UCC Connection By Howard Freeman

                       The UCC Connection:

                Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny

                       September 22, 1991


     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."


     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

              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

     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

     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

     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

     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

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

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.


     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

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"1  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.


     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:
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.


     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

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

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

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

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

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

3.   When you  get into  court, the  judge will read the charges:
     driving through  a yellow  light, or whatever, and this is a
     violation of ordinance XYZ.  He will ask, "Do you understand
     the charge against you?"4

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

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

5.   "Is this the instrument that you gave me?"  (handing him the
     traffic citation)

     Officer:   "Yes, this  is a  copy of  it.  The judge has the
     other portion of it."

     "Where did  you get  my  address  that  you  wrote  on  that

     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."

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

7.   If the  judge tries  to move  ahead and try the facts of the
     case, then you will want to ask him the following question:

     Your Honor,  let me  understand this  correctly.   Has  this
     court made a legal determination that it has authority under
     the jurisdiction  that it  is operating under, to ignore two
     sections of  the Uniform  Commercial Code  which  have  been
     called to its attention?

If he  says "yes," tell him that you put the court on notice that
you will  appeal that  legal determination,  and that  if you are
damaged by  his actions,  you will sue him in a common law action
--   under the  jurisdiction of  the UCC.  This will work just as
well with  the Internal Revenue Service.  In fact, we can use the
UCC with the IRS before we get to court.

                   Using the Code with the IRS

     If the  IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called
a "presentment"  in the Uniform Commercial Code.  A "presentment"
in the  UCC is  very similar  to the  Common Law.  First, we must
understand just how this works in the Common Law.

     Suppose I  get a man's name from a phone book  --  someone I
have never  met.   And I  send him  a bill  or  invoice  on  nice
letterhead which  says, "For  services rendered:  $10,000.00."  I
send this  by Certified Mail to him at the address taken from the
phone book.  The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so
I get  a receipt that he received it.  When he opens it, he finds
an invoice for $10,000 and the following statement:  "If you have
any questions  concerning this bill or the services rendered, you
have thirty days to make your questions or objections known."

     Of course,  he has  never heard of me, so he just throws the
bill away  and assumes that I'm confused or crazy.  At the end of
thirty days,  I go  to court  and get  a default judgment against
him.   He received  a bill  for $10,000, was given thirty days to
respond.   He failed  to object  to it or ask any questions about
it.  Now, he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect
the $10,000.

     That's Common  Law.   The UCC  works on  the same principle.
The minute  you get  a Notice  of Deficiency  from the  IRS,  you
return it immediately with a letter that says:

     The presentment  above  is  dishonored.    [Your  name]  has
     reserved all  of his/her rights under the Uniform Commercial
     Code at UCC 1-207.

This should  be all  that is  necessary, as there is nothing more
that they  can do.  In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona
who received  a Notice of Deficiency.  The man sent a letter such
as this,  dishonoring the "presentment."  The IRS wrote back that
they could  not make  a determination  at that  office, but  were
turning it  over to  the Collections  Department.   A letter  was
attached from  the Collections  Department which  said they  were
sorry for  the inconvenience  they had  caused him  and that  the
Notice of  Deficiency had  been withdrawn.  So, you can see that,
if it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved.

                      Impending Bankruptcy

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


     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  party5 to  the national  debt.   To  understand
this, we  must realize that there are two separate entities known
as the United States.

                    The Rothschild Influence

     When America  was founded, the Rothschilds were very unhappy
because it  was founded  on the  Common Law.   The  Common Law is
based on  substance, and  this  substance  is  mentioned  in  the
Constitution as  gold or  silver.   America is  a  Constitutional
Republic   --    that  is,  a  union  of  the  States  under  the
Constitution.   When Congress  was working  for the Republic, the
only thing it could borrow was gold or silver, and the Rothschild
banks did  not loan gold or silver.  Naturally, they did not like
this new government.

     The Rothschilds  had a  deal with  the King  of England.  He
would borrow paper and agree to repay in gold.  But, these united
States, with their Constitution, were an obstacle to them, and it
was much  to the  Rothschild's advantage to get the colonies back
under the  King.  So, the Rothschilds financed the War of 1812 to
bring America  back under  England.  Of course, that didn't work,
so they had to find another way.

                  The Flaw in the Constitution:
                       Two Nations in One

     It was  around the  time of the American Civil War that they
discovered a  flaw in  the Constitution.  The flaw was Article 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

     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 federal  United States,  and the  other  is  the  continental
united States.

                Are You a United States Citizen?

     If you  say that  you are  a United  States  citizen,  which
United States  are you  referring to?   Anyone  who lives  in the
District of  Columbia is  a United States citizen.  The remaining
population in  the fifty  States is the national citizenry of the
nation.   We are domiciled in various sovereign States, protected
by the  constitutions of  those States  from any  direct rule  of
Congress over  us.   In the  democracy, anyone who lives in those
states known  as Washington,  D.C., Guam,  Puerto Rico, or any of
the other  federally held  territories is a citizen of the United
States (D.C.).

     We must  be careful with our choice of words  --  we are not
citizens of  the United  States.  We are not subject to Congress.
Congress has  exclusive rule  over a  given territory, and we are
not part of that territory.

     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  not the  Republic of  the continental united States
coming after  you;   it is  a foreign nation  --  the legislative
democracy of a foreign nation coming after you.

     If you  get a  Notice of  Deficiency from  the IRS,  it is a
presentment from  the federal  United States, 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

                      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

                      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
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

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.

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

          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.

J:        No. I  can assure  you, we're  not operating  under  an
          Admiralty Jurisdiction.   We're  not out  in the  ocean
          somewhere   --   we're right  here in the middle of the
          State of  [any State].   No,  this is  not an Admiralty

D:        Thank you,  Your Honor,  but now I am more puzzled than
          ever.   If this  charge is not under the Common Law, or
          under Admiralty   --    and  those  are  the  only  two
          criminal jurisdictions  mentioned in  the  Constitution
          --   what kind  of jurisdiction  could  this  court  be
          operating under?

J:        It's Statutory Jurisdiction.

D:        Oh, thank  you, Your Honor.  I'm glad you told me that.
          But I  have never heard of that jurisdiction.  So, if I
          have to  defend under  that, I  would need  to have the
          Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction.
          Can you tell me where I might find those rules?

There are  no rules for Statutory Jurisdiction, so the judge will
get very angry at this point and say:

J:        If you  want answers  to questions  like that,  you get
          yourself a  licensed attorney.    I'm  not  allowed  to
          practice law from the bench.

D:        Oh, Your  Honor, I  don't think anyone would accuse you
          of practicing  law from  the bench if you just answer a
          few questions  to explain  to me  the  nature  of  this
          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

                   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.


     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

                        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

     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  agreement7, 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

     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. O. Box 157
                        Sandpoint, Idaho
                      Postal Zone 83864/TDC

                         (208) 265-5405

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


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

                             #  #  #


Return to Table of Contents for

Howard Freeman