



                         THE UCC CONNECTION

                  Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny


                           Compliments of:
                  Associated Conservatives of Texas
              2029 Levee Street          (214) 747 6275
           Dallas, Texas  75207        (214) 744-1115 FAX


              PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH OTHERS




                              FOREWORD

     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.




                         THE UCC CONNECTION

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



                            INTRODUCTION

     When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court 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 of 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 can 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.
\fniselectw 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. Freemen.  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 an Admiralty Jurisdiction --call it
anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.



                          ADMIRALTY COURTS

     The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that
your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from
your defense under the Common Law.  In Admiralty, there is no court
which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract
in dispute.  If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have
admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can
demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are
supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed
into evidence.

     No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a
valid international maritime contract that has been breached.

     So you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew
that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I
deny that such a contract exists.  If this court is taking
jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so
that I may challenge the validity of the contract."  What they would
have to do is place the national debt into evidence.  They would have
to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and
that we are their slaves...



                            NOT EXPEDIENT

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



                            JURISDICTION

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

Common Law

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


Equity Law

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


Admiralty/Maritime Law

     This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also
has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the
contract, but this only applies to International Contracts.  Now we
can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (and all traffic laws,
building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under. Whenever
there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to
file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid
international contract in force.


     However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating
under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the International
Law or Law of Merchants and adopted it into our codes.  That is what
the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case -- that the
decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it
will have criminal penalties associated with it.  Since they were
instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it
Statutory Jurisdiction.



                         COURTS OF CONTRACT

     You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be
charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it.  Isn't
the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution?  Yes, he is.  But you
must understand that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 10,
gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not
infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else.  Contracts
are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where
contracts can be enforced -- Equity or Admiralty.  But we find them
being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction.  This is the embarrassing
part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a
corner in their 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 (see note #1 at end), 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 of Merchants or
Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was
redeemable in something of substance.  But, once Federal Reserve
Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which
was completely "colorable" from start to finish.  This system of law
was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in
every state.  This is "colorable" law, and it is used in all the
courts.

     I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country
is bankrupt and we have no rights.  If the master says "Jump!" then
the slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut
his head off.  As slaves, we have no rights.  But the
creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a system of
law called the Uniform Commercial Code.  This "colorable"
jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to
understanding what has happened.



                        CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT

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

     Under the U.C.C., this is not so.  First of all, 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 the driver's license, the
marriage license or the birth certificate, etc.  I believe it is none
of these.



                          COMPELLED BENEFIT

     I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the
privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of
paying debt.  When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance.
If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the
milk, and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance.  But
if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for
it.  There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note.  It is
worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value.
Congress offers us this benefit:


     Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent
all over the continental United States.  It will be legal tender for
all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you
cannot be sued for not paying your debts.


     So now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can
just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts."  When we use
this "colorable" money to discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common
Law court. We can only use a "colorable" court.  We are completely
under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code -- we are using
non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt
rather than paying debt.



                         REMEDY AND RECOURSE

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



                               REMEDY

     The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever
rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such
rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-
207.7)

     It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are
in a commercial, international jurisdiction.  If we go into court and
say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS", the judge will most likely
say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in
contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that.
Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution?  The rule here is: you
cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another.
For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you
filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the
French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?"  No.
The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME -- I'M NOT A
FRENCHMAN.  You must make your reservation of rights under the
jurisdiction in which you are charged -- not under some other
jurisdiction.  So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of
rights under the U.C.C. 1-207.

UCC 1-207 goes on to say:

     When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make
a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its
assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9)

You have to make your claim known early.  Further, it says:

     The Sufficiency of the Reservation -- Any expression indicating
an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without
prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)

     Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal
Reserve Notes --in any way, shape or manner -- under your signature
write:

              Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 (see Note #2)

     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 Andersonedition (see Note #3).  Some of the law libraries will
only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to
understand.  In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten
parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.



                              RECOURSE

     The Recourse appears in the uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6,
which says:

     The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, (which remains in
force), except where displaced by the code.  A statute should be
construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear
legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.

     This is the argument we use in court.

     The Code recognizes the Common Law.  If it did not recognize the
Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United
States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors.  But,
it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not
to abolish the Common Law entirely.  Therefore, if you have made a
sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207,
you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with
the Common Law.

     If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court
produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint.  If,
for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt,
you may ask the court who was injured as a result of your failure to
"buckle up."

     However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead
with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of
1-103.6, which states:

     The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.

     Tell the judge:

     "Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating
my right under the Uniform Commercial Code.  I have a remedy, under
the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law.  I have exercised
the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with
the Common Law.  To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come
forth with the damaged party."

     If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act
confused and ask this question:

     "Let me see if I understand, Your Honor:  Has this court made a
legal determination that the sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform
Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under,
are not valid law before this court?"

     Now the judge is in a 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.



               PRACTICAL APPLICATION -- TRAFFIC COURT

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


1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least
three weeks.  This you can do by being pleasant and cooperative with
the officer.  Explain to him that you are very busy and ask if he
could please set your court appearance for about three weeks away.

(At this point we need to remember the government's trick: "I'm from
the government, I'm here to help you."  Now we want to use this
approach with them.)

2. The next step is to go to the clerk of the traffic court and say:
"I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to
save the government some money [this will get his attention].  I am
undoubtedly going to appeal this case.  As you know, in an appeal, I
have to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't have a court
reporter.  It would be a waste of 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 charges against
you?"  (see note #4)

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 got 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".  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 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 (see Note #5) 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 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 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 the 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
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.  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, 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 the 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"(see Note #5). 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 that 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 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 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 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 \fniselectw
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 the 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 your 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 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 makes a
slip of the tongue, he turns to his court reporter and says, "I think
you had better leave that out of the transcript; just say it got a
little too far ahead of you, and you couldn't quite get everything
in."  So this will be missing from the transcript.

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

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

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



                          UCC 1-207 REVIEW

     It is so important to know and understand the meaning of
"Without prejudice UCC 1-207", in connection with your signature,
that we should go over this once more.  It is very likely that a
judge will ask you what it means.  So please learn and understand
this carefully:

     The use of "Without prejudice UCC 1-207", in connection with my
signature indicates that I have reserved my Common Law right not to
be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.  And furthermore, I do not
accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of any
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
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, at all
levels -- federal, state and local (see Note #6).



                            IN CONCLUSION

     The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in
putting this to paper in an effort to make it readable and somewhat
compact.  He wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard Freeman for the
opportunity to work 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 indispensable.  For the
extraordinary challenges of appearing in court in one's own person --
\fniselectw proper -- there are few reliable sources of information.
Learning to defend ourselves, that is, being \fniselectw 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 the 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.

                                               - September 22, 1991



                        FOR MORE INFORMATION

     I encourage anyone interested enough to read this far, to obtain
a set of tapes of Howard Freeman and listen to them carefully.  A
donation of $4.00 per tape would be appropriate.  This information
was taken from tapes #'s 90-30, 90-31, 90-32, & 90-33, which may be
ordered from:


America's Promise Ministries
P.O. Box 157
Sandpoint, Idaho  83864

The next set of tapes (from 1991) are #'s: 1004, 1005, and 1006, and
contain vital material not found in this transcript.



NOTES

1. Colorable - that which is in appearance only, and not in reality,
what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the
appearance of truth.  Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed.

2. Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this
demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights.  The
simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a
stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the
document.

3. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing
Co.

4. It is very important to get it into the record that you do not
understand the charges.  With that in the record, the court cannot
move forward to judge the facts.  This will be covered later.

5. UCC 3-415.  "Accommodation Party" - One who signs commercial paper
in any capacity for purpose of lending his name to another party to
instrument. Such a party is a surety. [Surety is, "One who undertakes
to pay money or to do some other act in the event that his principal
fails therein.]

6. See UCC 1-201.  General Definitions (3) "Agreement" means the
bargain of the parties in fact as found in their language or by
implication from other circumstances including course of dealing or
usage of trade or course of performance...


                               THE END
