up and said, "I'm sure, Mr. Freeman, that you will be glad to know that your Notice of Deficiency has been
withdrawn. We've determined that you're not a person required to file. Your file is closed and you will hear no more
from us." I haven't heard another word from them since. That was in 1980, and I haven't filed since 1969.

    THE SUPREME COURT ON TRIAL

    I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got charged with Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me
to help him. I told him that they have to prove that he willfully failed to file, and I suggested that he should put me on the
witness stand. He should ask me if I spoke at a certain time and place in Scott's Bluff, and did I see him in the audience.
He should then ask me what I spoke of that day. When I got on the stand, I brought out all of the Supreme Court cases
I had used with the District Director. I thought I would be lucky to get a sentence or two out before the judge cut me off,
but I was reading whole paragraphs-- and the judge didn't stop me. I read one and then another, and so on. And finally
when I had read just about as much as I thought I should, the judge called a recess of the court. I told Bob I thought we
had it made. There was just no way that they could rule against him after all that testimony. So we relaxed. The
prosecution presented its case and he decided to rest his defense on my testimony, which showed that he was not
required to file, and that the Supreme Court had upheld this position. The prosecution then presented its closing
statements and we were just sure that he had won. But at the very end, the judge spoke to the jury and told them, "You
will decide the facts of this case and I will give you the law. The law required this man to file an Income Tax form; you
decide whether or not he filed it." What a shock! The jury convicted him. Later some members of the jury said, "What
could we do? The man had admitted that he had not filed the form, so we had to convict him". As soon as the trial was
over I went around to the 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 supreme Court. You sat on the
bench while I read that case law. Now how do you, a District Court Judge, have the authority to overturn decisions of
the Supreme Court?" He says, "Oh, those were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions. They have never
been overturned. I don't care how old they are; you have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United States
Supreme Court in a District Court."

    PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY

    He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were
prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the
Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge
that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply
to Public Policy." I asked him what happened in 1938. He said that he had already told me too much--he wasn't going
to tell me any more.

    1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad
v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the
Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a
boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable
Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to
sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue. This overturned a
standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the supreme
Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state where the
incident occurred--in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the supreme Court ruled that all federal cases
will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at
the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with Equity. This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces
together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There
were still some pieces of the puzzle missing.

    A FRIEND IN THE COURT

    Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't make friends with a judge if you go into court like a 'wolf in
black sheep country.' You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into court as a
wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what the law is--how he had better uphold the law or else. Remember the
verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. We have to go into court
and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked
a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn't want
to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get some papers. One of the judges
stopped and said, "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by, and if I'm not sitting on a
case we will visit.

    AMERICA IS BANKRUPT

    Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the supreme Court cases dealing with Public
Policy rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were
called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: America is a bankrupt nation--it is owned completely by its
creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state
governments. Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in a Admiralty
Jurisdiction--call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.

    ADMIRALTY COURTS

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

    NOT EXPEDIENT

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

    JURISDICTION

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

    Common Law

    Common Law is based on God's Law. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a
damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the
life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the
life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a
man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in most states, you will see a sign which
says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS--IT'S THE LAW.' This cannot be Common Law, because who would you
injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel
performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

    Equity Law

    Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you
are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled
to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action--not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction,
you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to
perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seat
belt laws Equity laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a
contract.

    Admiralty/Maritime Law

    This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of
the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the 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 be a valid international contract in force.
However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the
international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the supreme Court decided in the Erie
Railroad case--that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties
associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

    COURTS OF CONTRACT You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to
wear seat belts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand
that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the
life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where
contracts can be enforced--Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the
embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own courts. We will cover
this more later.

    CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

    Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties
or it is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is another characteristic--it
must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, "For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I
will paint your house, etc." That was a valid contract--the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a
contract that said, -For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house....' And suppose, for
example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could
not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable" dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction,
that contract would be unenforceable.

    COLORABLE MONEY/COLORABLE COURTS

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

    UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

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

    CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT

    One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must
be entered into: (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally. Under the UCC., this is not so. First of all, con-
tracts are un-necessary. Under this new law, -agreements' can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of a -
agreement,' it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept
a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that
benefit. The method has been to get everybody exercising a benefit, and they don't even have to tell the people what the
benefit is. Some people think it is the driver's license, the marriage license or the birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none
of these.

    COMPELLED BENEFIT

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

    REMEDY AND RECOURSE

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

    REMEDY

    The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the
loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-207.7) It is important to remember when
we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, "I DEMAND MY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in
contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule
here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government
came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government
and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME--I'M
NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged--not
under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under the UCC. 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say: When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes
a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9) You have to make your claim known early.
Further, it says: The Sufficiency of the Reservation--Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient,
such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4) Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes-
-in any way, shape or manner--under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207. This reserves your rights.
You can show, at 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights. It is very important to understand just what
this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant
by writing -without prejudice UCC 1-207' on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts
involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him
what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone.... The judge knew
that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means.

    WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207

    When you use -without prejudice' UCC 1-207 in connection with your signature, you are saying: - I reserve my right
not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily
and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
commercial agreement.' What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use
Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money, so you have to use
Federal Reserve Notes--you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your
debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your
rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute,
ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of government--federal, state and local. If you understand this,
you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You
will also need to understand UCC 1-103--the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law
library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson edition. Some of the law
libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down
with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.

    RECOURSE

    The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says: The Code is complimentary to the
Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony
with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law. This is the argument we
use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would
have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to
admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a
sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in
harmony with the Common Law. If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured
person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your 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 with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 1-103.6, which states: The Code
cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action. Tell the judge, - Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common
Law, for violating my right under the Uniform Commercial Code.' I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights
under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the
Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party.' If the judge
insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: -Let me see if I understand, Your Honor:
Has this court made a legal determination that the sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is
the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?' Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the
court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, - yes,' then you say: - I put this court on notice
that I am appealing your legal determination.' Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge
knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.

    PRACTICAL APPLICATION--TRAFFIC COURT (Note: We have been given a better procedure than this that
takes us out of jurisdiction entirely -- very simply -- no muss, no fuss.  It is called the "Name/Claim" procedure.)

    Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us look at a court situation such as a traffic violation.
Assume you ran through a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic ticket.

    1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant and
cooperative with the officer. Explain to him that you are very busy and ask if he could please set your court appearance
for about three weeks away. (At this point we need to remember the government's trick: - I'm from the government, I'm
here to help you.' Now we want to use this approach with them.)

    2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and say, - I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because
I want to save the government some money (this will gets his attention). I am undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As
you know, in an appeal, I have to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't have a court reporter. It would be a
waste of taxpayer's money to run me through this court and then to have to give me a trial de novo in a court of record. I
do need a transcript for appealing, and to save the government some money, maybe you could schedule me to appear in
a court of record.' You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually agree that there is plenty of time to
schedule your trial for a court of record. Now your first appearance is in a court of record and not in a traffic court,
where there is no record. When you get into court there will be a court reporter there who records every word the judge
speaks, so the judge is much more careful in a court of record. You will be in a much better situation there than in a
traffic court. If there is no record, the judge can say whatever he wants--he can call you all sorts of names and tell you
that you have no rights, and so on--and deny it all later.

    3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges: driving through a yellow light, or whatever, and this is a
violation of ordinance XYZ. He will ask, -Do you understand the charge against you?'

    4. -Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask before I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it
could be answered if I could put the officer on the stand for a moment and ask him a few short questions.' Judge: -I
don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and have him take the stand.'

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

    6. In this case, the Judge found a convenient way out--he could say that the officer was not observant enough to be a
reliable witness. He did not want to admit the real nature of the jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the record that
you had written 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 on your license, the judge knew that he would have to admit that:

    a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;

    b. you had done it sufficiently by writing 'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207 on your driver's license;

    c. the statute would now have to be read in harmony with the Common Law, and the Common Law says the statute
exists, but there is no injured party; and

    d. since there is no injured party or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.

    7. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case, then you will want to ask him the following question:
Your Honor, let me understand this correctly: has this court made a legal determination that it has authority under the
jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which have been called to
its attention? If he says yes, tell him that you put the court on notice that you will appeal that legal determination, and that
if you are damaged by his actions, you will sue him in a common law action--under the jurisdiction of the UCC. This will
work just as well with the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, we can use the UCC with the IRS before we get to court.

    USING THE CODE WITH THE IRS

    If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called a presentment' in the Uniform Commercial Code. A -
presentment' in the UCC is very similar to the Common Law. First we must understand just how this works in the
Common Law. Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book--someone I have never met. And I send him a bill or
invoice on nice letterhead which says, -For services rendered: $10,000.00.' I send this by Certified Mail to him at the
address taken from the phone book. The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so I get a receipt that he received
it. When he opens it, he finds an invoice for $10,000 and the following statement: -If you have any questions concerning
this bill or the services rendered, you have thirty days to make your questions or objections known.' Of course, he has
never heard of me, so he just throws the bill away and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of thirty days, I go
to court and get a default judgment against him. He received a bill for $10,000, was given thirty days to respond. He
failed to object to it or ask any questions about it. Now he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect the
$10,000. That's Common Law. The UCC works on the same principle. The minute you get a Notice of Deficiency from
the IRS, you return it immediately with a letter that says: The presentment above is dishonored. your name has reserved
all of his/her rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1-207. This should be all that is necessary, as there is
nothing more that they can do. In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona who received a Notice of Deficiency. The
man sent a letter such as this, dishonoring the 'presentment.' The IRS wrote back that they could not make a
determination at that office, but were turning it over to the Collections Department. A letter was attached from the
Collections Department which said they were sorry for the inconvenience they had caused him and that the Notice of
Deficiency had been withdrawn. So you can see that if it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved.

    IMPENDING BANKRUPTCY

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

    FEMA

    FEMA, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been designed for when America is officially declared
bankrupt, which would be a national emergency. In a national emergency, all Constitutional Rights and all law that
previously existed, would be suspended. FEMA has created large concentration camps where they would put anyone
who might cause trouble for the orderly plan and process of the new regime to take over the nation. Even a governor
could be thrown into one of these internment camps, and kept there indefinitely. This is all in place now, and they are just
waiting to declare a national emergency. Then even state governments could be dissolved. Anybody who might oppose
the new regime could be imprisoned until a new set of laws could be written and a new government set up. The
Governor knows all this, and he is very concerned. He doesn't want to be in office when all this happens. I visited with
him and I told him that there are certain action we should take right now. I think we should consider the fact that,
according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Wyoming is an accommodation party to the national debt. To under-stand
this we must realize that there are two separate entities known as the United States.

    THE ROTHSCHILD INFLUENCE

    When America was founded, the Rothschilds were very unhappy because it was founded on the Common Law. The
Common Law is based on substance, and this substance is mentioned in the Constitution as gold or silver. America is a
Constitutional Republic--that is: a union of the States under the Constitution. When Congress was working for the
Republic, the only thing it could borrow was gold or silver, and the Rothschild banks did not loan gold or silver.
Naturally, they did not like this new government. The Rothschilds had a deal with the King of England. He would
borrow paper and agree to repay in gold. But these united States, with their Constitution, were an obstacle to them, and
it was much to the Rothschild's advantage to get the colonies back under the King. So the Rothschilds financed the War
of 1812 to bring America back under England. Of course, that didn't work, so they had to find another way.

    THE FLAW IN THE CONSTITUTION: TWO NATIONS IN ONE

    It was around the time of the American Civil War that they discovered a flaw in the Constitution. The flaw was Article
I, Section 8, Clause 17. Remember that there are two nations called -United States.' What is a nation? See if you would
agree to this definition: Whenever you have a governing body, having a prescribed territory containing a body of people.
Is that a nation? Yes. We have a governing body in the Republic--the three branch government. There are the legislative,
the executive and the judicial branches, with a constitution. There is a prescribed territory containing a body of people.
This is a Constitutional Republic. But, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 gave Congress, which is the legislative branch of
the three branch government, exclusive rule over a given territory known as the District of Columbia, containing a body
of people. Here we have a nation within a nation. This is a legislative democracy within a Constitutional Republic. When
Congress was a part of the Constitutional Republic, it had the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its
duty was to coin gold or silver. Anyone who had a piece of gold or silver could bring it in and have it freely minted into
coin. This was the medium of exchange for the Republic. But, in the Legislative Democracy (over Washington D. C.),
Congress is not limited by the Constitution. Congress has exclusive rule over the District of Columbia. The legislators can
make the law by a majority vote--that makes it a democracy; they have the authority to have administrative agents to
enforce their own law; and they have courts in the legislative branch of government, to try their own law. Here we have
the legislature making the law, enforcing the law and trying the law, all within the one branch of government. This is a one
branch government within a three branch government. Under the three branch government, the congress passes law
which has to be in harmony with the Constitution, the executive enforces the law passed by the congress, and the
judiciary tries the law, pursuant to the Constitution.

    THE THREE BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the ONE BRANCH LEGISLATIVE
DEMOCRACY are both called THE UNITED STATES. One is the federal United States, and the other is the
continental united States.

    ARE YOU A UNITED STATES CITIZEN?

    If you say that you are a United States citizen, which United States are you referring to? Anyone who lives in the
District of Columbia is a United States citizen. The remaining population in the fifty states is the national citizenry of the
nation. We are domiciled in various sovereign states, protected by the constitutions of those states from any direct rule of
Congress over us. In the democracy, anyone who lives in those states known as Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico,
or any of the other federally held territories is a citizen of the United States [D.C.]. We must be careful with our choice
of words--we are not citizens of the United States. We are not subject to Congress. Congress has exclusive rule over a
given territory, and we are not part of that territory. Where did Congress get the authority to write the Internal Revenue
Code? It is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. To pass that law, they only needed a majority
vote. There is no other way that they could pass laws directly affecting individuals. Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code,
was passed as law for another nation (remember our definition of 'nation'), but Title 26 is not consistent with the Bill of
Rights. If you try to fight the IRS, you have no rights--the Code does not give you any of your constitutional rights. It
simply says, -You failed to file an income tax form--you failed to perform in some specific manner.' Remember, under
the Common Law, you are free to do whatever you want as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty or property
of anyone else. If you do not want to perform, you don't have to. The only way you can be compelled to perform under
the Constitution in the continental united States, is if you have entered a contract. But if you are not under a contract you
can not be compelled to perform. How can you be compelled to file an income tax form, or any form? When Congress
works for the Republic, every law it passes must be in harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but when
Congress works for the Legislative Democracy, any law it passes becomes the law of the land (remember, Congress has
exclusive legislative control over federal territory). If you are charged with Willful failure to file an income tax 1040 form,
that is a law for a different nation. You are a non-resident alien to that nation. It is a foreign corporation to you. It is not
the Republic of the continental united States coming after you, it is a foreign nation--a legislative democracy of a foreign
nation coming after you. If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a presentment from the federal United
States, and then you can use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can also mention that you are among the national citizenry
of continental united States, and you are a non-resident alien to the federal United States. You never lived in a federal
territory and never had any income from the federal United States. Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay
taxes under the compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve Notes, because you have reserved your rights under the
Common Law through the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-207.

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

    FEDERAL REGIONS

    The supreme Court has declared that Congress can rule what Congress creates. Congress did not create the States,
but Congress did create federal regions. So Congress can rule the federal regions, but Congress can not rule the States.
How have we been tricked into federal regions?

    THE ZIP CODE TRICK

    Remember how the government always comes to us and says, -I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'
The government went out into the various states and said, -We don't want you to have to go to all that trouble of writing
three or four letters to abbreviate the name of the state--such as Ariz. for Arizona. Just write AZ, instead of Ariz. Or you
can just write WY for Wyoming instead of Wyo.' So all of the states of the union have got a new two-letter
abbreviation. Even a state such as Rhode Island has a new abbreviation. It is RI, instead of R.I. They have just left off
the periods. When you use a two-letter state abbreviation, you are compelled to use a zip code, because there are so
many states, for example, which start with M. ME is Maine--MI is Michigan. How many people dot every 'i', or make
an 'i' that looks like an 'e'? With MA, MO, MN, MS, etc., and some sloppy writing, and you could not tell one from
another. So, we have to use the zip code in order to tell them apart. But if you wrote Mich., or Minn., or Miss., there
would be no real problem telling which state it was. There is no harm in using the zip code, if you lawfully identify your
state. I found out that no state legislature has met to lawfully change the abbreviation of the state from the old
abbreviation to the new. Therefore, if you do not use the lawful abbreviation for your state, but use the shorter new
abbreviation, you have to use the zip code. Look on page 11 of the Zip Code Directory, and it will tell you that the first
digit of your zip code is the federal region in which you reside. If you use AZ for Arizona, you cannot use the state
constitution to protect you because you did not identify your state. You used the zip code, which identifies which federal
region you live in. And Congress may rule directly federal regions, but it cannot rule the citizens of any state.

    ACCOMMODATION PARTY

    Let's look at how the states have become the accommodation party to the national debt. There are many people I
have talked to, including the Governor, who are very concerned about this, and who know that it could happen very
soon. If America is declared a bankrupt nation , it will be a national emergency. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency will take over, and anyone who opposes the new government of the creditors can be sent to a detention camp in
Alaska. We will have no rights whatsoever. They have already set up prison camps with work camps nearby so the
people can be used for slave labor. It could be the governors, legislators, and other leaders who would be hauled away
to Alaska, while the people now disenfranchised from power would likely be chosen to run the new government. This
could all happen very soon, as the national debt is so large as to be unpayable. Even the interest on the debt is virtually
unpayable. As I explained, the national debt--more than three trillion dollars--is not owed by the Continental united
States. It is the federal United States that had authority to borrow bank credit. When Congress worked for Continental
united States, it could only borrow gold or silver, so the national debt was borrowed in the name of the federal United
States. The federal United states has been bankrupt since 1938, but the federal United States had to trap the States into
assuming the debt obligation of the federal debt. In the Uniform Commercial Code, we find the term, 'accommodation
party.' How did the states become the 'accommodation party' to the federal debt? The federal government, through our
money system, made the states deal in Federal Reserve Notes, which means that everything the states do is 'colorable.'
Under the 'colorable' jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code, all of the states are the accommodation party to the
federal debt. Now the concern is to find out how we can get out of this situation. I told the Governor that in the
Common Law and the Law of Merchants--that's the International Law Merchant--there is a term called no-interest
contract. A no-interest contract is void and unenforceable. What is a no-interest contract?

    NO-INTEREST CONTRACT

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

    UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS

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

    QUESTIONS AND REVIEW

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

    COURTROOM TECHNIQUES

    Question: How did you -box in' the Judge?

    Answer: This is easy to do if you don't know too much. I didn't know too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a
little dumb. If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember that in a criminal action, you have to understand the
law or it is a reversible error for the court to try you. If you don't understand the law, they can't try you. In any traffic
case or tax case you are called into court and the judge reads the law and then asks, -Do you understand the charges?'
Defendant: No, Your Honor, I do not. Judge: Well, what's so difficult about that charge? Either you drove the wrong
way on a one-way street or you didn't. You can only go one way on that street, and if you go the other way it's a fifty
dollar fine. What's so difficult about this that you don't understand? Defendant: Well, Your Honor, it's not the letter of the
law, but rather the nature of the law that I don't understand. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution gives me the right
to request the court to explain the nature of any action against me, and upon my request, the court has the duty to
answer. I have a question about the nature of this action. Judge: Well, what is that--what do you want to know? Always
ask them some easy questions first, as this establishes that they are answering. You ask: Defendant: Well, Your Honor,
is this a Civil or a Criminal Action? Judge: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action there could be no fine, so it has to be
criminal) Defendant: Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will show that this action against (your
name) is a criminal action, is that right? Judge: Yes. Defendant: I would like to ask another question about this criminal
action. There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: one is under the Common Law, and the other
deals with International Maritime Contracts, under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is Civil, and you said this is a
Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me,
Your Honor, is that there is no corpus delecti here that gives this court a jurisdiction over my person and property under
the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't appear to me that this court is moving under the Common Law. Judge: No, I
can assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law. Defendant: Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you
make the charge against me even more difficult to understand. The only other criminal jurisdiction would apply only if
there was an International Maritime Contract involved, I was a party to it, it had been breached, and the court was
operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction. I don't believe I have ever been under any International Maritime contract, so I
would deny that one exists. I would have to demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be placed into evidence, so that
I may contest it. But surely, this court is not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. You just put the words in the
judges mouth. Judge: No, I can assure you, we're not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. We're not out in the
ocean somewhere--we're right here in the middle of the State of __(any state)___. No, this is not an Admiralty
Jurisdiction. Defendant: Thank you Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than ever. If this charge is not under the
Common Law, or under Admiralty--and those are the only two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution--
what kind of jurisdiction could this court be operating under? Judge: It's Statutory Jurisdiction. Defendant: Oh, thank
you, Your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I have never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend under
that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me where I might find
those rules? There are no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so the judge will get very angry at this point and say: Judge: If
you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a licensed attorney--I'm not allowed to practice law from the
bench. Defendant: Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of practicing law from the bench if you just
answer a few questions to explain to me nature of this action, so that I may defend myself. Judge: I told you before, I am
not going to answer any more questions. Do you understand that? If you ask any more questions in regards to this, I'm
going to find you in contempt of court! Now if you can't afford a licensed attorney, the court will provide you with one.
But if you want those questions answered, you must get yourself a licensed attorney. Defendant: Thank you, Your
Honor, but let me just see if I got this straight. Has this court made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct a
criminal action against me, the accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are known only to this court and
licensed attorneys, thereby denying me the right to defend in my own person? He has no answer for that. The judge will
probably postpone the case and eventually just let it go. In this way, you can be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as
a dove, but you mustn't go into court with a chip on you shoulder and as a wolf in -black sheep' country. Remember
Jesus' words, -I send you out as sheep in wolf country, be wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove.' Sheep do not
attack wolves directly. Just be an innocent little lamb who just can't understand the charge, and remember--they can't try
you criminally if you don't understand the charge. That would be automatically a reversible error on appeal.

    THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM

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

    ASSURANCE

    Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you have the right in any agreement, to demand a guarantee of performance.
So, don't go to them and say, -I want to rescind my Social Security number,' or -I refuse to take it.' Just take it easy and
say, -I would be happy to get a Social Security number and enter into this contract, but I have a little problem. How can
I have assurance before I enter into this contract that the purchasing power of the Federal Reserve Notes I get back at
the end of the contract will be as good as the ones that I pay in at the beginning. They can't guarantee that, and you have
a right under the UCC to assurance of performance under the contract. So tell them, Well, I can not enter this contract
unless the government will guarantee to pay me at the end of the contract with the same value Federal Reserve Notes
that I'm paying in. Both may be called Federal Reserve Notes, but you know that these Federal Reserve Notes don't
hold their value. I want assurance on this contract that the Federal Reserve Notes that I get in my retirement will buy as
much as the ones that I'm giving you now in my working years.' They can't make that guarantee. If they won't give you
that guarantee, just say, -I'd be glad to sign this, but if you can't guarantee performance under the contract, I'm afraid I
can not enter the contract. Now, did you refuse or did they refuse? You can get the sections of the Uniform Commercial
Code which grant the right to have assurance that the contract you have entered will be fulfilled properly--that the return
will equal the investment, and you can reject the contract using the Code. Using their own system of law, you can show
that they cannot make you get into a contract of that nature. Just approach them innocently like a lamb. It is very
important to be gentle and humble in all dealings with the government or the courts--never raise your voice or show
anger. In the courtroom, always be polite, and build the judge up--call him 'Your Honor.' Give him all the 'honor' he
wants. It does no good to be difficult, but rather to be cooperative and ask questions in a way that leads the judge to say
the things which you need to have in the record.

    THE COURT REPORTER

    In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He gets his job at the judges pleasure, so he doesn't want to
displease the judge. The court reporter is sworn to give an accurate transcript of every word that is spoken in the
courtroom. But if the judge makes a slip of the tongue, he turns to his court reporter and says, -I think you had better
leave that out of the transcript; just say it got a little too far ahead of you, and you couldn't quite get everything in.' So this
will be missing from the transcript. In one case, we brought a licensed court reporter with us and the judge got very
angry and said, -This court has a licensed court reporter right here, and the record of this court is this court reporter's
record. No other court reporter's record means anything in this court.' We responded with, -Of course, Your Honor,
we're certainly glad to use your regular court reporter. But you know, Your Honor, sometimes things move so fast that a
court reporter gets a little behind, and doesn't quite keep up with it all. Wouldn't it be nice if we had another licensed
court reporter in the courtroom, just in case your court reporter got a little behind, so that we could fill in from this other
court reporter's data. I'm sure, Your Honor, that you want an accurate transcript. (I like to use the saying; give a bad
dog a good name, and he'll live up to it!) The judge went along with it, and from that moment on, he was very careful of
what he said. These are little tricks to getting around in court. This is how to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove
when we enter into a courtroom. There are others using the same information presented here who end up in jail,
handcuffed and hit over the head, because they approach the situation with a chip on their shoulder. They try to tell the
judge what the law is and that he is a no-good scoundrel and so on. Just be wise and harmless.

    UCC 1-207 REVIEW

    It is so important to know and understand the meaning of Without prejudice' UCC 1-207, in connection with you
signature, that we should go over this once more. It is very likely that a judge will ask you what it means. So please learn
and understand this carefully: The use of -'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207,' in connection with my signature indicates that
I have reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled
benefit of any un-revealed contract or commercial agreement. Once you state that, it is all the judge needs to hear.
Under the Common Law, a contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, by both parties, or it
can be declared void and unenforceable. You are claiming the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract
that you did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And you do not accept the liability associated with the
compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or agreement. The compelled benefit is the privilege to use Federal
Reserve Notes to discharge your debts with limited liability rather than to pay your debts with silver coins. It is a
compelled benefit, because there are no silver coins in circulation. You have to eat, and you can only buy food with the
medium of exchange provided by the government. You are not allowed to print your own money, so you are compelled
to use theirs. This is the compelled benefit of an unrevealed commercial agreement. If you have not made a valid, timely
and explicit reservation of your rights under UCC 1-207, and you simply exercise this benefit rendered by government,
you will be obligated, under an implied agreement, to obey every statute, ordinance and regulation passed by
government, at all levels--federal, state and local.

    IN CONCLUSION

    The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in putting this to paper in a effort to make it readable and
somewhat compact. He wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard Freeman for the opportunity to work with information
so absolutely vital to our survival as dignified, unenslaved human beings. He must also ask Mr. Freeman's forgiveness for
any errors committed in getting this in print. Its purpose, as stated in the Foreword, is to make this knowledge and
wisdom available to as many people as will take the time and trouble to read it. This is meant to be supplemental to Mr.
Freeman's recorded lectures, not a substitute. Indeed, there is no substitute for hearing him present this material in his
own words. It is not just the law and the facts that are important here, but the way they are used. His numerous
reminders of Jesus' commission to be -...like sheep among wolves...' cannot be overstated, and is certainly good advice
to us in all dealings--not just in court or with the government. Hearing him explain this in his own words brings to life the
practical application and usefulness of being -wise' and -harmless.' In fact, after being introduced to this approach, it
becomes difficult to imagine that any other way of defending oneself from the government would be effective. It goes
without saying that none of this information presented here is in any way, shape or form offered as legal advice. For that,
as you know, you must -get yourself a licensed attorney.' Having said that, I feel obliged to point out that one of the most
difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney--even a good one--may be knowing just whose side he is on (he is,
after all, an officer of the court)! So for those of us who have concluded that having an attorney means that you will soon
be chained, gagged and lead to the gallows, this information may be in-dispensable. For the extraordinary challenges of
appearing in court in one's own person--pro per--there are few reliable sources of information. Learning to defend
ourselves, that is, being responsible instead of turning over one more area of our lives to -professionals'--may be the only
way to have any chance of digging ourselves out of this pit of legal tyranny. Perhaps the greatest problem we face in
education today is the matter of widespread legal illiteracy. Naturally, there will always be a number of people who just
don't care about these issues who either:

    (1), have a soft life which is supported and maintained by this secret system of law and the institutions which have
grown up around it ('I can make a bundle buying these IRS-seized homes cheap and reselling them'), or

    (2), don't believe that anything can be done about it ('you can't fight city hall'), or

    (3), simply don't have the energy or inclination to do anything about it ('that's nice, but let's see what's on TV').

    For those good 'citizens' this whole effort may seem useless, or even threatening. But it is this writer's view that God
did not intend for us to spend our lives in statutory slavery for the benefit of a handful of secret world manipulators, even
if the 'masters' grant us some token pleasures and diversions. Human dignity requires much more than entertainment. The
door is there and the key exists; we must find it and we must use it to return to freedom! Let us discover the mistakes we
have made, let us find the truth, let us apply it with meekness and wisdom and let us gently but firmly reclaim the precious
freedom which we have so foolishly given up.