TUCoPS :: Privacy :: ucc.txt

How to stop paying all income taxes

                              THE UCC CONNECTION

                       Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny


   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 lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this
information without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded

     The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system is
frightening; and, like most fear, is based on lack 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 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 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 "Snowballs 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 you 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 to us that
puts it well within our reach.  Consider also that the framers of the
Constitution wrote language simple enough that 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 where to begin our 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.

                              THE UCC CONNECTION

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


     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 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 some $80,000.  But even if I had been paying
taxes, I never had that much money, so how could I have owed them that much?


     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 or 80,000 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 minute you say "I don't owe that much"
you have given them jurisdiction.  Just don't be shocked at the amount on the
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 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 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, got out my Supreme Court cases, and
he wouldn't listen to them.  "I don't know anything about Mr. Freeman."
Finally I got to the Problem 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 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
I 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 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 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 bagfull."  That is
what I thought.  I said, "There are agents writing letters which contradict
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.  And they're not
doing it over their names, 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 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 the Notice of Deficiency has
Your file is closed and you will hear no more from us."  I haven't heard from
them since.  That was in 1980, and I haven't filed since 1989.

                          THE SUPREME COURT ON TRIAL

     I thought 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 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 ask
me what I spoke of that day. When I got on the stand I brought out all 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 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 defense 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 we 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!  They 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?"
He says, "Oh, those were old decisions."  I said, "Those standing decisions.
They have not been overturned.  I don't care how old they are, you have no
right to overturn a standing decision of the United State 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. 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 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 and 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 was walked along beside the track.  The
district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instrument)
law 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 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 Instrument law.  There would be no more
decision 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 the judge. Now you won't make friends
with a judge if you go to 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 problems with the
Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy and 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 they were told.  America is a
bankrupt nation - it is owned completely by it's 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 Admiralty Jurisdiction - call it anything you want, but
to 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, 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 the courts into a single WORLD COURT (new world order), 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 can use this to our benefit.


     The Constitution of the United States mentions three means of
jurisdiction in which the courts may operate.

    COMMON law

Common law is based upon 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 instant, when you cross
over state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR
SEAT BELT - ITS THE law"  This cannot be Common law, because who would you
injure if you did not buckle up?  Nobody.  This would be compelled
performance.  But Common law cannot compel performance.  Any violation of
Common law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.

     EQUITY law

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


This is 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 what jurisdiction the seatbelt
laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are
under.  Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful
failure to file, that is Admiralty/Maritime law and there must be a valid
international contract in force.

However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating under
Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction also they took the International law or law of
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 or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated
with it.  Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction,
they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

                             COURTS OF 'CONTRACT'

     You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with
failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it.  Isn't the judge sworn to
uphold the Constitution?  Yes, he is.  But you must understand that the
Constitution, in Article 1, 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 court, 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 characteristic 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
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 Common
law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable


     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.
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, the law of Redeemable
Instruments, because it delt with paper which was redeemable in something of
substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had became 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 is used in all the

     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..


     One difference between Common law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that
in Common law, contract must be entered into:
    (1) Knowingly,
    (2) Voluntarily,
    (3) Intentionally

     Under the U.C.C., this is not so.  First of all, contracts are
unnecessary.  Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if you only
exercise the benefits of an "agreement" it is presumed or implied that you
intend to meet the obligations associated 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 a driver's license,
the marriage license or the birth certificate, etc.  I believe it is none on

                              COMPELLED BENEFIT

     I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege
of discharging debt, we give substance for substance.  If I bought 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
discharge your debts rather than 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 nonredeemable 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 the law.  The Recourse is, if
you have been damaged under 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 the 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 were found in UCC.  They are found right in the first volume, at
1-207 and 1-103.


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
concept of waiver or estopple.  (UCC 1-207.7)

    It is important to remember when we go into court, that we are in a
DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," THE judge will most likely say, "You mention
the Constitution 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 early.   Further, it says:

The sufficiency of the Reservation - Any expression indicating an intention to
receive 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 UCC 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 what he meant by signing 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 his 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 do not reserve your rights under 1-
207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefits, 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 under-stand UCC 1-10.3 - the argument and recourse.

     If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy
these two sections from UCC.  It is important to get Anderson's edition.  Some
of the law libraries will only have West's Publishing version, and it is very
difficult to understand.  In Anderson's, it is broken down with decimals into
ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.


    The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 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 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
are charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt, you may ask the court who
was injured as a result of your failure to "buckle-up".  However, if the Judge
won't listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to
read to him the last sentence of 1-103.8, which states: THE CODE CANNOT BE

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 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 of 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 jam!  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.


     1.  Just so we understand how this whole process works, lets 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.

     Then first thing you 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 him 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

     2.  The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and say:

     "I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to save
the government some money, (this will get their 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 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 court of record."

     You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually agree
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 of what he says
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

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

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 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
the 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 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 Common law action - under the jurisdiction of the UCC.
This will work just as well with the Internal Reserve Service - In fact, we
can use UCC with the IRS before we go 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 the phone book - someone I've never met.
And, I send him a bill or invoice on a nice letterhead which says, "For
services rendered.  $10,000.00." I send this 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 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 judgement 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

     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 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 Collection Department.  A letter was
attached from the Collection 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 in 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 capital
building, put them in a 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 in place without anyone really
noticing it.


     F E M A, or 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 could FEMA put anyone who might cause trouble
for the orderly plan and process of the new regime to take over the nation.

     Even the governor could be thrown into one of these interment camps, and
kept there indefinitely.  This is all in place now, and they're 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 told him there are certain actions 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
understand 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 upon 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 is 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 could borrow
paper and agree to pay 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 1, 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 1, 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 Legislative democracy within a
Constitutional republic.

     When Congress was a part of the Constitutional Republic, it had a
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

     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 Legislative
making the law, enforcing the law and trying the law, all within one branch of
government.  This is 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
Congress, and the judiciary tries the law, pursuant to the Constitution.

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 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.  To pass
that law,, they only needed a majority vote; - There was no other way that
they could pass Laws directly affecting individuals.  Title 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 Constitutional United States, is if you have
entered a contract.  But if you are not under 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 the 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, and you are a non-resident alien to the federal
United States.  You have never lived in a federal territory and never had any
income from the United States.

     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 the
continental United States, and you are non-resident alien to the federal
United States.  You have never lived in a federal territory and never had any
income from the United States.

     Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay taxes under the
compelled benefit of using Federal Reserve Notes, because you have reserved
your rights under the Common through the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-207.


     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 cannot 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, 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 the state such as Rhode Island has a new
abbreviation.  It is RI, instead of R.I.  They have just left off all 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 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, 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
federal regions directly, 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 Constitutional United States.  It is the federal United States
that had the 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

     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 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 the Merchants - that's
the International law merchant - there is term called no-interest contract.  A
no-interest contract is void and unenforceable.  What is a 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 is void
and unenforceable in any court.

                           UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT

     In the Uniform Commercial Code, no-interest contracts are called
unconscionable contracts.  The section of 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 states,
because it would be in International Court.  This is very important at this

                             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 do you "box in" the judge?

     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 to court, just remember that in 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.

     If 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 the 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 to the
Constitution gives me the right to request the court to explain the nature of
the 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. )

     Defendant:  Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that, Then the record
will show that this action against [your name] as a criminal action, is that

     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 Common law, and the other is 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 either the Common
law, or Maritime law.  But, what puzzles me, Your Honor, is that there is no
corpus delicti 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 that this court is not moving under the
Common law.

     Defendant:  Well, thank you, Your Honor, but now you make the charges
against me even more difficult to understand. The only other criminal
jurisdiction would apply only if there was an International Maritime Contract
involved, if I was a party to it, it had been breached, and the court was
operating 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 any Admiralty Jurisdiction.

     You have just put words in the judge's mouth.

     Judge:  No, I can assure you, we are 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

     Defendant:  Thank you, Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than ever.
If this charge is not under 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 these 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 that anyone would accuse you of
practicing law from the bench if you just answer a few questions to explain to
me the nature of this action, so that I may defend myself.

     Judge:  I told you before, I'm 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 see, if I 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
harmless as a dove, but you mustn't go into court with a chip on your shoulder
a wolf in "black sheep" country.  Remember Jesus' words, "I send you out as a
sheep in wolf country, be wise as serpent, and harmless as a dove."  Sheep do
not attack wolves directly.  Just be a innocent little lamb who just can't
understand the charge, and remember - they can't try you criminally if you
don't understand the charges.  That would be an automatically reversible error

                         THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROBLEM

     If I were a young man, 18 or 20 years old and just starting out on 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 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 [likely] will
not buy anything.


     Under the Uniform Commercial Code, you have the right in an 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. 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 at the beginning.  They can't guarantee that, and you have a right to
assurance of performance under the contract.

     So tell them, "Well, I can not enter this contract unless the government
will guarantee to me 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 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 ray
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't 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 things which you need to have in the record.

                              THE COURT REPORTER

     In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He gets his job
at the judge's pleasure, so he doesn't want to displease the judge.  The court
reporter is sworn to give an accurate transcript of every word that is spoken
in the courtroom.  But if the judge make a slip of the tongue, he turns to his
court reporter and says, "I think you had better leave that out of the
transcript; just say it got a little to far ahead of you, and you couldn't
quite get everything in."  So this will be missing from the transcript.

     In one case, we brought a licensed court reporter with us and the judge
got very angry and said, "This court has a licensed court reporter' right
here, and the record of this court is this court reporter's record.  No other
court reporter's record means anything in this court."

     We responded with, "Of course, Your Honor, we're certainly glad to use
your regular court reporter.  But you know, Your Honor, sometimes things move
so fast that a court reporter gets a little behind, and doesn't quite keep up
with it all.  Wouldn't it be nice if we had another licensed court reporter in
the courtroom, just in case your court reporter got a little behind, so that
we could fill in from this other court reporter's data.  I'm sure, Your Honor,
that you want an accurate transcript.  (I like to use the saying; give bad dog
a good name, and he'll live up to it!)  The judge went along with it, and from
that moment on, he was very careful of what he said.

     These are little tricks to getting around in court. This is how to be
wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove when we enter a courtroom.  There are
others using the same information presented here who end up in jail,
handcuffed and hit over the head, because they approach the situation with a
chip on their shoulder.  They try to tell the judge what the law is and he is
a no-good scoundrel and so on.  Just be wise and harmless.

                               UCC 1-207 REVIEW

     It is so important to know and understand the meaning of "Without
Prejudice 1-207", in connection with your signature, that we should go over
this once more.  It is very likely that a judge will ask you what it meant.
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 unrevealed 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 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 of using Federal Reserve Notes to
discharge your debts with the 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 COLLUSION

     The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in putting this
paper to paper in an effort to make it readable and somewhat compact.  He
wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard Freeman for the opportunity to work
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 to print.  Its purpose, as stated in the Forward, is
to make this knowledge and wisdom available to as many people as will take the
time to read it.  This is meant to be supplement to 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 used, 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 his 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 obligated to point out that one of the 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 no attorney means that you will
soon be chained; gagged and lead to the gallows, this information is
indispensable.  For the extraordinary challenges of appearing in court in
one's own person - proper - there are a 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 widespread legal

     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"),
     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 of pleasures and
diversions.  Human dignity requires much more than entertainment.  The door is
there and the key exists; we must find it and we must use it to return to

     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 foolishly given up.

                              September 22,  1991

     Electronic edition:  I offer grateful thanks to both Mr. Freeman, GDH
4/92, and the individuals who transcribed this material.  Every effort has
been made to duplicate the original transcriptions, in every way.  It is
possible that there are omissions or errors, and for these we apologize. What
is important, however, is that this material gets the widespread distribution
that it warrants.  Only via the communication of successful concepts in re-
affirming our birth-rights will we retain them for ourselves, and our

GDH (Gary D.Hunt)                            EWT Aug.  28,1992 EWT (Edward

TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2024 AOH