There is no law that forces us to be US CITIZENS.

[Bigjon]

We are tricked into being a US CITIZEN.

http://www.republicbroadcastingarchives.org/category/ralph-winterrowd/

Hour 1
http://media.blubrry.com/rbn/b/content.blubrry.com/rbn/stream_2017-04-02_165939.mp3


Hour 2
http://media.blubrry.com/rbn/b/content.blubrry.com/rbn/stream_2017-04-02_175939.mp3

[Dogman]

Probably true!

Automatic citizen or curse depending on viewpoint depends on being born on America soil real or political.

Or ether one or both parents are us citizens of that child. That child is automatically granted citizenship, despite where the kid is born as long as one parent is a citizen.

Blood does count!

All others can suck eggs and apply.

They that don't want it can go through the legal process of renouncing all rights of being a citizen here and then finding another country to call home, if they will have you.

Don't like it here gtfo!

Sent using Forum Runner

[Bigjon]

Probably true!

Automatic citizen or curse depending on viewpoint depends on being born on America soil real or political.

Or ether one or both parents are us citizens of that child. That child is automatically granted citizenship, despite where the kid is born as long as one parent is a citizen.

Blood does count!

All others can suck eggs and apply.

They that don't want it can go through the legal process of renouncing all rights of being a citizen here and then finding another country to call home, if they will have you.

Don't like it here gtfo!

Sent using Forum Runner

As a US CITIZEN you are a member of the legislative democracy in DC.

I was born in Minnesota and my birthright is that of a Minnesotan. One of the States under the Constitution guaranteed a Republican form of government.

You are welcome to stay in DC.

[Dogman]

As a US CITIZEN you are a member of the legislative democracy in DC.

I was born in Minnesota and my birthright is that of a Minnesotan. One of the States under the Constitution guaranteed a Republican form of government.

You are welcome to stay in DC.

Born here makes you despite what or how you feel. A USA citizen, don't like it renounce your citizenship and rights and find greener pastures!

Don't let the door hit you on the ass you exit and get the fuck away from what you seem to hate.

If you can find anywhere in the world that offers better freedom's overall good for you!

Good chance seeing not all here are represented nor demands but independent, Trumps actions will destroy the Republicans soon! Which is sad, because I am a somewhat independent​ /libertarian mind frame. In the center both sides have good points.

Sent using Forum Runner

[Bigjon]

Born here makes you despite what or how you feel. A USA citizen, don't like it renounce your citizenship and rights and find greener pastures!

Don't let the door hit you on the ass you exit and get the fuck away from what you seem to hate.

If you can find anywhere in the world that offers better freedom's overall good for you!

Good chance seeing not all here are represented nor demands but independent, Trumps actions will destroy the Republicans soon! Which is sad, because I am a somewhat independent​ /libertarian mind frame. In the center both sides have good points.

Sent using Forum Runner

You are confused, that is no surprise to me.

Being born in Minnesota makes me a Minnesotan. That is not a US CITIZEN.

i AM A US CITIZEN, because I, like you, was tricked into being one.

Hitting the bottle again?

[Dogman]

You are confused, that is no surprise to me.

Being born in Minnesota makes me a Minnesotan. That is not a US CITIZEN.

i AM A US CITIZEN, because I, like you, was tricked into being one.

Hitting the bottle again?


Confused, ?

I think not and you know it..

Splitting hairs no matter how many times you split it you still have the hair, tho it may not resemble the original hair.

But it is the same hair..

;D

[palani]

I am a Brownie because I was born in a girl scout camp.

I am a John Deere because I was born in one of their factories.

I am a corporation because I was born in a municipality.

I am myself because I am none of the previous things (and am not a candidate for an office of public trust).

[Bigjon]

Confused, ?

I think not and you know it..

Splitting hairs no matter how many times you split it you still have the hair, tho it may not resemble the original hair.

But it is the same hair..

;D

Since no law compells me to be a United States Citizen, I chose to be a Minnesotan, which is not a United States Citizen or a Citizen.
Citizen is a public office.

Denouncing United State Citizenship gives me back my god given rights that were converted to civil rights.

[Bigjon]

The ZIP Code Issue:
Excerpts from a Personal Letter

by

Howard Freeman

November 11, 1988


Your letter asks for information on the ZIP Code pursuant to
something that appeared in the Justice Times some time ago. I
wish I had in my possession the article you refer to, so that I
could have some idea of what you already know, and could just
fill in the details of what you do not understand, but I do not
have that article, so I'll try to make the "ZIP Code Issue" clear
to you.

There are two entities, or nations, called "The United
States". One is the union of 50 independent States combined into
a 3-branch (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) Republican Form of
government under a contract called: The Constitution of the
United States of America. The Other is a 1-branch (Legislative)
Democracy, which arises out of the Constitutional Contract
wherein Congress (the Legislative Branch of the 3-branch
Republic) was given Exclusive rule over a body of people known
as: The Residents of the District of Columbia. It should be
obvious to anyone that, when a governing body (in this case
Congress) has "exclusive" rule over a people, you have a nation.
So, in America, we have a small nation, operating upon Roman
Civil Law principles, within a larger nation which operates upon
the principles of the Common Law, and is limited in its powers
and authority by the Constitutional Contract. I could spend the
rest of the day explaining the differences between Roman Civil
Law and the Common Law, but instead I will enclose a tape with
this letter to you, which will do that for me. Please do me the
honor of listening to this tape on both sides. Many people
reply, upon my inquiry about the tape I sent to them, that they
are too busy to listen to it, which remark I consider somewhat
insulting to me, when I have gone to the expense and trouble of
getting it into their hands.

As you know, the Republic called The United States, is
limited in what it can do by the Constitution, and that
Constitution limited its Congress to coining money out of silver
or gold, and limited its borrowing power to those two
commodities. The Legislative Democracy called: The United
States, using the same Congress as the Republic, only for its own
ends, has no limitation of any kind on what it might or might not
do, since Congress, working in behalf of the Legislative Party or
Democracy, has the power and authority to issue a paper currency,
and to declare it to be a "legal tender" for all debt public and
private. That Congress had no limitation in what it might borrow
either! So the National Debt that you hear so much about, came
from that Congress's power to borrow other than silver or gold,
which was bank credit from the International Banking Houses.

A Problem: What can the Bankers do? Easy solution, since
their money controls the news media: keep the citizens of the
Republic in the dark, get the lawyers busy, and figure ways of
entrapment, so that the Citizens of the Republic would think that
it was THEIR Congress that borrowed the bank credit, and that it
is their problem to pay the usury on that debt. Steps of Legal
Trickery follow:


1. The 14th Amendment, which is based upon Roman Civil Law,
supposedly replaced the 4th Amendment, which is based upon
the Common Law. That aspect of things is explained on the
tape enclosed, so I won't go into it here.

2. Have the Congress of the Republic fail in its duty to
provide a medium of exchange for its Citizens, thus forcing
them to do their trading in the "Legal Tender" paper which
the Congress of the Legislative Democracy has made
available. I will skip a few other steps here, and get to
the meat of the information you want, which concerns the ZIP
Code issue.

3. The Congress of the Republic must be enticed to consolidate
50 independent States into 10, not so independent, Federal
Regions. (What Congress creates, Congress can control, is a
legal principle.) Now, the same Congress that rules the
Legislative Democracy may rule the 10 Federal Regions,
provided the citizens thereof can be kept asleep, and not
claim their rights under the Federal and State
Constitutional Contracts.

4. Have the Post Office Department separate itself from the
Republic and, in its new independence, create two-letter
abbreviations for all States (contrary to the lawful State
abbreviations established by the Legislatures of most
States) and have the Post Office Department require this new
abbreviation on all subsidized mail, and suggest it on all
first class mail, along with the ZIP Code.

5. Page 11 of the ZIP Code Directory, which can be found in any
Post Office, will tell you that the first digit of every ZIP
Code number indicates the Federal Region in which the user
resides.

6. Now that the majority of the brainwashed public, belonging
to the Republic, are educated to employ the two-letter
abbreviations for their State, which abbreviations were
never adopted by the State Legislatures as the lawful State
abbreviations, those using said abbreviation are not making
a lawful claim of their State residency and, with the use of
the ZIP code in connection with the new two-letter State
abbreviation, they are making a lawful claim that they are
residents of the particular Federal Region in which they
reside, so they can now be ruled under Roman Civil Law and
tried in the Admiralty Courts of the Legislative Democracy.

7. With all of that in place, the Income Tax, which is employed
to pay the Usury on the National Debt owed by the
Legislative Democracy, now applies to the Citizens of the
Republic who fail to properly claim and establish their
rights as Citizens of their respective States.

8. It is made to appear "Progressive" in our Schools to refer
to America as a "Democracy", and somewhat "Reactionary" to
study the State and National Constitutions in our schools.
This keeps the public ignorant of the fact that the Congress
of the "Republic" is limited by Contract from passing any
penal statute of compelled performance upon the Citizens of
any State. The Internal Revenue Code is all that type of
statute, and those statutes ONLY apply to the residents of
the District of Columbia (see Article 1, Section 8, Clause
17 of the U.S. Constitution) and also to all those who
stupidly fail to claim their State residency and allow
themselves to be given to the status of citizens of the
United States (meaning the Legislative Democracy) claiming
themselves to be residents of a Federal Region which is
ruled over by the Democracy under Roman Civil Law.


The above is all needed information if you are to understand
the ZIP Code issue. I hope that I have not worn you out with my
explanation, as I have done with others, who ask me questions of
depth, and who only want some shallow, one-sentence reply.

One other caution before I close: The ZIP Code use, or non
use, is NOT a "silver bullet" solution to all problems, wherein
the Legislative Democracy, called the United States, forces
itself upon you. The enclosed tape will point out other
solutions. To properly handle oneself in order to keep out of
Legislative Article I Courts exercising Legislative Power, and
into the Article III Courts of the Republic which exercise
Judicial Power, is another whole study in itself. Again, let me
repeat: There Are No Silver Bullets for those who claim to be
too busy to study!

[monty]

The ZIP Code Issue: Excerpts from a Personal Letter by Howard Freeman November 11, 1988

Your letter asks for information on the ZIP Code pursuant to something that appeared in the Justice Times some time ago. I wish I had in my possession the article you refer to, so that I could have some idea of what you already know, and could just fill in the details of what you do not understand, but I do no thave that article, so I'll try to make the "ZIP Code Issue" clear to you.

There are two entities, or nations, called "The United States". One is the union of 50 independent States combined into a 3-branch (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) Republican Form o fgovernment under a contract called: The Constitution of the United States of America. The Other is a 1-branch (Legislative)Democracy, which arises out of the Constitutional Contract wherein Congress (the Legislative Branch of the 3-branchRepublic) was given Exclusive rule over a body of people knownas: The Residents of the District of Columbia. It should beobvious to anyone that, when a governing body (in this case Congress) has "exclusive" rule over a people, you have a nation.

So, in America, we have a small nation, operating upon Roman Civil Law principles, within a larger nation which operates upon the principles of the Common Law, and is limited in its powers and authority by the Constitutional Contract. I could spend the rest of the day explaining the differences between Roman Civil Law and the Common Law, but instead I will enclose a tape with this letter to you, which will do that for me. Please do me the honor of listening to this tape on both sides. Many people reply, upon my inquiry about the tape I sent to them, that they are too busy to listen to it, which remark I consider somewhat insulting to me, when I have gone to the expense and trouble of getting it into their hands.

As you know, the Republic called The United States, is limited in what it can do by the Constitution, and that Constitution limited its Congress to coining money out of silver or gold, and limited its borrowing power to those two commodities. The Legislative Democracy called: The United States, using the same Congress as the Republic, only for its own ends, has no limitation of any kind on what it might or might not do, since Congress, working in behalf of the Legislative Party or Democracy, has the power and authority to issue a paper currency,and to declare it to be a "legal tender" for all debt public and private. That Congress had no limitation in what it might borrow either! So the National Debt that you hear so much about, came from that Congress's power to borrow other than silver or gold,which was bank credit from the International Banking Houses.

A Problem: What can the Bankers do?

Easy solution, since their money controls the news media: keep the citizens of the Republic in the dark, get the lawyers busy, and figure ways of entrapment, so that the Citizens of the Republic would think that it was THEIR Congress that borrowed the bank credit, and that it is their problem to pay the usury on that debt.

Steps of Legal Trickery follow:

1. The 14th Amendment, which is based upon Roman Civil Law, supposedly replaced the 4th Amendment, which is based upon the Common Law. That aspect of things is explained on the tape enclosed, so I won't go into it here.

2. Have the Congress of the Republic fail in its duty to provide a medium of exchange for its Citizens, thus forcing them to do their trading in the "Legal Tender" paper which the Congress of the Legislative Democracy has made available. I will skip a few other steps here, and get to the meat of the information you want, which concerns the ZIP Code issue.

3. The Congress of the Republic must be enticed to consolidate 50 independent States into 10, not so independent, Federal Regions. (What Congress creates, Congress can control, is a legal principle.) Now, the same Congress that rules the Legislative Democracy may rule the 10 Federal Regions, provided the citizens thereof can be kept asleep, and not claim their rights under the Federal and State Constitutional Contracts.

4. Have the Post Office Department separate itself from the Republic and, in its new independence, create two-letter abbreviations for all States (contrary to the lawful State abbreviations established by the Legislatures of most States) and have the Post Office Department require this new abbreviation on all subsidized mail, and suggest it on all first class mail, along with the ZIP Code.

5. Page 11 of the ZIP Code Directory, which can be found in any Post Office, will tell you that the first digit of every ZIP Code number indicates the Federal Region in which the user resides

.6. Now that the majority of the brainwashed public, belonging to the Republic, are educated to employ the two-letter abbreviations for their State, which abbreviations were never adopted by the State Legislatures as the lawful State abbreviations, those using said abbreviation are not making a lawful claim of their State residency and, with the use of the ZIP code in connection with the new two-letter State abbreviation, they are making a lawful claim that they are residents of the particular Federal Region in which they reside, so they can now be ruled under Roman Civil Law and tried in the Admiralty Courts of the Legislative Democracy.

7. With all of that in place, the Income Tax, which is employed to pay the Usury on the National Debt owed by the Legislative Democracy, now applies to the Citizens of the Republic who fail to properly claim and establish their rights as Citizens of their respective States.

8. It is made to appear "Progressive" in our Schools to refer to America as a "Democracy", and somewhat "Reactionary" to study the State and National Constitutions in our schools. This keeps the public ignorant of the fact that the Congress of the "Republic" is limited by Contract from passing any penal statute of compelled performance upon the Citizens of any State. The Internal Revenue Code is all that type of statute, and those statutes ONLY apply to the residents of the District of Columbia (see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution) and also to all those who stupidly fail to claim their State residency and allow themselves to be given to the status of citizens of the United States (meaning the Legislative Democracy) claiming themselves to be residents of a Federal Region which is ruled over by the Democracy under Roman Civil Law.

The above is all needed information if you are to understand the ZIP Code issue. I hope that I have not worn you out with my explanation, as I have done with others, who ask me questions of depth, and who only want some shallow, one-sentence reply. One other caution before I close: The ZIP Code use, or non use, is NOT a "silver bullet" solution to all problems, wherein the Legislative Democracy, called the United States, force itself upon you. The enclosed tape will point out other solutions. To properly handle oneself in order to keep out of Legislative Article I Courts exercising Legislative Power, and into the Article III Courts of the Republic which exercise Judicial Power, is another whole study in itself. Again, let me repeat: There Are No Silver Bullets for those who claim to be too busy to study!

[monty]

Howard Freeman's tapes https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-w2sEJi--tuI-hdVY/Limited%20Liability%20fiat%20paper%20howard%20free man%20The%20UCC%20Connection%203.30.12%20Coram%20N obis_djvu.txt

Full text of "Limited Liability fiat paper howard freeman The UCC Connection 3.30.12 Coram Nobis.pdf (PDFy mirror) (https://archive.org/details/pdfy-w2sEJi--tuI-hdVY)"

See other formats (https://archive.org/details/pdfy-w2sEJi--tuI-hdVY)



Edit: the entire 48 page document can be accessed here:

https://ia802707.us.archive.org/14/items/pdfy-w2sEJi--tuI-hdVY/Limited%20Liability%20fiat%20paper%20howard%20free man%20The%20UCC%20Connection%203.30.12%20Coram%20N obis.pdf


Part 1

The UCC Connection: Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny September 22, 1991

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, as 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 and 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.

UCC Connection

"I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be as 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 on a Notice of Deficiency, even if it is ten million dollars! If the law says that you are not required to file or pay tax, the amount doesn't matter.

By arguing the amount, they will just say that you must go to tax court and decide what the amount is to be. By the time you get to tax court, the law issues are all decided. You are only there to decide how much you owe. They will not listen to arguments of law.

So, I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't required to file. He said, "You are required to file, Mr. Freeman." But I had all these supreme Court cases, and I started reading them to him. He said, "I don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman, but the Code says that you are required to file, and you're going to pay that amount or you're going to go to tax court."

I thought that someone there ought to know something about law, so I asked to talk to his superior. I went to him and got out my Supreme Court cases, and he wouldn't listen to them. "I don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman Finally, I got to the Problems Resolution Officer, and he said the same thing. He said that the only person above him was the District Director.

So, I went to see him. By the time I got to his office, they had phoned ahead, and his secretary said he was out. But, I heard someone in his office, and I knew he was in there. I went down the elevator, around the corner to the Federal Building and into Senator Simpson's office. There was a girl sitting there at a desk, and she asked if she could help me. I told her my problem. I said that I really thought the District Director was up there. I asked her to call the IRS and tell them that it was Senator Simpson's office calling, and to ask if the District Director was in. I said, "If you get him on the phone, tell him that you are from the Senator's office and you have a person whom you are sending over to speak to him -- if he is, can he wait just five minutes. 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 vs Public Policy He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy."

I asked him what happened in 1938. He said that he had already told me too much -- he wasn't going to tell me any more. 1938 and the Erie Railroad Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company.

Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case and the decision of the supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the State where the incident occurred -- in this case, Pennsylvania. But, in the Erie Railroad case, the supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law.

There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So, here we find the blending of Law with Equity . This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle missing.

A Friend of 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 as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said, "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by, and if I'm not sitting on a case, we will visit."

America is Bankrupt

Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: America is a bankrupt nation -- it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the State governments . Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in 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.

No 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.

[monty]

Part 2. https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-w2sEJi--tuI-hdVY/Limited%20Liability%20fiat%20paper%20howard%20free man%20The%20UCC%20Connection%203.30.12%20Coram%20N obis_djvu.txt



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. Any time 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 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 your seat belt laws Equity laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract.

Admiralty/Maritime Law:

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

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

Courts of Contract

You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seat belts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But, you must understand that the Constitution, in Article 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 and Admiralty.

But, we find them being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction.

This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own courts. We will cover this more later.

Contracts Must Be Voluntary Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties, or it is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is another characteristic — it must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, "For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc." That was a valid contract — the dollar was a genuine silver dollar.

Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, "For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable"! dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.

Colorable Money -- Colorable Courts

The word "colorable" means something that appears to be genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is "colorable."

If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a "colorable" contract. And "colorable" contracts must be enforced under a "colorable" jurisdiction. So, by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts which use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is "colorable" Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using "colorable money."

Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction.

Let's see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.

Uniform Commercial Code

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

This "colorable" jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what has happened.

Contract or Agreement

One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1) knowingly (2) voluntarily and (3) intentionally. Under the UCC, this is not so. First of all, 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 UCC 1-207.

UCC 1-207 goes on to say:
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date. (UCC 1-207.9)

You have to make your claim known early.

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

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes -- in any way, shape or manner -- under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.2 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 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 Anderson3 edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.


Recourse

The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says.

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

This is the argument we use in court.

The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely.

Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law. If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you may ask the court who was injured as a result of your failure to "buckle up." However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 1-103.6, which states: The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.

Tell the judge:
Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my right under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with a 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 sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?

Now, the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another?

If he answers "yes," then you say: I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination . Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.

Practical Application — Traffic Court

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

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

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

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

4 "Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask before I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it could be answered if I could put the officer on the stand for a moment and ask him a few short questions."

Judge: "I don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and have him take the stand."

"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 am afraid I cannot accept your testimony in regards to the facts of this case. This case is dismissed."

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 he would have to admit that:
a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;
b. you had one 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.

If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case, then you will want to ask him the following question: Your Honor, let me understand this correctly. Has this court made a legal determination that it has authority under the jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which have been called to its attention?

If he says "yes," tell him that you put the court on notice that you will appeal that legal determination, and that if you are damaged by his actions, you will sue him in a common law action under the jurisdiction of the UCC.

This will work just as well with the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, we can use the UCC with the IRS before we get to court.

[monty]

Part 3




Using the Code with the IRS

If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called a "presentment" in the Uniform Commercial Code.

A "presentment" in the UCC is very similar to the Common Law.

First, we must understand just how this works in the Common Law.

Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book -- someone I have never met. And I send him a bill or invoice on nice letterhead which says, "For services rendered: $10,000.00." I send this by Certified Mail to him at the address taken from the phone book. The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so I get a receipt that he received it. When he opens it, he finds an invoice for $10,000 and the following statement: "If you have any questions concerning this bill or the services rendered, you have thirty days to make your questions or objections known." Of course, he has never heard of me, so he just throws the bill away and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of thirty days, I go to court and get a default judgment against him. He received a bill for $10,000, was given thirty days to respond. He failed to object to it or ask any questions about it. Now, he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect the $10,000. That's Common Law.

The UCC works on the same principle. The minute you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, you return it immediately with a letter that says: The presentment above is dishonored. [Your name] has reserved all of his/her rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1-207. This should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing more that they can do.

In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona who received a Notice of Deficiency. The man sent a letter such as this, dishonoring the "presentment." The IRS wrote back that they could not make a determination at that office, but were turning it over to the Collections Department. A letter was attached from the Collections Department which said they were sorry for the inconvenience they had caused him and that the Notice of Deficiency had been withdrawn.

So, you can see that, if it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved.

Impending Bankruptcy

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

FEMA

F E M A, 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 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 partyMto 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 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. They 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 a Legislative Democracy within a Constitutional Republic . When Congress was a part of the Constitutional Republic, it had the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us. Its duty was to coin gold or silver. Anyone who had a piece of gold or silver could bring it in and have it freely minted into coin. This was the medium of exchange for the Republic. But, in the Legislative Democracy (over Washington, D.C.), Congress is not limited by the Constitution. Congress has exclusive rule over the District of Columbia. The legislators can make the law by a majority vote -- that makes it a democracy; they have the authority to have administrative agents to enforce their own law; and they have courts in the legislative branch of government, to try their own law.

Here, we have the legislature making the law, enforcing the law and trying the law, all within the one branch of government. This is a one- branch government within a three-branch government. Under the three-branch government, the Congress passes law which has to be in harmony with the Constitution, the executive enforces the law passed by the Congress, and the judiciary tries the law, pursuant to the Constitution. THE THREE-BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and the ONE-BRANCH LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY are both called THE UNITED STATES. One is the federal United States, and the other is the continental united States.

Are You a United States Citizen?

If you say that you are a United States citizen, which United States are you referring to? Anyone who lives in the District of Columbia is a United States citizen. The remaining population in the fifty States is the national citizenry of the nation. We are domiciled in various sovereign States, protected by the constitutions of those States from any direct rule of Congress over us.

In the democracy, anyone who lives in those states known as Washington, D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, or any of the other federally held territories is a citizen of the United States (B.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.

When 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 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 cannot be compelled to perform.

How can you be compelled to file an income tax form, or any form?

When Congress works for the Republic, every law it passes must be in harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but when Congress works for the Legislative Democracy, any law it passes becomes the law of the land. (Remember, Congress has exclusive legislative control over federal territory.) If you are charged with willful failure to file an income tax 1040 form, that is a law for a different nation. You are a nonresident alien to that nation. It is a foreign corporation to you. It is coming after democracy of not the Republic of the continental united States you; it is a foreign nation -- the legislative 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, so 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 nonresident alien to the federal United States. You never lived in a federal territory and never had an income from the federal United States. Furthermore, you cannot be required to file or pay taxes under the compelled benefit of using the Federal Reserve Notes, because you have reserved your rights under the Common Law through the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-207.

Original Intent of the Founders

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

Federal Regions

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

The ZIP Code Trick

Remember how the government always come 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 go to all that trouble of writing three or four letters to abbreviate the name of the State — such as 'Ariz.' for Arizona. Just write 'AZ' instead of 'Ariz.' Or, you can just write ' WY ' for Wyoming, instead of ' Wyo . ' " So, all of the States of the union have got a new two-letter abbreviation. Even a State such as Rhode Island has a new abbreviation. It is "RI" instead of "R.I." They have just left off the periods.

When you use a two-letter State abbreviation, you are compelled to use a ZIP code, because there are so many States, for example, which start with M. ME is Maine. MI is Michigan. How many people dot every "i" or make an "i" that looks like an "e"? With MA, MO, MN, MS, etc., and some sloppy writing, 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 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. "6

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 how we can get out of this situation.

I told the Governor that, in the Common Law and the Law of Merchants -- that's the International Law Merchant there is a term called no-interest contract. A no-interest contract is void and unenforceable. What is a no-interest contract?

No-Interest Contract

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

Unconscionable Contracts

In the Uniform Commercial Code, no-interest contracts are called unconscionable contracts. The section on unconscionable contracts covers more than forty pages in the Anderson Code. The federal United States has involved the States as the accommodation party to the federal debt, and I believe we could prove this to be an unconscionable contract.

We should get some litigation into the courts before the government declares a national emergency, claiming that this State has no lawful responsibility for the national debt (of the federal United States) , because it became an accommodation party to this debt through an unconscionable contract. If we have this litigation before the courts under International Law when the nation is declared bankrupt, the creditors would have to settle this matter first, and it would delay them. They would want the new government to appear to be legitimate, so they could not just move right in and take over the State, because it would be in an International Court. This is very important at this time.

Questions and Review Note: These are some of the questions asked after the main lecture.

Some are re-statements of material presented earlier, but they contain very valuable information which is worth repeating .

Courtroom Techniques

Question: How did 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?
D: Well, Your Honor, it's not the letter of the law, but rather the nature of the law that I don't understand. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution gives me the right to request 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.
J: 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:

D: Well, Your Honor, is this a Civil or a Criminal Action?
J: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action, there could be no fine, so it has to be criminal.)
D: Thank you. Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will show that this action against [your name] is a criminal action, is that right?
J: Yes.
D: I would like to ask another question about this criminal action. There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: one is under the Common Law, and the other deals with International Maritime Contracts, under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is civil, and you said this is a Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me. Your Honor, is that there is no corpus delecti here that gives this court a jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn't appear to me that this court is moving under the Common Law.
J: No, I can assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law.
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 were 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 judge's mouth.
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 .
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?
It's Statutory Jurisdiction.
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: If you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a licensed attorney. I'm not allowed to practice law from the bench.
D: Oh, Your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of practicing law from the bench if you just answer a few questions to explain to me the nature of this action, so that I may defend myself. J: I told you before, I am not going to answer any more questions. Do you understand that? If you ask any more questions in regards to this, I am 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.
D: Thank you. Your Honor, but let me just see if I got this straight. Has this court made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct a criminal action against me, the accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are known only to this court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying me the right to defend 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 must not 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 as wise as a serpent, and as 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 .

[monty]

Part 4
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-w2sEJi--tuI-hdVY/Limited%20Liability%20fiat%20paper%20howard%20free man%20The%20UCC%20Connection%203.30.12%20Coram%20N obis_djvu.txt


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 cannot 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 to 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 cannot 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 and the courts — never raise your voice or show anger. In the courtroom, always be polite and build the judge up -- call him "Your Honor." Give him all the "honor" he wants.

It does no good to be difficult, but rather be cooperative and ask questions in a way that leads the judge to say the things which you need to have in the record.

The Court Reporter

In many courts, there will be a regular court reporter. He gets his job at the judge's pleasure, so he doesn't want to displease the judge. The court reporter is sworn to give an accurate transcript of every word that is spoken in the courtroom. But, if the judge 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 I 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 to 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 as wise as a serpent and as 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, ordinance and regulation passed by government at all levels federal. State and local.

In Conclusion

The editor of this transcript has taken great liberties in putting it 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. The purpose of this transcript, 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. It 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 obligated 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 led to the gallows, this information may be indispensable. For the extraordinary challenges of appearing in court in one's own person -- in propria persona there are few reliable sources of information. Learning to defend ourselves, that is, being responsible instead of turning over one more area of our lives to "professionals," may be the only way to have any chance of digging ourselves out of this pit of legal tyranny. Perhaps the greatest problem we face in education today is the matter of widespread legal illiteracy.

Naturally, there will always be a number of people who just don't care about these issues who either:
(1) have a soft life which is supported and maintained by this secret system of law and the institutions which have grown up around it ("I can make a bundle buying these IRS-seized homes cheap and reselling them."), or

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

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

For those good "citizens," this whole effort may seem useless, or even threatening. But, it is this writer's view that God did not intend for us to spend our lives in statutory slavery for the benefit of a handful of secret world manipulators, even if the "masters" grant us some token pleasures and diversions. Human dignity requires much more than entertainment. The door is there and the key exists. We must find it and we must use it to return to freedom! Let us discover the mistakes we have made. Let us find 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 who is 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 numbered 90-30, 90-31, 90-32 and 90-33, which may be ordered from: America's Promise Ministries c/o P. 0. Box 157 Sandpoint, Idaho Postal Zone 83864/TDC (208) 265-5405 (tel:(208) 265-5405)

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

Footnotes :
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 Edition.

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 Company.

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 on page 19.

5. For more about this, see page 18.

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

7. 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 courses, dealing or usage of trade or course of performance . "

# # #

"If men, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The Right of Freedom being a gift of Almight\' God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave" - Samuel Adams (1772)

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not you counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May you chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

[Bigjon]

Thanks Monty, great find.
I did a search for documents too, but was stymied by all the other Freeman's out there.

It's too bad he didn't have a middle name like seemore.

[Bigjon]

WHY WE ARE IN THE ADMIRALITY JURISDICTION (http://www.webmavin.com/2015/10/11/why-we-are-in-the-admirality-jurisdiction/)Posted on October 11, 2015 (http://www.webmavin.com/2015/10/11/why-we-are-in-the-admirality-jurisdiction/) by admin (http://www.webmavin.com/author/admin/)
April 18, 2004
Hi ho! Some fella deserves a lot a credit from this short and concise document that re-enforces a conversation and hard copy. One other point, Standring has been spelled two different ways and according to Lewis H. both would be wrong. I think he said without the (e) and of course without the (a). Anyway, here is a fine piece of work.



Many a student has asked me why I file all of my documents in the admiralty jurisdiction. All of the “pro se” litigants have been sternly warned, by their like-minded friends, that such filings have been known to get people arrested and thrown in jail, since supposedly the admiralty gives the judge unparalleled judicial discretion in this venue that is supposedly without a constitution. In 1997 I had purchased a book about the admiralty jurisdiction called Are you Lost at “C.?” from Pastor Richard Standaring, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Pastor Standaring, one of the best IRS information persons in the United States had just started selling the book, but he had no outstanding opinion of it at the time. I read it, and not really understanding the book, placed it on my shelf to gather dust. [1] About a year later, my local partner, Bob: Shugrue, called me and relayed to me that Standring had recently used the procedures of the book in four cases and had won all of them. Immediately I called Standaring to look into his results. After explaining the theory, I realized that the material was from the book sitting on my shelves. Pastor Standaring made the most incredible remark when I asked him what the court tries to do to his clients in the courtroom.
“Oh, Pastor” Standaring said, “They just try to talk us into agreeing to move the case out of the admiralty, and into the civil venue.”
If I have learned anything about litigating claims against the government, it is that where I need to go is where the judges do not want me to go, even if I do not entirely understand why. I liken it to the military term of “pressing into the fire,” as the safest approach. Retreat usually gets one caught in crossfire, and death is the result.
I thought, “If they do not want me in the Admiralty that is probably the best place to be.”
Then followed weeks of investigation, and all of the information I uncovered was far better than expected. I documented that the Admiralty is under Article III, where the constitution and statutory law both apply! In December of 1999 in Hawaii, we filed the first federal case. Over the next few weeks, what came from the other side was deafening silence. As usual, we placed the other side in default. However, soon the other side was up to their own tricks again. Something was missing. I later uncovered four other important issues that legally bind up the judicial officers into either following the law, or walking the plank. Now, with further understanding, I have learned that in the admiralty, the state waives its immunity seven different ways, through the Suits in Admiralty Act (three ways), through the Bills of Lading Act, through the Admiralty Extension Act, through the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and through the Public Vessels Act. [2]
To place a pleading within the admiralty, the jurisdictional statement needs to reference 28 U.S.C. 1333 or 1337. Tax Cases need to reference 28 U.S.C. 2461 and 2463, since all tax revenue cases are done through the admiralty, and are disguised as civil proceedings. Additionally, in the caption of the suit a reference such as “within the admiralty” is required to hold the court accountable. The courts in the United States have always been open since 1789 to receive admiralty documents, and are still required to do so by authorization of 5: Stat. 516, Ch. 188, §: 5 with the enactment date of August/23/1842, with the authority of the act of the September/24/1789: Chapter: 20.
The Suits in Admiralty Act 3[3] is a law where the United States specifically waives its immunity in three situations: (1) If the admiralty suit involves a vessel [key word] of the United States. Once we look into the definition of the word vessel, we will discover that any of the actors working for the United States are vessels, enabling us properly to apply this provision within our case.
In Benedicts, on Admiralty, one finds that the description of a vessel is so vague, that anything can be a vessel. We are all vessels; human bags carrying “sea water.” “Our blood has the same specific gravity as sea water.” 4[4] In the Bible, a woman is described as the “weaker vessel.” (2) Cases that involve cargo belonging to the U.S. Within the context of our case, when the cargo [the paperwork] of the United States harms us, the United States gives us a blanket waiver of immunity, or (3), if the United States could be sued in the admiralty if it were a private party. Since we are going into an international jurisdiction, (a set aside, fenced territory) every time we go into the court, we are entitled to sue the United States in the admiralty as if the United States were a private party.
[2] Benedicts on Admiralty
[3] Title: 46: U. S. A. Codes, Appendix, Chapter 20 §§ 742-749,
[4] Leonard Tesoro, M.D.
[5] Title: 49: U. S. Codes, Chapter 147 § 14706,The Bills of Lading Act 5[5] is another handy piece of legislation that helps level the playing field, by imposing liability against carriers that misplace, or miss-deliver our cargo(paperwork). Cargo can literally be anything. All manners of things are shipped internationally, from cigarette lighters to books. So we are not making any sort of stretch to say our paperwork is cargo. If the bill of lading sufficiently describes the cargo, the carrier is liable for damages caused by miss-delivery. A bill of lading is nothing more than a document given to the shipper that gives instructions where the cargo is to be delivered, and what the cargo looks like. For the bill of lading to be effective, it must describe the cargo being transported sufficiently so that the shipper can identify the cargo enough to be held responsible, when the shipper delivers the cargo somewhere else.
A classic case occurred in the 1800s where an American fruit producer sent many barrels of apples from Georgia for delivery in New York. Since the barrels were not sufficiently identified in the bill of lading, and since the barrels were not adequately marked, the shipper was not held responsible when the apples were delivered to Belgium!
The Bill of Lading Act includes a criminal penalty, because the losses suffered by the customers of the shippers can be very great. We use a bill of lading in all of our lawsuits. The bill of lading describes the cargo (the lawsuit), and tells the court clerk to carry the suit into the admiralty jurisdiction of the court. 6[6] The clerk is a public vessel, and the carrier. My bill of lading identifies the cargo as the lawsuit, by describing the suit’s postal registry number that I have placed on the front page, by describing the paperwork as having an American flag on the paperwork, etc. The bill of lading creates a liability for which the damaged party can recover in a suit if the documents are diverted into another venue. If a carrier is found wanting in due diligence concerning the delivery of the cargo, the liability attaches at the time of the diversion of the documents. The bill of lading therefore takes away the immunity of clerks and judges, if the cargo is not delivered into the admiralty court, and adds criminal penalties for compliance failures. 7[7]
The Admiralty Extension Act 8[8] extends the admiralty jurisdiction inland. All states by law have access to the sea. Therefore any land locked country has an easement, so to speak, across other countries in order to get to the sea. All states have an admiralty jurisdiction in all of their courts, and they hate admitting it.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. 9[9] Any foreign sovereigns are liable for damages while doing business in the United States. This provision has application since the foreign sovereign — the judges, clerks, etc. — that operate on the behalf of a defacto foreign fiction government. Officials are liable for the damages that they commit while doing business in the country.
The Public Vessels Act 10[10] is another of the admiralty provisions that are helpful to the litigants of the Universal-Legal-Technology. Since the libelant has been damaged by a judge, police officer, prosecutor, court clerk, or other public vessel, the libellant is authorized to sue for the damages in the venue of the admiralty jurisdiction. Again, the Public Vessels Act is a law that specifically waives any immunity of the government.
[6] Title 49 U. S. Codes, Chapter 801 § 80113
[7] Title 49 U. S. Codes, Chapter 801 §: 80116.
[8] Title 46 U. S. A. Appendix, Ch. 19-A § 740.
[9] Title 28 U. S. codes § 1605
[10] Title: 46: U. S. Codes Chapter: 22:§: 781.
The Post Office and the International Postal Union

The role of the United States Post Office and the Universal Postal Union became a factor in our lawsuits because of several bankruptcies that the United States has been through over the history of the country. When one declares himself a bankrupt, that person is no longer legally competent to conduct his affairs. The court becomes a fiduciary, and appoints a trustee to oversee the affairs of the bankrupt. It does not matter if the bankrupt is a common man, or a nation; except that a nation still has a right to conduct war. Typically the average person anywhere in the world thinks of their Postal System as a part of, and subservient to, their government. However, the postal system in the United States has a different legal history than one would expect.
The Post Office and Judicial Courts were established before the seat of the Government. On Thursday, Sept. 17, 1789 we find written, “Mr. Goodhue, for the committee appointed for the purpose, presented a bill to amend part of the Tonnage act, which was read the first time. The bill sent from the Senate, for the temporary establishment of the Post Office, was read the second and third time, and passed. The bill for establishing the Judicial Courts . . . , for establishing the seat of government . . . ” 11[11] Other references to the Post Office support my theory of the founding forefather’s views:

POST OFFICE

1. A place where letters are received to be sent to the persons to whom they, are addressed.
2. The post office establishment of the United States, is of the greatest importance to the people and to the government. The constitution of the United States has invested congress with power to establish post offices and post roads. Art. 1, s. 8, n. 7.
3. By virtue of this constitutional authority, congress passed several laws anterior to the third day of March 1825, when an act, entitled “An act to reduce into one the several acts establishing and regulating the post office department,” was passed. 3 Story, U. S. 1825. It is thereby enacted,
1. That there be established, the seat of the government of the United States, a general post office, under the direction of a postmaster general. 12[12]
We need to take notice where the commas are placed on that last sentence. “That there be established, the seat of the government of the United States, a general post office, under the direction of a postmaster general.” When I set off a clause with commas, I make sure that the sentence makes sense without that clause. Taking out the set-off clause, we read . . . “the seat of the government of the United States under the direction of a postmaster general.”
[11] Gales and Seaton’s History [H. of R.], p. 928.[12] Bouvier, John. Law Dictionary. Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of The United States of America And of the Several States of the American Union, With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law. In the Philadelphia, by theChilds & Peterson. (1856)The creation of the Post office occurs before the creation of the seat of the government, and is placed in authority over the seat of government. What is the effect of these legal techniques? The stated position of an object and the sequence of events play an important role in the Universal-Legal-Technology. The effect is that the Government’s later bankruptcies in 1859 and 1929 have no legal effect upon the solvent Post-Office. We can make a case that the formation of the Post-Office before the formation of the government’s operations is a stroke of dumb luck. Perhaps it is ingenious, since communication has a higher value than government itself. If any government fails, the people still have a need to communicate with one another to form a new government. And to this day, the Post-Office is still solvent and operational, ready to fulfill its duty to help the people in their communications; to set a new government should a complete break down of the existing governmental structures occur in the United States. Sounds like a very good back up plan.
The formation of the Universal Postal Union in 1874 has another legal effect that is very important to the Universal-Legal-Technology. The Universal Postal Union unites member countries into a single, worldwide postal territory. 13[13] We have already learned that any litigant is going into international jurisdiction every time he goes to any court. Since the litigant needs to establish that his papers are official, he uses a dollar???? postage stamp on the face of the first page. The stamps also invoke postal statutes and the Universal Postal Union jurisdiction. Currently in the U. S., the stamp of choice is the “fox” (discontinued 22 April 2004 or earlier) U. S. dollar postage stamp. The stamp is not drawn in a box, making the forty-five-degree lines unnecessary. The litigant does, however, need to autograph across the stamp, then date the autograph, for two reasons: to comply with postal regulations concerning private mail carriers, and to make a continuance of evidence that the process (paper work) is mail. The continuation of evidence is less of a factor, since the definitions of “mail” and “delivery” can include a clerk at a grocery store handing a customer a receipt for groceries. One can see that Standaring had his shipping clerk wired with the Bill of Lading.
The legal writers were forced to make the definitions wide enough to encompass the private rural carriers, and private advertisers that have placed advertisements on our doorsteps, or in our hands. I have thought about this issue a lot, and I did not find any other better alternative. Any loophole would have devastated many consumers, and caused a plethora of other laws to be enacted to cover the loophole.
Additionally, on the back of the first page, we authenticate the authority of the Post-Office with an endorsement, and simultaneously authenticate our identity by placing a postage meter stamp, from a postage meter machine that we have purchased in advance, on the lower quarter of the back of the first page. All commercial papers have endorsements to authenticate their authenticity. Again, we autograph across the meter stamp, and date. The postage meter stamp is better than a regular stamp, and stamps are said to have rendered seals superfluous. 14[14] The purchase of a meter machine requires identification in case the meter machine is tampered with or is stolen. The meter number on the meter stamp can be traced back to the owner (litigant), and therefore authenticates the endorser better than any seal.
What are we doing by placing our paper work into the jurisdiction of the Universal Postal Union? To answer that question, we need to look at the structure and finance of that organization. The official aims and purposes of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) are two: to form “a single postal territory for the reciprocal exchange of correspondence”; and “to secure the organization and improvement of the postal services and to promote in this sphere the development of international collaboration.” [15] “The organization of the circulation of the international mail is based on the freedom of transit, . . . as a result, therefore, only by enduring absolute freedom of transit can the effectual universality of the postal territory be attained. * * * Freedom of transit is guaranteed throughout the entire territory of the union. Administrations may exchange, through the intermediary of one or more of their number, both closed mails and open mail according to the needs of the traffic and the requirements of the service.” 16[16]
“Starting in 1878, the union created a category for territories which were recognized as non independent but which were given all the rights of union membership afforded to clearly independent countries.” 17[17] So the members of the union have been operating as sovereign, independent countries, and their currency is based on the gold French Franc. Gold is the acceptable form of money in international jurisdictions, or paper backed by gold. 18[18] When we purchase postal money orders, the money order is backed by gold, not the fiat “money” called Federal Reserve Notes. The FRNs, as some call them, are based instead on a promise to pay a debt. The debt is based only upon the “full faith and credit of the United States,” and lacks any intrinsic value.
“Some of the obligations in the convention can, in some states, be introduced into domestic practice without involving a nation’s legislative process or without even reaching the desk of the chief executive. 19[19] The Union also “sets forth the principle that postal administrations are responsible for loss of, theft from, or damage to, insured items, and then goes into detail about exceptions to the principle of responsibility, cessation of responsibility, how the sender is indemnified, and the manner in which responsibility is apportioned between postal administrations.” 20[20] “There was only one instance, according to the Belgium delegate, where the bureau would have any power even approximating the right to intervene in the affairs of administrations, that is in the arbitration of disputes, but in this instance the bureau could act only when requested to do so by an administration.” 21[21] The Functions of the International Bureau for the Universal Postal Union include acting “as a clearinghouse for information concerning postal matters. It also functions as a clearinghouse for international postal accounts and as a conciliator and arbitrator in disputes over postal matters between administrations.” 22[22] [13] 1997 Encyclopedia Britannica
[14] Collon, Dominique, Editor. 7000 Years of Seals. In the London, for the Trustees of the British
Museum, by the BRITISH MUSEUM PRESS. 1997. p. 153.
[15] Universal Postal Union, p. 73.
[16] Universal Postal Union, p. 74.
[17] Universal Postal Union, p. 80.
[18] The backing of paper does not necessarily have to be gold, it can be anything real at market
value like timber, oil, minerals, metals, land, etc.
[19] Universal Postal Union, p. 96.
[20] Universal Postal Union, p. 103.
[21] Universal Postal Union, p. 186.
[22] Universal Postal Union, p. 195
So, what we are doing, by placing the postage stamp on our admiralty paperwork and endorsement on the back of the first page, is using the authority of the sovereignty of the longest surviving, solvent, governmental authority in the United States. Through the admiralty, we are taking the Post-Office and the judicial system back some two hundred years, and simultaneously creating a new territory with all the rights of union membership afforded to clearly independent countries. We are establishing the laws in this new territory with the paper work that we have filed. As we will see later, we are also correcting the errors of the founding forefathers; in that we are also bringing the equal rights that they neglected to give to all the people in the United States. We are eliminating all of the legal deficiencies that handicap the sovereign status of us, the people, within the court. We are guaranteed that all of the parties in the case: the clerk, judge, bailiff, and litigants have the freedom of transit in the admiralty court. If the clerk, judge, or other official fails to deliver our documents as directed, or delay them, or obstruct them, that person is faced with several penalties within the postal statutes and admiralty statutes. The final advantage is that if we are obstructed, because of the transitory nature of the action, we are in the admiralty and can take the case offshore for adjudication in any court in the world.

Bills of Lading Act
Admiralty Extension Act
The Public Vessels Act
Suits in Admiralty Act
Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act
False Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7)
Lanham Act , see 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Postal Reorganization Act
Federal Tort Claims Act
Administrative Procedure Act
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act:
(Old H.R. 4970 from the last Congress)

Established in 1874, the Universal Postal Union (UPU), with its Headquarters in the Swiss capital of Bern, is the second oldest international organization after the International Telecommunications Union
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 (c. 50) UK jurisdictional statement needs to reference 28 U.S.C. 1333 or 1337
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > Sec. 1333.
Sec. 1333. – Admiralty, maritime and prize cases
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:
(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.
(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > Sec. 1337.
Sec. 1337. – Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in controversy, costs
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies: Provided, however, That the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of an action brought under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, only if the matter in controversy for each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
(b) Except when express provision therefore is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where a plaintiff who files the case under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $10,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of any interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.
(c) The district courts shall not have jurisdiction under this section of any matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under chapter 95 of this title 28 U.S.C. 2461 and 2463 for referencing tax cases.
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 163 > Sec. 2461.
Sec. 2461. – Mode of recovery
(a) Whenever a civil fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for the violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of recovery or enforcement thereof, it may be recovered in a civil action.
(b) Unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress, whenever a forfeiture of property is prescribed as a penalty for violation of an Act of Congress and the seizure takes place on the high seas or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, such forfeiture may be enforced by libel in admiralty but in cases of seizures on land the forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty.
(c) If a forfeiture of property is authorized in connection with a violation of an Act of Congress, and any person is charged in an indictment or information with such violation but no specific statutory provision is made for criminal forfeiture upon conviction, the Government may include the forfeiture in the indictment or information in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and upon conviction, the court shall order the forfeiture of the property in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d) of that section.
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 163 > Sec. 2463.
Sec. 2463. – Property taken under revenue law not repleviable All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.

Posted in Uncategorized (http://www.webmavin.com/category/uncategorized/).

[palani]

Jean Keating is somewhat an authority on admiralty topics. If I recall most of his family is lawyers and judges and he is the black sheep. Some of his material found here

http://freedom-school.com/keating/


BAILIFF
: ---- People vs.
“SMITH”
.
(in upper case letters)
The charges are two counts of operating houses of ill-repute:
3 Counts of armed robbery;
2 Counts of murder in the 1st degree;
5 Counts of indecent exposure wh
ile dancing in the rain and
30 Counts of bigamy.
JUDGE
:
(he sees the strawman's name "SMITH
" in his file, and that’s how he is addressing him)
---- State your name. ----
THE ACCUSED
Smith: ----- Your Honor, I will be glad
to state my name if you can show me any
presentments with my name on it for me to accept. ----
JUDGE
: ---- Accept? ---- What
are you talking about? -----
THE ACCUSED
Smith: ----- The court is looking for an ACCEPTOR
, as the PRINCIPAL
has the
primary obligation to pay or discharge a
ny instrument presented for acceptance.
See ACCEPTANCE under 3-410 of the Uniform
Commercial
Code.
JUDGE
: --- Mr. you are accused of some very serious crimes. ---- Now how do you plead?
THE ACCUSED
Smith: I will plead guilty to th
e facts, but not the crimes, but first I need to make sure
there is an ACCEPTANCE BOND
.
JUDGE
: What do you want a bond for?
THE ACCUSED
Smith: Whoever filed the complaint is making a CLAIM on me
and in the Jurisdiction
of Admiralty
you can not make a CLAIM
unless you BOND your CLAIM
.
JUDGE
: Well what about that prosecutor?
PROSECUTER:
I'm not sure about that...no, no bond.
THE ACCUSED
Smith: What about a BID BOND
? Do you have the bid bond?
JUDGE
:
(pretending not to know)
What's that?
Tid-bit for Court
Page 1 of 9
THE ACCUSED
Smith: --- [Because] A BID BOND
is what gets [then] filled out and if the defendant
(or accused) does not close, settle, pay or discharge
the claim he defaults or dishonors the court. The BID
BOND
, PERFORMANCE BOND
and PAYMENT BOND
gets sold to the U.S. District Court where
these bonds are bought up by Insurance Companies and
then sold on the open market, mainly to the
Japanese and Chinese, which becomes the
primary [collateral] source of our economy.
JUDGE
: Oh, ----- THAT BID BOND
.
(acting as if he had inadver
tently forgot about that)
PROSECUTER:
Judge this is ridiculous. This man is
charged with multiple counts of crimes and the
state is asking for the max.
JUDGE
: What about sir?
THE ACCUSED
Smith: ---- Your h
onor, is this a TORT
action or a
COMMERCIAL
CRIME
?
If it’s a TORT,
then where is the INJURED PARTY
or if it’s a
COMMERCIAL
CRIME,
then where is
the CONTRACT
?
PROSECUTER:
Your honor, this is an outrage!!! This guy is accused of murder.
JUDGE
: --- NO...... HE IS NOT
!
---- Prosecutor... You have no CLAIM against him.
---- It isn't his res
ponsibility to BOND YOUR
CLAIM(S).
---- Sir.....You’re free to go...

[monty]

Federal versus National Alfred Adask

http://freedom-school.com/jurisdiction/v10n1-federal-v-national.pdf

[Bigjon]

FBI Informers, the Bundys, and Watering Horses (https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2017/04/07/fbi-informers-the-bundys-and-watering-horses/)Posted on April 7, 2017 (https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2017/04/07/fbi-informers-the-bundys-and-watering-horses/)by David Robinson (https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/author/drobin88/)
https://mainerepublicemailalert.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/12405-judge2banna.png?w=640 Judge Anna von Reitz
Ask yourself this question: if there are any “FBI Informants” operating in the take-down of the Colorado Grand Juries and State Justices— where are they?
Chances are they are in jail with the rest of the folks, so that they can continue to spy on and manipulate them from a position of trust.
They are certainly not standing here as I have been for yea, so many weeks, giving warning and instruction to people so that they might correct their ways and avoid arrest.
I hear that my name and that of Bella Haywood have been taken in vain and certain parties who are in fact to blame for this debacle have been accusing us of being traitors and informers and so on.
The plain fact is that if these people had followed our advice or even just paid attention to the Public Law they wouldn’t be arrested. There would be no big controversy.
I’ve also been getting a lot of mail about the Bundys. Save the Bundys! Save the Bundys!
The Bundys have had the benefit of my advice and the facts since Day One of their arrest. I explained it to them and I will explain it to all of you again.
United States Citizens and “citizens of the United States” have no constitutional rights. At most, they have “equal civil rights”– but those rights are at the discretion of the Congress and the courts. This is why that federal judge felt that she could afford to laugh in their faces and threaten them with contempt of court for mentioning The Constitution.
They are being tried under false presumptions in a court that is totally foreign to them. They are being tried as “US citizens” and with the possible exception of Ryan Bundy, they have done absolutely nothing to rebut that presumption.
They could get an authenticated copy of their Birth Certificate, accept it as “Drawee” on the front of the document and then endorse it over on the back to the United States of America, U.S. Treasury Without Recourse— and make Steven T. Mnuchin the Fiduciary responsible for AMMON BUNDY, for example.
That would very neatly separate them from the PERSON that is on trial.
They could also post a very hefty Private Registered Indemnity Bond with the Treasury and use that to insure (indemnify) themselves against any charges brought against AMMON BUNDY—- which is just a ledger ACCOUNT that the rats in Nevada are bent on pillaging.
They could ask to see the Bid and Performance Bond related to their case. If they did this in open court the clerk would poop green goo, but have no choice but to produce the incriminating evidence.
They could then accept those Bid and Performance Bonds for Value, charge them off against their Indemnity Bond, and return it to the same laughing Judge and make her laugh out of the other side of her ugly face.
And if no Bid and Performance Bonds were forthcoming, the Prosecutor would have to pay for the whole proceedings out of his pocket and the Judge would have to dismiss.
There have to be two dozen things that they could do to walk out of that court as free men, but no, they won’t listen.
Just like Bruce Doucette wouldn’t listen. And Michael R. Hamilton won’t listen. And Randy Drew wouldn’t listen. And Terry Trussell wouldn’t listen. And Tim Turner wouldn’t listen. And so many, many, many others.
They all insist on calling themselves some kind of United States citizens. They all insist on answering to names. They all insist that they have constitutional rights when United States citizens have never had constitutional rights in over two hundred years…. They all have to try to snow the court under with fancy common law documents that don’t apply and reams of case law that don’t apply.
They just can’t connect to the fact that they are being dragged through a commercial court in international jurisdiction.
And when I try to tell them this, they pause, stare blankly at me, and then go right on with whatever they were doing anyway. It’s like the information hits a “bumper” in their brain and they just reject it like a pinball being tossed aside.
So, please, everyone, this is what I have had to deal with. It isn’t that I haven’t tried or failed my duty to share information or anything else. I have talked and shared until I am blue in the face—- to no avail.
You can lead a horse to water, but….. if the “horse” wants to go to jail, then at a certain point, you just step aside and let him.

[monty]

WHY WE ARE IN THE ADMIRALITY JURISDICTION (http://www.webmavin.com/2015/10/11/why-we-are-in-the-admirality-jurisdiction/)

Posted on October 11, 2015 (http://www.webmavin.com/2015/10/11/why-we-are-in-the-admirality-jurisdiction/) by admin (http://www.webmavin.com/author/admin/)
April 18, 2004
Hi ho! Some fella deserves a lot a credit from this short and concise document that re-enforces a conversation and hard copy. One other point, Standring has been spelled two different ways and according to Lewis H. both would be wrong. I think he said without the (e) and of course without the (a). Anyway, here is a fine piece of work.



Many a student has asked me why I file all of my documents in the admiralty jurisdiction. All of the “pro se” litigants have been sternly warned, by their like-minded friends, that such filings have been known to get people arrested and thrown in jail, since supposedly the admiralty gives the judge unparalleled judicial discretion in this venue that is supposedly without a constitution. In 1997 I had purchased a book about the admiralty jurisdiction called Are you Lost at “C.?” from Pastor Richard Standaring, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Pastor Standaring, one of the best IRS information persons in the United States had just started selling the book, but he had no outstanding opinion of it at the time. I read it, and not really understanding the book, placed it on my shelf to gather dust. [1] About a year later, my local partner, Bob: Shugrue, called me and relayed to me that Standring had recently used the procedures of the book in four cases and had won all of them. Immediately I called Standaring to look into his results. After explaining the theory, I realized that the material was from the book sitting on my shelves. Pastor Standaring made the most incredible remark when I asked him what the court tries to do to his clients in the courtroom.
“Oh, Pastor” Standaring said, “They just try to talk us into agreeing to move the case out of the admiralty, and into the civil venue.”
If I have learned anything about litigating claims against the government, it is that where I need to go is where the judges do not want me to go, even if I do not entirely understand why. I liken it to the military term of “pressing into the fire,” as the safest approach. Retreat usually gets one caught in crossfire, and death is the result.
I thought, “If they do not want me in the Admiralty that is probably the best place to be.”
Then followed weeks of investigation, and all of the information I uncovered was far better than expected. I documented that the Admiralty is under Article III, where the constitution and statutory law both apply! In December of 1999 in Hawaii, we filed the first federal case. Over the next few weeks, what came from the other side was deafening silence. As usual, we placed the other side in default. However, soon the other side was up to their own tricks again. Something was missing. I later uncovered four other important issues that legally bind up the judicial officers into either following the law, or walking the plank. Now, with further understanding, I have learned that in the admiralty, the state waives its immunity seven different ways, through the Suits in Admiralty Act (three ways), through the Bills of Lading Act, through the Admiralty Extension Act, through the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and through the Public Vessels Act. [2]
To place a pleading within the admiralty, the jurisdictional statement needs to reference 28 U.S.C. 1333 or 1337. Tax Cases need to reference 28 U.S.C. 2461 and 2463, since all tax revenue cases are done through the admiralty, and are disguised as civil proceedings. Additionally, in the caption of the suit a reference such as “within the admiralty” is required to hold the court accountable. The courts in the United States have always been open since 1789 to receive admiralty documents, and are still required to do so by authorization of 5: Stat. 516, Ch. 188, §: 5 with the enactment date of August/23/1842, with the authority of the act of the September/24/1789: Chapter: 20.
The Suits in Admiralty Act 3[3] is a law where the United States specifically waives its immunity in three situations: (1) If the admiralty suit involves a vessel [key word] of the United States. Once we look into the definition of the word vessel, we will discover that any of the actors working for the United States are vessels, enabling us properly to apply this provision within our case.
In Benedicts, on Admiralty, one finds that the description of a vessel is so vague, that anything can be a vessel. We are all vessels; human bags carrying “sea water.” “Our blood has the same specific gravity as sea water.” 4[4] In the Bible, a woman is described as the “weaker vessel.” (2) Cases that involve cargo belonging to the U.S. Within the context of our case, when the cargo [the paperwork] of the United States harms us, the United States gives us a blanket waiver of immunity, or (3), if the United States could be sued in the admiralty if it were a private party. Since we are going into an international jurisdiction, (a set aside, fenced territory) every time we go into the court, we are entitled to sue the United States in the admiralty as if the United States were a private party.
[2] Benedicts on Admiralty
[3] Title: 46: U. S. A. Codes, Appendix, Chapter 20 §§ 742-749,
[4] Leonard Tesoro, M.D.
[5] Title: 49: U. S. Codes, Chapter 147 § 14706,The Bills of Lading Act 5[5] is another handy piece of legislation that helps level the playing field, by imposing liability against carriers that misplace, or miss-deliver our cargo(paperwork). Cargo can literally be anything. All manners of things are shipped internationally, from cigarette lighters to books. So we are not making any sort of stretch to say our paperwork is cargo. If the bill of lading sufficiently describes the cargo, the carrier is liable for damages caused by miss-delivery. A bill of lading is nothing more than a document given to the shipper that gives instructions where the cargo is to be delivered, and what the cargo looks like. For the bill of lading to be effective, it must describe the cargo being transported sufficiently so that the shipper can identify the cargo enough to be held responsible, when the shipper delivers the cargo somewhere else.
A classic case occurred in the 1800s where an American fruit producer sent many barrels of apples from Georgia for delivery in New York. Since the barrels were not sufficiently identified in the bill of lading, and since the barrels were not adequately marked, the shipper was not held responsible when the apples were delivered to Belgium!
The Bill of Lading Act includes a criminal penalty, because the losses suffered by the customers of the shippers can be very great. We use a bill of lading in all of our lawsuits. The bill of lading describes the cargo (the lawsuit), and tells the court clerk to carry the suit into the admiralty jurisdiction of the court. 6[6] The clerk is a public vessel, and the carrier. My bill of lading identifies the cargo as the lawsuit, by describing the suit’s postal registry number that I have placed on the front page, by describing the paperwork as having an American flag on the paperwork, etc. The bill of lading creates a liability for which the damaged party can recover in a suit if the documents are diverted into another venue. If a carrier is found wanting in due diligence concerning the delivery of the cargo, the liability attaches at the time of the diversion of the documents. The bill of lading therefore takes away the immunity of clerks and judges, if the cargo is not delivered into the admiralty court, and adds criminal penalties for compliance failures. 7[7]
The Admiralty Extension Act 8[8] extends the admiralty jurisdiction inland. All states by law have access to the sea. Therefore any land locked country has an easement, so to speak, across other countries in order to get to the sea. All states have an admiralty jurisdiction in all of their courts, and they hate admitting it.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. 9[9] Any foreign sovereigns are liable for damages while doing business in the United States. This provision has application since the foreign sovereign — the judges, clerks, etc. — that operate on the behalf of a defacto foreign fiction government. Officials are liable for the damages that they commit while doing business in the country.
The Public Vessels Act 10[10] is another of the admiralty provisions that are helpful to the litigants of the Universal-Legal-Technology. Since the libelant has been damaged by a judge, police officer, prosecutor, court clerk, or other public vessel, the libellant is authorized to sue for the damages in the venue of the admiralty jurisdiction. Again, the Public Vessels Act is a law that specifically waives any immunity of the government.
[6] Title 49 U. S. Codes, Chapter 801 § 80113
[7] Title 49 U. S. Codes, Chapter 801 §: 80116.
[8] Title 46 U. S. A. Appendix, Ch. 19-A § 740.
[9] Title 28 U. S. codes § 1605
[10] Title: 46: U. S. Codes Chapter: 22:§: 781.
The Post Office and the International Postal Union

The role of the United States Post Office and the Universal Postal Union became a factor in our lawsuits because of several bankruptcies that the United States has been through over the history of the country. When one declares himself a bankrupt, that person is no longer legally competent to conduct his affairs. The court becomes a fiduciary, and appoints a trustee to oversee the affairs of the bankrupt. It does not matter if the bankrupt is a common man, or a nation; except that a nation still has a right to conduct war. Typically the average person anywhere in the world thinks of their Postal System as a part of, and subservient to, their government. However, the postal system in the United States has a different legal history than one would expect.
The Post Office and Judicial Courts were established before the seat of the Government. On Thursday, Sept. 17, 1789 we find written, “Mr. Goodhue, for the committee appointed for the purpose, presented a bill to amend part of the Tonnage act, which was read the first time. The bill sent from the Senate, for the temporary establishment of the Post Office, was read the second and third time, and passed. The bill for establishing the Judicial Courts . . . , for establishing the seat of government . . . ” 11[11] Other references to the Post Office support my theory of the founding forefather’s views:

POST OFFICE

1. A place where letters are received to be sent to the persons to whom they, are addressed.
2. The post office establishment of the United States, is of the greatest importance to the people and to the government. The constitution of the United States has invested congress with power to establish post offices and post roads. Art. 1, s. 8, n. 7.
3. By virtue of this constitutional authority, congress passed several laws anterior to the third day of March 1825, when an act, entitled “An act to reduce into one the several acts establishing and regulating the post office department,” was passed. 3 Story, U. S. 1825. It is thereby enacted,
1. That there be established, the seat of the government of the United States, a general post office, under the direction of a postmaster general. 12[12]
We need to take notice where the commas are placed on that last sentence. “That there be established, the seat of the government of the United States, a general post office, under the direction of a postmaster general.” When I set off a clause with commas, I make sure that the sentence makes sense without that clause. Taking out the set-off clause, we read . . . “the seat of the government of the United States under the direction of a postmaster general.”
[11] Gales and Seaton’s History [H. of R.], p. 928.[12] Bouvier, John. Law Dictionary. Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of The United States of America And of the Several States of the American Union, With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law. In the Philadelphia, by theChilds & Peterson. (1856)The creation of the Post office occurs before the creation of the seat of the government, and is placed in authority over the seat of government. What is the effect of these legal techniques? The stated position of an object and the sequence of events play an important role in the Universal-Legal-Technology. The effect is that the Government’s later bankruptcies in 1859 and 1929 have no legal effect upon the solvent Post-Office. We can make a case that the formation of the Post-Office before the formation of the government’s operations is a stroke of dumb luck. Perhaps it is ingenious, since communication has a higher value than government itself. If any government fails, the people still have a need to communicate with one another to form a new government. And to this day, the Post-Office is still solvent and operational, ready to fulfill its duty to help the people in their communications; to set a new government should a complete break down of the existing governmental structures occur in the United States. Sounds like a very good back up plan.
The formation of the Universal Postal Union in 1874 has another legal effect that is very important to the Universal-Legal-Technology. The Universal Postal Union unites member countries into a single, worldwide postal territory. 13[13] We have already learned that any litigant is going into international jurisdiction every time he goes to any court. Since the litigant needs to establish that his papers are official, he uses a dollar???? postage stamp on the face of the first page. The stamps also invoke postal statutes and the Universal Postal Union jurisdiction. Currently in the U. S., the stamp of choice is the “fox” (discontinued 22 April 2004 or earlier) U. S. dollar postage stamp. The stamp is not drawn in a box, making the forty-five-degree lines unnecessary. The litigant does, however, need to autograph across the stamp, then date the autograph, for two reasons: to comply with postal regulations concerning private mail carriers, and to make a continuance of evidence that the process (paper work) is mail. The continuation of evidence is less of a factor, since the definitions of “mail” and “delivery” can include a clerk at a grocery store handing a customer a receipt for groceries. One can see that Standaring had his shipping clerk wired with the Bill of Lading.
The legal writers were forced to make the definitions wide enough to encompass the private rural carriers, and private advertisers that have placed advertisements on our doorsteps, or in our hands. I have thought about this issue a lot, and I did not find any other better alternative. Any loophole would have devastated many consumers, and caused a plethora of other laws to be enacted to cover the loophole.
Additionally, on the back of the first page, we authenticate the authority of the Post-Office with an endorsement, and simultaneously authenticate our identity by placing a postage meter stamp, from a postage meter machine that we have purchased in advance, on the lower quarter of the back of the first page. All commercial papers have endorsements to authenticate their authenticity. Again, we autograph across the meter stamp, and date. The postage meter stamp is better than a regular stamp, and stamps are said to have rendered seals superfluous. 14[14] The purchase of a meter machine requires identification in case the meter machine is tampered with or is stolen. The meter number on the meter stamp can be traced back to the owner (litigant), and therefore authenticates the endorser better than any seal.
What are we doing by placing our paper work into the jurisdiction of the Universal Postal Union? To answer that question, we need to look at the structure and finance of that organization. The official aims and purposes of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) are two: to form “a single postal territory for the reciprocal exchange of correspondence”; and “to secure the organization and improvement of the postal services and to promote in this sphere the development of international collaboration.” [15] “The organization of the circulation of the international mail is based on the freedom of transit, . . . as a result, therefore, only by enduring absolute freedom of transit can the effectual universality of the postal territory be attained. * * * Freedom of transit is guaranteed throughout the entire territory of the union. Administrations may exchange, through the intermediary of one or more of their number, both closed mails and open mail according to the needs of the traffic and the requirements of the service.” 16[16]
“Starting in 1878, the union created a category for territories which were recognized as non independent but which were given all the rights of union membership afforded to clearly independent countries.” 17[17] So the members of the union have been operating as sovereign, independent countries, and their currency is based on the gold French Franc. Gold is the acceptable form of money in international jurisdictions, or paper backed by gold. 18[18] When we purchase postal money orders, the money order is backed by gold, not the fiat “money” called Federal Reserve Notes. The FRNs, as some call them, are based instead on a promise to pay a debt. The debt is based only upon the “full faith and credit of the United States,” and lacks any intrinsic value.
“Some of the obligations in the convention can, in some states, be introduced into domestic practice without involving a nation’s legislative process or without even reaching the desk of the chief executive. 19[19] The Union also “sets forth the principle that postal administrations are responsible for loss of, theft from, or damage to, insured items, and then goes into detail about exceptions to the principle of responsibility, cessation of responsibility, how the sender is indemnified, and the manner in which responsibility is apportioned between postal administrations.” 20[20] “There was only one instance, according to the Belgium delegate, where the bureau would have any power even approximating the right to intervene in the affairs of administrations, that is in the arbitration of disputes, but in this instance the bureau could act only when requested to do so by an administration.” 21[21] The Functions of the International Bureau for the Universal Postal Union include acting “as a clearinghouse for information concerning postal matters. It also functions as a clearinghouse for international postal accounts and as a conciliator and arbitrator in disputes over postal matters between administrations.” 22[22] [13] 1997 Encyclopedia Britannica
[14] Collon, Dominique, Editor. 7000 Years of Seals. In the London, for the Trustees of the British
Museum, by the BRITISH MUSEUM PRESS. 1997. p. 153.
[15] Universal Postal Union, p. 73.
[16] Universal Postal Union, p. 74.
[17] Universal Postal Union, p. 80.
[18] The backing of paper does not necessarily have to be gold, it can be anything real at market
value like timber, oil, minerals, metals, land, etc.
[19] Universal Postal Union, p. 96.
[20] Universal Postal Union, p. 103.
[21] Universal Postal Union, p. 186.
[22] Universal Postal Union, p. 195
So, what we are doing, by placing the postage stamp on our admiralty paperwork and endorsement on the back of the first page, is using the authority of the sovereignty of the longest surviving, solvent, governmental authority in the United States. Through the admiralty, we are taking the Post-Office and the judicial system back some two hundred years, and simultaneously creating a new territory with all the rights of union membership afforded to clearly independent countries. We are establishing the laws in this new territory with the paper work that we have filed. As we will see later, we are also correcting the errors of the founding forefathers; in that we are also bringing the equal rights that they neglected to give to all the people in the United States. We are eliminating all of the legal deficiencies that handicap the sovereign status of us, the people, within the court. We are guaranteed that all of the parties in the case: the clerk, judge, bailiff, and litigants have the freedom of transit in the admiralty court. If the clerk, judge, or other official fails to deliver our documents as directed, or delay them, or obstruct them, that person is faced with several penalties within the postal statutes and admiralty statutes. The final advantage is that if we are obstructed, because of the transitory nature of the action, we are in the admiralty and can take the case offshore for adjudication in any court in the world.

Bills of Lading Act
Admiralty Extension Act
The Public Vessels Act
Suits in Admiralty Act
Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act
False Claims Act, see 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7)
Lanham Act , see 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Postal Reorganization Act
Federal Tort Claims Act
Administrative Procedure Act
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act:
(Old H.R. 4970 from the last Congress)

Established in 1874, the Universal Postal Union (UPU), with its Headquarters in the Swiss capital of Bern, is the second oldest international organization after the International Telecommunications Union
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 (c. 50) UK jurisdictional statement needs to reference 28 U.S.C. 1333 or 1337
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > Sec. 1333.
Sec. 1333. – Admiralty, maritime and prize cases
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:
(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.
(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > Sec. 1337.
Sec. 1337. – Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in controversy, costs
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies: Provided, however, That the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of an action brought under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, only if the matter in controversy for each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
(b) Except when express provision therefore is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where a plaintiff who files the case under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $10,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of any interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.
(c) The district courts shall not have jurisdiction under this section of any matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under chapter 95 of this title 28 U.S.C. 2461 and 2463 for referencing tax cases.
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 163 > Sec. 2461.
Sec. 2461. – Mode of recovery
(a) Whenever a civil fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for the violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of recovery or enforcement thereof, it may be recovered in a civil action.
(b) Unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress, whenever a forfeiture of property is prescribed as a penalty for violation of an Act of Congress and the seizure takes place on the high seas or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, such forfeiture may be enforced by libel in admiralty but in cases of seizures on land the forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty.
(c) If a forfeiture of property is authorized in connection with a violation of an Act of Congress, and any person is charged in an indictment or information with such violation but no specific statutory provision is made for criminal forfeiture upon conviction, the Government may include the forfeiture in the indictment or information in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and upon conviction, the court shall order the forfeiture of the property in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d) of that section.
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 163 > Sec. 2463.
Sec. 2463. – Property taken under revenue law not repleviable All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.

Posted in Uncategorized (http://www.webmavin.com/category/uncategorized/).




https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/tax/legacy/2006/03/16/Standring_MagRptRecommend.pdf

page 1 of 24

RICHARD W. STANDRING,individually and dba VIP SALES,



Case No. 1:04-cv-730


REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATION(Dlott, J.; Hogan, M.J.)




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIOWESTERN DIVISION




The United States brings this action against Richard W. Standring, individually anddoing business as VIP Sales, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7408 seeking to enjoin Mr.Standring from promoting an abusive tax scheme. This matter is before the Court on theUnited States’ motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 24) and declaration of RevenueAgent Steven Rowe in support thereof (Doc. 25), defendant’s memorandum, declaration,exhibits, and errata to the memorandum in opposition to the motion for preliminaryinjunction (Docs. 28-33), the United States’ reply memorandum and declaration of MichaelPahl (Docs. 34, 35), the United States’ Closing Argument (Doc. 42), defendant’s ClosingArgument (Doc. 43), and the United States’ Rebuttal to defendant’s Closing Argument.(Doc. 44). This matter is also before the Court on defendant’s motion to strike thedeclaration of Revenue Agent Steven Rowe (Doc. 27) and errata thereto (Doc. 33), theUnited States’ memorandum in opposition to the motion to strike (Doc. 36), defendant’smotion to suppress the deposition of Randall A. Skelton and to strike the declaration ofMichael Pahl and purported emails appended to such declaration (Doc. 38), and the UnitedStates’ response thereto. (Doc. 39). A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction was

[crimethink]

You cannot be "tricked" into accepting a contract. If the parties are not fully-informed of the terms, or even the existence of the contract itself, the contract is null and void.

Any instrument or process that makes you something other than you were without your informed consent has no authority.

[crimethink]

Since no law compells me to be a United States Citizen, I chose to be a Minnesotan, which is not a United States Citizen or a Citizen.
Citizen is a public office.

Denouncing United State Citizenship gives me back my god given rights that were converted to civil rights.

The Federal regime considers you a "US Citizen" whether you denounce or renounce it or not. You are its subject not by right of law, but force of arms.

Jesus Christ was the Sovereign of the Kingdom of Heaven, but that didn't stop the Roman Empire from putting Him to death in His human form.

This world is the Devil's, and while you should - and have the obligation to - refuse & resist, never imagine that your wishes or will shall be honored. In fact, it will be laughed at by goons with guns.

[crimethink]

One is the union of 50 independent States combined into a 3-branch (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) Republican Form o fgovernment under a contract called: The Constitution of the United States of America.

Who or what were the parties to this contract?

Governments of states, or the People themselves?

Then as now, the governments of states.

So, by what authority does the Federal regime exercise its power over non-parties? Consent? In what manner? By participating in the sham of "elections"? Perhaps - and this would explain why the Federal regime pushes "voter registration" at every point in this society. They sure don't want your opinion, only your consent via their sorcerous scheme.

The Federal regime cannot claim its theoretical "authority" by the fact you live on human-defined territory if God Himself placed you on that territory. Only "naturalized" persons can be subject to its authority. This does not restrain the Federal regime's power over you, however - it can and will kill you if you actively resist it, no matter your citizenship or arguments against it. For the Devil empowers all governments of this Earth.

[crimethink]

(((Howard Freeman)))


Just how many Jews are involved in these "free yourself with the UCC" scams?

I suspect the peddlers of these schemes are motivated by two primary reasons:

1) money, of course - most of this "education" is not free, and swallows up huge piles of cash from books and seminars from those who think they are then "enlightened" (Luciferian term);
2) some of them are surely controlled "opposition," willful collaborators*, possibly even funded by the regime itself, in order to create the "argument" that the People are to blame themselves for being enslaved, for "not knowing their remedy." This would accord with the regime's rabid campaign to get everyone to "register to vote," which it considers an occult/shysteresque "consent of the governed."




* they probably also serve to entrap unsuspecting Goyim for persecution by the regime.

[palani]

The Federal regime considers you a "US Citizen" ....

There is no 'federal regime'. The scheme is a NATIONAL one rather than a FEDERAL one. This is part of the subterfuge. If they were still masking as federal I expect there would be fewer arguments.

[crimethink]

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/jesuscreed/files/2014/01/Screen-Shot-2014-01-20-at-3.59.54-PM.png

He didn't know His "remedy."


:rolleyes:

[Bigjon]

How to Correct Your Political Status and Why (https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2017/04/23/how-to-correct-your-political-status-and-why/)Posted on April 23, 2017 (https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2017/04/23/how-to-correct-your-political-status-and-why/)by David Robinson (https://mainerepublicemailalert.com/author/drobin88/)
https://mainerepublicemailalert.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/12405-judge2banna.png?w=640 Judge Anna von Reitz

Chances are you aren’t obligated to be considered any form of federal Municipal CITIZEN nor as a federal Territorial Citizen, but you have been entrapped in a profit-making scheme that pretends that you have knowingly and willingly agreed to act as a volunteer federal employee— specifically, as a “Withholding Agent” — a Warrant Officer in the Merchant Marine Service, and that you have purposefully and knowingly enrolled in the Social Security program which is only available to federal employees in order to receive benefits from the Public Charitable Trust (PCT) which was organized in the wake of the Civil War for welfare relief of former plantation slaves.

What? You never worked a day for the federal government? You were never told that “Social Security” is only for federal employees and dependents? You aren’t a former plantation slave? You never got any benefits?

Well, then, you have to stop calling yourself any kind of “US citizen” — because citizens all work for the government. They have a duty and obligation to obey every statute, code, and whim of the government as a result, and they are also liable to pay federal income taxes. You also have to stop voting in any “US elections” including “State of State” elections, because the States of States are just local franchises of the federal corporation(s) defined at 28 USC 3002 (15).

So, Step One— withdraw and rescind any and all applications and enrollments as a “registered voter”. You have no natural interest in the elections of a foreign corporation that you don’t work for, right?

If you don’t get a paycheck direct from the federal government and you don’t want to function as a for-free Withholding Agent and aren’t interested in any “benefits” that you pay for yourself and don’t want to be held subject to the whims of a foreign entity that is supposed to be providing you with Good Faith Service instead– then read on.

You have been mis-characterized and defrauded and you have prima facie evidence of that readily available. You think of it as your Birth Certificate, but it isn’t. It is a “certification” that a federal MUNICIPAL “PERSON” was created and named after you and that at one point in your life you were a real American. You were born on your birthday, but the MUNICIPAL PERSON has a birth date which is several days or weeks later—the filing date shown on the certificate.

Please note that the “Birth Certificate” is printed on bond paper. It is a security instrument. Please also note that it has been signed by the Registrar — an officer of the probate court. This is prima facie evidence that your earthly estate was probated when you were only a few days or weeks old and that it was seized upon by the State of ___________ or STATE OF_________ and operated for its benefit from that time on.

So, Step Two—- ditch the federal MUNICIPAL PERSON and the responsibilities and obligations associated with it.

You need to get the Birth Certificate authenticated if that is still possible in your state, or certified, if not, and then you need to endorse it and “surrender” it to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

(Please note the two dots between the “U” and the “S”—– the U.S. Treasury.) and make Steven T. Mnuchin the Fiduciary responsible for IT.

The endorsement is simple but exact. The authenticated or certified Birth Certificate that the birth State Secretary of State sends back to you will have a cover page riveted or hard stapled and firmly attached to the front of the BC. You leave that cover page attached and on the front of the BC itself in the upper left hand corner and in red ink you write: “Accepted by Drawee” and sign it by: Your Upper Lower Case Signature, and date it.

Then turn the BC over and on the back anywhere write: Pay to the Order of the United States of America, U.S. Treasury. Without Recourse. And again, write— by: Your Upper and Lower Case Signature, and date it.

Next comes the Form 56, which is the IRS Form called “Notice of Fiduciary Relationship”. This is your Notice to Mr. Mnuchin that you are making him and his office responsible for the PERSON named after you.

The Form 56 is very simple — the name of the PERSON is the NAME on the BC which you are returning to the Treasury.

The name of the Fiduciary is Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury. You can look up the address online. I believe it is 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.

Section A (f) — “Other” — Public Commercial Trust Administration

Section B(4) — Check (a) (b) and (h) “Other” and just say, “All forms that may be necessary”.

On the back, Part II, 7 (C) “Other” — Surrender of federal “PERSON” to U.S. Treasury

On the back, Part III “Court and Administrative Proceedings” — enter the name and address of the agency issuing the BC. The “date proceeding initiated” will be the File Date which is never your birthday, but a few days or weeks later. The “docket number” will be the State File Number on the BC. The time will be the time you were actually born, and the place of “other” proceedings will be “usa”.

On the back, Part IV, “Signature” —- you write the word “by” like a by-line to a newspaper story—- by: Your Name (Upper and Lower Case), Authorized Representative, and the date.

Underneath the Signature is a blank space. It is appropriate to say that you wish to be indemnified against claims or losses under the sovereign usa Private Registered Indemnity Bond AMRI00001 RA393427640US.

This is basically a bond posted in behalf of all the actual states of the Union and all the people living in those states insuring them against any further claims related to the MUNICIPAL PERSON(S) they have surrendered back to Mr. Mnuchin.

And that is that. You have now surrendered the MUNICIPAL “CITIZEN” back whence it came and you have insured yourself against any further claims or losses or charges brought against that PERSON.

Along with the Form 56 you should include a brief letter stating that it is your instruction to operate exclusively under 100% commercial liability and without benefit of any limited liability or other benefit of the Public Charitable Trust (PCT).

You are going to send this package of documents via Registered Mail to the Treasury. Each red and white Registered Mail label (available with instructions at all Post Offices) is unique and has an alpha-numeric identifier to track it. This includes a nine-digit number that is compatible with the federal system. As part of your assignment letter, instruct Mr. Mnuchin to open a Treasury Direct Account with that number and to please inform you when it is open for business. Also ask him to settle all debts and charges related to YOUR NAME and deposit the remainder and all other credits owed into the new Treasury Direct Account.

Thank him for his time and attention.

Well, that was a Royal Pain and you shouldn’t have ever been entrapped and obligated by your employees in the first place, but now you have taken action to sever the presumption that you are volunteering to act as a federal MUNICIPAL CITIZEN, and nobody can say otherwise. From now on, “IT” is Mr. Mnuchin’s problem and you are indemnified against any further claims or complaints related to “IT”.

Step 3…. Notify both the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service at Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 480, Holtsville, New York, 11742-0480 and the Internal Revenue Office of the Commissioner, Room 3000, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20204-0002, that you have retired from all presumed federal service and you are revoking your election to pay federal income taxes effective October 1 of 2016. Send these Notices via Registered Mail, too. Save a copy and the mailing receipts and the Green Card Return Receipt Requested for your Eternally Done and Over File.

No more Voter Registration, no more obligation to file Federal Income Taxes and no Municipal United States PERSON for the US DISTRICT COURT — that is, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DISTRICT COURT to address.

That much is done and over.

But there’s more.

You also have to rebut and return the allegation of Territorial United States Citizenship. You do this by recording an Act of Expatriation.

This is as simple as saying that your allegiance is to the soil of your native birth state, say, Louisiana, and that you act only as a private American state trading vessel and birthright member of the unincorporated private trade association doing business as The United States of America.

Now, no matter what kind of word-smithing and duplicitous redefining of terms that goes on forever afterward, no incorporated entity or franchise of any incorporated entity can claim that you are operating as a Foreign Situs Trust belonging to them or abandoned for their benefit—- which was FDR’s fraudulent claim against Americans in 1933.

You have declared that at home you are living on the land and at sea your Name is an American vessel engaged in international trade— not subject to federal regulation of commerce and owed all the protections of the actual Constitution and treaties backing it.

So now they have no grounds to “presume” that you are a Territorial United States Citizen, either.

X and X.

Finally, the rats have created “International Organizations” and run them “in your name”. You need to seize upon these organizations and file liens against them. You do this using a UCC-1 Financing Statement Form. The organizations doing business as your FIRST MIDDLE LAST and FIRST M.I. LAST are the DEBTORS and your non-Territorial Lawful Trade Name (aka Christian Name– First Middle Last) is the Secured Party. This is not a Notice of your interest, because you have already given plenty of public notice. You can lien these organizations directly by checking the “Non-UCC” claim in Box 6.

When filling out the UCC-1 Form be sure to write the names in the proper style. Everything related to the DEBTORS including USA should be in all capital letters. Everything related to the Secured Party should be Upper and Lower Case, except that for the Secured Party it should be “usa” — the actual organic states.

And now, finally, you have provided your employees with a fistful of paperwork refuting all their lies and presumptions about you. They can no longer presume anything about your political status, except that it is private and that you are operating lawfully and without any obligation to them or their organization. Quite the opposite— they are in fact your employees and obligated to you.

Your final stop should be the State Secretary of State’s Office to present him with another copy of “your” authenticated/certified BC.

I want you to stare that man or woman right in the eye and say: “This is prima facie evidence of a Public Trust…..”

If necessary, continue on—– “and also prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.”

“I have reclaimed my birthright political status and I want the proper passport I am owed. If you aren’t authorized to issue it, get on the phone and find out who is.”

If they attempt to drag you into one of their courts ask them where they will find the authority to address you? And where will they find a jury of your peers?

The Great Fraud is over.

The international trustees responsible for this Mess know that it is. You know that it is. It is just a matter of time before the whole world wakes up and goes—- WT…..?

[monty]

Liberty or Laws? Justice or Despotism.

Gary Hunt at Outpost of Freedom wrote a pretty good article on the jury's role in promoting justice.

[Sir William Blackstone was the 'mentor' of the framers of the Constitution http://constitutionalmilitia.org/william-blackstone/]



http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182

Liberty or Laws?

Justice or Despotism?

https://i2.wp.com/outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Judge-instructing-jury.jpg?resize=476%2C307 (https://i2.wp.com/outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Judge-instructing-jury.jpg)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 10, 2017

When the colonies severed their allegiance to England, in 1776, through the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, they had to have some form of law upon which to deal with matters, both criminal and civil. To do so, they adopted the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776. This, then, became the foundation of laws upon which both the federal government and state governments began the process of developing their judicial systems.

What is important to understand is that the laws that they adopted were concerned with Justice. For example, though Webster’s 1828 dictionary has no definition of “judicial”, an adjective, it does have one for that body that is responsible for that function of government, the Judiciary:
JUDI’CIARY, n. That branch of government which is concerned in the trial and determination of controversies between parties, and of criminal prosecutions; the system of courts of justice in a government. An independent judiciary is the firmest bulwark of freedom.

Through our history, there have been legal scholars who stand well above the current lot, in that their concern for justice was paramount in their considerations, and the subject of much of their scholarly writings.

Perhaps the best known of these legal scholars was Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), and his seminal “Blackstone’s Commentaries. From Book 1 of those Commentaries, we find some familiar phraseology:
“[A] subordinate right of every Englishman is that of applying to the courts of justice for redress of injuries. Since the law is in England the supreme arbiter of every man’s life, liberty, and property, courts of justice must at all times be open to the subject, and the law be duly administered therein.”“And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property.”

Of course, personal security is best defined as “life”, as without it, we have nothing. And, Blackstone used the common term, “property”, as did most of the declarations of independence that predate Jefferson’s more poetic version.

What else did Sir Blackstone tells us about justice that was of extreme importance then, and should be equally so, now. When he discusses Felony Guilt, he states his understanding and then refers to another scholar, Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676), from Book 4:
“Presumptive Evidence of Felony. All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer. Sir Matthew Hale lays down two rules:
(1) Never to convict a man for stealing the goods of a person unknown, merely because he will not account how he came by them; unless an actual felony be proved of such goods.
(2) Never to convict any person of murder or manslaughter, till at least the body be found dead.”

This subject can easily be set aside by the government simply stating that “times have changed”, since Blackstone wrote the Commentaries in the 1760s. However, that discounts the fact that justice cannot change, only the misapplication of justice can change. That latter is quite simply defined as [I]injustice.

The Constitution provided two means by which the constitutionality of a law could be challenged. The first, found in Article I, § 9, clause 2:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

See Habeas Corpus – The Guardian of Liberty (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=709)

The second is, of course, the right to a trial by jury. But, how can that provide for justice instead of simply the laws? Quite simply, since the government is “of the People”, those People were to be the final arbiter of the laws enacted by the legislature. Absent such protection from unconstitutional or unjust laws, the People would be subject to the whims of the legislators or administrative agencies, without recourse. That, as you will see, results in despotism.Revisiting the two methods, the former, habeas corpus, is a judicial function whereby an individual can challenge the constitutionality or the applicability to his person, of any law that has led to his incarceration. The latter is the collective group, the jury, judging they law, also, as to constitutionality and applicability, as well as justice.

The government might argue that we left behind English Common Law so that we could adopt a better system. So, let’s look at the better system that was adopted after the Constitution, and is still embodied in the Maryland Constitution, and in the Declaration of Rights:
Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

Clearly, this article, this inherent right, is suggestive of the intent of the jury trial process, both in England and in the fledgling United States of America.

Though not specifically expressed, the governments, both the states and the federal have not, for good cause, enacted a law prohibiting a jury from judging the law, as well as the facts. Instead, it has been left to the discretion of the judge to endeavor to deny that fundamental right, a right that serves not only the defendant, but the people as well.

There have been periods in our history where nullification of laws by juries has resulted in the legislative branch realizing that the law enacted was not consistent with the will of the people, and then sought to repeal those laws. Here are two examples of such impact on such legislation.

First was a constitutional amendment, the 18th Amendment (1919) prohibited the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors”. Many juries refused to convict violators of the laws enacted under the authority of the Amendment. Ultimately, this led to the repeal of the Amendment by the 21st Amendment (1933). The will of the People was heard and addressed.

Next has to do with another law enacted under authority of the Constitution, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Just two years later, in 1852, Lysander Spooner wrote “An Essay on the Trial By Jury (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/EssayontheTrialByJury.pdf)“, which addressed the inherent right of the jury to judge the law, also to encourage people to find those charged with violation of the slave act, to judge the law and find them not guilty. In so doing, he gave us additional insight into the inherent right of the jury:
“FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused;
but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

“The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” that is, by the people as distinguished from a trial by the government.

It was anciently called “trial per pais” that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”

The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other or at least no more accurate definition of a despotism than this.

On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.”

What has happened, over time, however, is that the courts have assumed the role that is rightfully that of the jury. This has been accomplished by methods that absolutely reject the idea of justice.
First is what came into being in 1872 called the “case law method”, developed by Harvard University.

Theodore Roosevelt, one of the early students taught the “case law method”, while a student at Columbia University. In describing his concern over case law, he wrote, “we are concerned with [the] question of what law is, not what it ought to be.” And, that “is” is what the courts decided what it “is”, not what the legislature might have thought “is” was when they enacted the law.
However, the legislature has no remedy, so case law prevails in our current judicial system.

The “case law method” favors decisions made in lower courts, both appellate and occasionally district, have been used to ‘interpret’ what was ‘intended’ when a law was written by the Legislative Branch of the government. In so doing, most often there is “case law” that supports one side and then “case law” that supports the other side, of a criminal prosecution.

The second method, and extension of the first, is the discretion of the judge, who then determines who is right and who is wrong, assuming a role that should be the purview of the jury. However, that decision, what the law is, is made even before the jury hears the matter.

The “case law” is bantered about long before the case goes to trial, during what might rightfully be deemed “the Paper Chase”. Thus depriving the jury of the benefit of what a written law means, since the court has determined what instruction the jury will be given. The jury must come to a verdict, not on the written law, rather on what the court says that the written law says.

[Note: Some previous articles that discuss the “case law method”:Camp Lone Star – Act Two: The Contradictions Scene 3: To Be, or Not to Be – Forthright (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1102), Camp Lone Star – Act II – A Kangaroo Court – Scene 1 – How Case Law Subverts the Constitution (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1154), Camp Lone Star – The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He? (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1226), and Burns Chronicles No 25 – Juror Shopping & Secrecy (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=1617).]

This, then, brings us full circle, back to what the Founders wrote when the purpose of the Constitution was explained in the Federalist Papers. It was James Madison, in Federalist #62, that discussed “The mischievous effects of a mutable government” when he addressed the purpose of laws:“

The internal effects of a mutable [def: liable to change] policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

They are voluminous because there are tens of thousands of previous cases (case law) that often present many dozens of interpretations of a written law. For those who have read case law, many decisions are less than coherent; they are often nearly undecipherable and contradictory. They tend to change between court decision made upon the same statutory law, and are, quite frankly, outside of the mental capacity of most people to understand just what is, and what is not, the law.

So, just how can that be “a rule of action”, when it cannot meet the simple standards set forth by Madison?From that which so many strived for, over two hundred years ago, we have slowly digressed in what Spooner described as “despotism”. Just 76 years before Spooner scribed those words, Thomas Jefferson had advised us,“But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

Share this:



Email (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182&share=email&nb=1)
Print (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182#print)
Facebook
56
(http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182&share=facebook&nb=1)
Google (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182&share=google-plus-1&nb=1)
Pinterest (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182&share=pinterest&nb=1)
Reddit (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182&share=reddit&nb=1)
Twitter (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182&share=twitter&nb=1)
More (http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=2182#)





Like this:

[Jewboo]

Being born in Minnesota makes me a Minnesotan. That is not a US CITIZEN.



https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1509/90/1509903658194.jpg


:rolleyes: Bigjon

[Bigjon]

https://78.media.tumblr.com/c63004a4d8d119c0404ef4e9f416dc0d/tumblr_nh1iis0lPS1siqgjwo1_500.jpg


:rolleyes: Bigjon

That is a Unidroit corporation, like Walmart or the Federal Reserve.

[Neuro]

You put on some weight since you landed on the shores of Minnesota Bigjon...

BEFORE
https://78.media.tumblr.com/c63004a4d8d119c0404ef4e9f416dc0d/tumblr_nh1iis0lPS1siqgjwo1_500.jpg

AFTER
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1509/90/1509903658194.jpg



But the weapon is better...

[Bigjon]

You put on some weight since you landed on the shores of Minnesota Bigjon...

BEFORE
https://78.media.tumblr.com/c63004a4d8d119c0404ef4e9f416dc0d/tumblr_nh1iis0lPS1siqgjwo1_500.jpg

AFTER




But the weapon is better...

Nope that fat guy is bookie's alter-ego, I look much more like the viking. The fat guy isn't 6'6", more like a book size character.

[Bigjon]

https://scontent.fsea1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c51.0.100.100/p100x100/11012568_926153587433722_1096069755512918219_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=0&oh=7bb9ed25992e70c769dc4693c4d73240&oe=5BE6452A
(https://www.facebook.com/avonreitz?fref=nf)

Anna von Reitz (https://www.facebook.com/avonreitz?hc_ref=ARRTxAWBrfwSOCpRP9Ko-7UQFtGaKWRCj4K1WDDYk0sa2xNNNmBxIepwEDjYFsKAZ-Q&fref=nf)

Domicile -- The Governing Issue

We have been held -- incorrectly -- under "municipal law". And what is "municipal law"? It is otherwise described as "private international law".

Of course, we discovered this and other fun facts some time ago on the road --- as Cat Stevens put it -- "to find out", but beyond the names and labels, what does that imply?

A state is governed by public international law --- or is supposed to be; a commercial corporation, however, is governed under private international law.

I make a distinction here between commercial corporations which are chartered by states, and international trade organizations which are not chartered and truly privately held unincorporated entities.

Prior to this I have observed that "unincorporated" indicates "sovereign" entities and political status, and that it is entirely possible to be "corporate" without being "incorporated".

So, in a nutshell, what the vermin have done is to grant us all a franchise -- like a Dairy Queen franchise -- to operate under our NAMES for their benefit. This franchise is kept in a perpetual state of subjugation to their private municipal law by their presumption of guardianship over it, and periodically, these franchises are bankrupted for the convenience and profit of the parent organizations.

Our lawful Trade Names, also known as our "Good Names" and "Christian Names" have thus been infringed upon and have been abused via legal chicanery and transported into the jurisdiction of municipal (private international law) by fraudulent actions undertaken by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration and more recently by actions undertaken by the Obama Administration.

Whereas FDR mischaracterized us as Cestui Que Vie Estate Trusts, Obama has mischaracterized us as Public Transmitting Utilities. And in both cases nothing is deserved but a firm and resounding, "No way in Hell." from the American Public.

How to put an end to this pernicious deceit and fraud and victimization? There are many issues to address, but by far, the most potent (and for them, unanswerable) issue is the issue of domicile. Where do you choose to live? And therefore, under what form of law do you live?

You do have a choice. You have to have a choice guaranteed to you, for any of this to be legal in any sense of the word.

That is why the Expatriation Act was passed by the Rump Congress back in July of 1868 the day before they published their deceitfully disguised Articles of Incorporation as "The United States of America, Inc." --- a Scottish Commercial Corporation --- as "The Constitution of the United States of America".

The main pillar of their deceit has been the presumption that you "voluntarily" chose to live and function as a British Citizen, merely "residing" here for the purpose of providing "essential government services".

If they and their presumptions were to be believed, nearly all of the American population voluntarily went to work for the Queen and the UK --- sans a paycheck or any actual work assignments, of course.

All of this concerns only them and their deceits and their internal issues and workings and multiple bankruptcies. We are, in fact and in truth, not part of their baileywick at all --- they are in fact, part our our baileywick when they come ashore on American soil.

So how have they contrived to rob generations of Americans of the value of their material and intellectual and labor assets?

By making a false claim of domicile. They signed you up as "citizens" of their version of "United States" when you were a baby in your cradle. And they have used this falsified public record against you all the days of your lives to make you subject to both municipal and territorial law, instead of the Public Law of your actual state and country.

Thanks to their fraud, deceit, and Gross Breach of Trust, you now have to make a choice --- will you be recognized as an American, free men and women owed all the rights, benefits, and property assets of your heritage, or will you continue to let these Euro-trash con artists continue to feed off of you and your country like leeches?

Obviously, you need to change the falsified public records by returning the Birth Certificates to their Sources and by making the declaration of domicile (or as they spelled it back then, "domicil") and expatriating from their foreign jurisdiction back to the jurisdiction of your birthright.

We have made this Declaration of Domicile part of the Certificate of Assumed Name process, but you must all become aware of the importance of this issue of declaring your domicile as "land and soil" of Georgia, Maine, Texas, etc. -- and enabled to bring it forward properly in court.

What advantage does a proper declaration of domicile provide you?

It means you have to be tried under the Public Law, not private international commercial law. It means that there is no such thing as a "thought crime" or a "victimless crime" or a "statutory infringement". It means that you retain the full roster of trial options set forth in Blackstone's Commentaries, including "Trial by Record"--- which, if you have done your homework, will more than adequately prove that you are an American and that you are properly domiciled on the land and soil of your birth state.

That cuts you free of their municipal law, and it also demands that instead of being treated under their territorial law, you are owed The Law of Peace from their military courts, as a Third Party Civilian Non-Combatant having nothing to do with their internecine power struggles and con games.

If you have not actually and factually harmed someone who is bringing complaint or stolen or damaged someone else's property by your direct actions for which a complaining party appears --- there is no case, no prevailing law, and no presumable jurisdiction for THEM to operate it.

You, therefore, have the option of declaring yourself free of their enslavement and their false claims, and merely have to become aware enough of the issues to do so and defend yourself and your assets accordingly.


Here, courtesy a friend to the cause, is the controlling British law summation from

Foreign and Domestic Law -- a Concise Treatise on Private International Jurisprudence, by John Alderson Foote:

"The 'right of expatriation' is not, perhaps, the happiest of phrases, but it is manifest that the feudal theory of indissoluble allegiance had become an anachronism, and a Royal Commission was appointed in May 1868 to inquire into the English laws of naturalisation and allegiance generally."

"As to domicil for testamentary purposes, or with relation to succession to personal property on intestacy, the law has been considerably modified …”

"British subjects dying in a foreign country shall be deemed for all purposes of testate or intestate succession as to movables to retain the domicil they possessed at the time of going to reside in such foreign country, unless they have resided in such foreign country for a year at least, and shall have made a formal and public written declaration of an intention to become domiciled there.”

"Domicil being a question of fact, it is not competent for individual States to enact restrictions upon, or facilities for, its acquisition ; and such enactments should not, in the tribunals of other States, obtain recognition."

"The principle that laws are commands addressed to persons, which has been referred to above,(«) renders it important to consider what entities come within that term."

"With regard to any particular municipal law, a foreign State must be regarded as occupying a position closely analogous to that of a foreign corporation ; the personality of the latter being conferred upon it by its own municipal law, while that of the former is created by the public law of nations.”

"Foreign States, or bodies politic created by international law, occupy a position analogous to that of foreign corporations. In the case of monarchical governments, the Sovereign may be regarded as a corporation sole, representing the State; in the case of democratic or republican governments, the State itself, under its international name or style, as a body politic, may be regarded as a corporation aggregate."

"Neither a personal Sovereign nor a body politic (or State) may be sued in an English Court, unless the privilege of sovereignty has been waived, expressly or impliedly, by voluntary submission to the jurisdiction or otherwise."

Bring their BIRTH CERTIFICATE to court and lay it down on a copy of The Holy Bible and on top of that, lay down your Expatriation of your identical NAME from their domicile and back to the land and soil of your birth state. Add the Certificate of Assumed Name on top of that---- and stare the Judge in the eye.

You, as an American, are owed the full faith and credit provided by every municipal and territorial corporation on Earth. You, as a British Territorial or Municipal "Citizen" are a slave and are owed nothing at all, not even common decency.

You make the choice.

[ziero0]

what is "municipal law"?

The concept dates back to an era when nation-states were based upon cities. A municipality is the officers representing the city: mayor, sheriff, treasurer, etc. Municipal law is the law that governs these officers.

If you are not one of these officers then you must be ignorant


Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.

The duty is established by the office you occupy.

[Bigjon]

The concept dates back to an era when nation-states were based upon cities. A municipality is the officers representing the city: mayor, sheriff, treasurer, etc. Municipal law is the law that governs these officers.

If you are not one of these officers then you must be ignorant



The duty is established by the office you occupy.

Jeez, where did you find me asking about municipal law? Looks like an attempt to put words in my mouth.

Are you related to 7th?

[ziero0]

Jeez, where did you find me asking about municipal law?
Check the first sentence of your last post.


Are you related to 7th?
Why would you think I have relation with any Arabic number?

[Dogman]

Check the first sentence of your last post.


Why would you think I have relation with any Arabic number? Methinks there is probably, a "Zero" possibility that all the above is true..

;D

[ziero0]

Methinks there is probably, a "Zero" possibility that all the above is true..

;D
Questions are neither true or false.

[Dogman]

Questions are neither true or false. That depends on what side of the bed you fall out of during what ever wake up time is to be, will be! And also not all questions demand a true or false answer, but more of a "Zero" sum game

;D

[ziero0]

not all questions demand a true or false answer, but more of a "Zero" sum game

;D

Statements made in response to questions are either true or false. If you plan on being accountable for a false statement you might prefer to begin your statement with "If I understand your question then my answer is .... ". This simple policy might have saved Martha Stewart some re-orientation time.

[Dogman]

Statements made in response to questions are either true or false. If you plan on being accountable for a false statement you might prefer to begin your statement with "If I understand your question then my answer is .... ". This simple policy might have saved Martha Stewart some re-orientation time. Too dam early this morning to shake brain cells up, much !...BTW have a good one.. ;D

[ziero0]

have a good one.. ;D
Why should I limit myself to one? What if I want two? Or a dozen?

[Bigjon]

Check the first sentence of your last post.


Why would you think I have relation with any Arabic number?

Anna asked a rhetorical question and proceeded to answer it.
It is fine if you want to elaborate on that answer, just leave me out of it.

It was not my question.

[ziero0]

Anna asked a rhetorical question....It was not my question.... leave me out of it

My apologies. I will direct my response to Anna then. Do you happen to have her user name here?

[Bigjon]

My apologies. I will direct my response to Anna then. Do you happen to have her user name here?

It's easy to leave me out of it.