Free Yourself

                       From Legal Tyranny

                            THE  UCC

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



     When I beat the IRS, I used Supreme Court decisions.  If I 
had tried to use these in court, I would have been convicted.

     I was involved with a 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?


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

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

      So I went to see the agent and told him that I wasn't 
required to file.  He said, "You are required to file, Mr. 
Freeman."  But I had all these supreme Court cases, and I started 
reading them to him.  He said, "I don't know anything about law, 
Mr. Freeman, but the Code says that you are required to file, and 
you're going to pay that amount or you're going to go to tax 
court."  I thought that someone there ought to know something 
about law, so I asked to talk to his superior.  I went to him and 
got out my Supreme Court Cases, and he wouldn't listen to them.  
"I don't know anything about law, Mr. Freeman...."  Finally I got 
to the Problems Resolution Officer, and he said the same thing.  
He said that the only person above him was the District Director.  
So I went to see him.  By the time I got to his office, they had 
phoned ahead, and his secretary said he was out.  But I heard 
someone in his office, and I knew he was in there.

     I went down the elevator, around the corner to the Federal 
Building and into Senator Simpson's office.  There was a girl 
sitting there at a desk, and she asked if she could help me.  I 
told her my problem.  I said that I really thought the District 
Director was up there.  I asked her to call the IRS and tell them 
that it was Senator Simpson's office calling and to ask if the 
District Director was in.  I said, "If you get him on the phone, 
tell him that you are from the Senator's office and you have a 
person who you are sending over to speak to him--if he can wait 
just five minutes."  It worked.  He was there, and I ran back up 
to his office.  His secretary met me when I came in and said, 
"Mr. Freeman, you're so lucky--the Director just arrived."

     The Director was very nice and offered me coffee and cookies 
and we sat and talked.  So he asked me what I wanted to talk to 
him about.  (If you ever have someone say to you, "I'm from the 
government and I'm here to do you a favor," watch out!--but we 
can turn that around and approach them the same way.)  So I said, 
"I thought you ought to know that there are agents working for 
you who are writing letters over your name that you wouldn't 
agree with.  Do you read all the mail that goes out of this 
office over your signature?"  The Director said, "Oh, I couldn't 
read everything--it goes out of here by the bagful."  That was 
what I thought.  I said, "There are some of your agents writing 
letters which contradict the decisions of the supreme Court of 
the United States.  And they're not doing it over their name, 
they're doing it over your name."

     He was very interested to hear about it and asked if I had 
any examples.  I just happened to have some with me, so I got 
them out and presented them to him.  He thought it was very 
interesting and asked if I could leave this information with him, 
which I did.  He said he would look it over and contact me in 
three days.  Three days later he called me up and said, "I'm 
sure, Mr. Freeman, that you will be glad to know that your Notice 
of Deficiency has been withdrawn.  We've determined that you're 
not a person required to file.  Your file is closed and you will 
hear no more from us."  I haven't heard another word from them 
since.  That was in 1980, and I haven't filed since 1969.

                   THE SUPREME COURT ON TRIAL

     I thought sure I had the answer, but when a friend got 
charged with Willful Failure to File an income tax, he asked me 
to help him.  I told him that they have to prove that he 
willfully failed to file, and I suggested that he should put me 
on the witness stand.  He should ask me if I spoke at a certain 
time and place in Scott's Bluff, and did I see him in the 
audience.  He should then ask me what I spoke of that day.  When 
I got on the stand, I brought out all of the Supreme Court cases 
I had used with the District Director.  I thought I would be 
lucky to get a sentence or two out before the judge cut me off, 
but I was reading whole paragraphs--and the judge didn't stop me.  
I read one and then another, and so on.  And finally when I had 
read just about as much as I thought I should, the judge called a 
recess of the court.  I told Bob I thought we had it made.  There 
was just no way that they could rule against him after all that 
testimony.  So we relaxed.

     The prosecution presented its case and he decided to rest 
his defense on my testimony, which showed that he was not 
required to file, and that the Supreme Court had upheld this 
position.  The prosecution then presented its closing statements 
and we were just sure that he had won.  But at the very end, the 
judge spoke to the jury and told them, "You will decide the facts 
of this case and I will give you the law.  The law required this 
man to file an Income Tax form:  you decide whether or not he 
filed it."  What a shock!  The jury convicted him.  Later some 
members of the jury said, "What could we do?  The man had 
admitted that he had not filed the form, so we had to convict 

     As soon as the trial was over I went around to the judges 
office and he was just coming in through his back door.  I said, 
"Judge, by what authority do you overturn the standing decisions 
of the United States supreme Court.  You sat on the bench while I 
read that case law.  Now how do you, a District Court Judge, have 
the authority to overturn decisions of the supreme Court?"  He 
says, "Oh, those were old decisions."  I said, "Those are 
standing decisions.  They have never been overturned.  I don't 
care how old they are:  you have no right to overturn a standing 
decision of the United States Supreme Court in a District Court.

                   PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY

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

                   1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD

     Well, I began to investigate.  I found that 1938 was the 
year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court.  
It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with 
Equity.  I read the Erie Railroad case.  A man had sued the Erie 
railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out 
of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks.  The district 
court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable 
Instruments) Law:  that this man was not under any contract with 
the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the 
company.  Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have 
had the right to sue.

     This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred 
years.  Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the 
decision of the supreme Court was that in any case of this type, 
the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state 
where the incident occurred--in this case Pennsylvania.  But in 
the Erie Railroad case, the supreme Court ruled that all federal 
cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law.  There 
would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal 
level.  So here we find the blending of Law with Equity.

     This was a puzzle to me.  As I put these new pieces 
together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were 
Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts.  There were still 
some pieces of the puzzle missing.

                      A FRIEND IN THE COURT

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

                       AMERICA IS BANKRUPT

     Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my 
problem with the supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy 
rather than Public Law.  He said, "In 2938, 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 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.

                          NOT EXPEDIENT

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


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

Common Law

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

Equity Law

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

Admiralty/Maritime Law

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

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

                       COURTS OF CONTRACT

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


     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.

     [FOOTNOTE:  Colorable.  That which is in appearance only, 
and not in reality what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, 
feigned, having the appearance of truth.  Black's Law Dictionary, 
Fifth Ed.]


     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 U.C.C., this is not so.  First of all, contracts 
are unnecessary.  Under this new law, "agreements" can be 
binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an "agreement," 
it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations 
associated with those benefits.  If you accept a benefit offered 
by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, 
each and every statute involved with that benefit.  The method 
has been to get everybody exercising a benefit, and they don't 
even have to tell the people what the benefit is.  Some people 
think it is the driver's license, the marriage license or the 
birth certificate, etc.  I believe it is none of these.

                        COMPELLED BENEFIT

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

     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-charge 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, 
"The law doesn't apply to me--I'm not a Frenchman." You must make 
your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you 
are charged--not under some other jurisdiction.  So in a UCC 
court, you must claim your reservation of rights under the U.C.C. 

     UCC 1-207 goes on to say:

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

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

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

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve 
Notes--in any way, shape or manner--under your signature write:  
Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.  This reserves your rights.  You can 
show, at 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your 

     [FOOTNOTE:  Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, 
because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your 
rights.  This 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.]

     It is very important to understand just what this means.  
For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket 
was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without 
prejudice UCC 1-207," on his statement to the court.  He had not 
tried to understand the concepts involved.  He only wanted to use 
it to get out of the ticket.  He did not know what it meant.  
When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he 
told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone....  The 
judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost 
the case.  You must know what it means.

                   WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207

     When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection 
with your signature, you are saying:

     I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any 
     contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter 
     knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally.  And furthermore, 
     I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of 
     any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."

     What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed 
commercial agreement?  When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead 
of silver dollars, is it voluntary?  No.  There is no lawful 
money, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes--you have to 
accept the benefit.  The government has given you the benefit to 
discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have 
to pay your debts.  How nice they are!  But if you did not 
reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept 
the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute, 
ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of 
government--federal, state and local.

     If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to 
the judge when he asks.  And he will ask, so be prepared to 
explain it to the court.  You will also need to understand UCC 1-
103--the argument and recourse.

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

     [FOOTNOTE:  Anderson.  Uniform Commercial Code, Lawyers 
Cooperative Publishing Co.]


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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell the judge,

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

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

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

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 

     "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.


     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 

     "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.   "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 the 

     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 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?"
          [FOOTNOTE:  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.  see COURTROOM TECHNIQUES below.]

     Officer:  "It says, 'Without prejudice, UCC 1-207.'"

     Judge:  "Let me see that license!"  (He looks at and turns 
     to the officer)  "You didn't notice this printing under the 
     signature on this license, when you copied his name and 
     address onto the ticket?"

     Officer:  "Oh, no.  I was just getting the address--I didn't 
look down there."

     Judge:  "You're not very observant as an officer.  
     Therefore, I'm afraid I cannot accept your testimony in 
     regards to the facts of this case.  This case is dismissed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  USING THE CODE WITH THE IRS

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

     Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book, someone I have 
never met.  And I send him a bill or invoice on nice letterhead 
which says, "For services rendered, $10,000.00."  I send this by 
Certified Mail to him at the address taken from the phone book.  
The man has to sign 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 also 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, you've 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 their office, but were 
turning it over to the Collections Department which said they 
were sorry for the inconvenience that they had caused him and 
that the Notice of Deficiency was had been withdrawn.  So you can 
see that if it is handled properly these things are easily 

                      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 

     Even a governor could be thrown into one of these internment 
camps, and kept there indefinitely.  This is all in place now, 
and they are just waiting to declare a national emergency.  Then 
even state governments could be dissolved.  Anybody who might 
oppose the new regime could be imprisoned until a new set of laws 
could be written and a new government set up.  The Governor knows 
all this, and he is very concerned.  He doesn't want to be in 
office when all this happens.

     I visited with him and I told him that there are certain 
actions we should take right now.  I think we should consider 
the fact that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, Wyoming 
is an accommodation party to the national debt.  To understand 
this we must realize that there are two separate entities known 
as the United States.  [FOOTNOTE:  see ACCOMMODATION PARTY below.]

                    THE ROTHSCHILD INFLUENCE

     When America was founded, the Rothschild's 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 

     The Rothschild's 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 Rothschild's financed the War of 1812 to 
bring America back under England.  Of course, that didn't work, 
so they had to find another way.

                       TWO NATIONS IN ONE

     It was around the time of the American Civil War that they 
discovered a flaw in the Constitution.  The flaw was Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 17.

     Remember that there are two nations called "United States."  
What is a nation?  See if you would agree to this definition:

     Whenever you have a governing body, having a prescribed 
     territory containing a body of people.

Is that a nation?  Yes.  We have a governing body in the 
Republic--the three branch government.  There are the 
legislative, the executive and the judicial branches, with a 
constitution.  There is a prescribed territory containing a body 
of people.  This is a Constitutional Republic.

     But,. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 gave Congress, which 
is the legislative branch of the three branch government, 
exclusive rule over a given territory known as the District of 
Columbia, containing a body of people.  Here we have a nation 
within a nation.  This is a legislative democracy within a 
Constitutional Republic.

     When Congress was a part of the Constitutional Republic, it 
had the obligation of providing a medium of exchange for us.  Its 
duty was to coin gold or silver.  Anyone who had a piece of gold 
or silver could bring it in and have it freely minted into coin.  
This was the medium of exchange for the Republic.

     But, in the Legislative Democracy (over Washington, D.C.), 
Congress is not limited by the Constitution.  Congress has 
exclusive rule over the District of Columbia.  The legislators 
can make the law by 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.


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

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

     Where did Congress get the authority to write the Internal 
Revenue Code?  It is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of 
the Constitution.  To pass that law, they only needed a majority 
vote.  There is no other way that they could pass laws directly 
affecting individuals.  Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, was 
passed as law for another nation (remember our definition of 
"nation"), but Title 26 is not consistent with the Bill of 
Rights.  If you try to fight the IRS, you have no rights--the 
Code does not give you any of your constitutional rights.  It 
simply says, "You failed to file an income tax form--you failed 
to perform in some specific manner."

     Remember, under the Common Law, you are free to do whatever 
you want as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty or 
property of anyone else.  If you do not want to perform, you 
don't have to.  The only way you can be compelled to perform 
under the Constitution in the continental united States, is if 
you have entered a contract.  But if you are not under a contract 
you can not be compelled to perform.  How can you be compelled to 
file an income tax form, or any form?

     When Congress works for the Republic, every law it passes 
must be in harmony with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 
but when Congress works for the Legislative Democracy, any law it 
passes becomes the law of the land (remember, Congress has 
exclusive legislative control of federal territory).

     If you are charged with Willful failure to file an income 
tax 1040 form, that is a law for a different nation.  You are a 
non-resident alien to that nation.  It is a foreign corporation 
to you.  It is not the Republic of the continental united States 
coming after you.  It is a foreign nation, a legislative 
democracy of a foreign nation coming after you.

     If you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, it is a 
presentment from the federal United States.  It is then you can 
use the UCC to dishonor it, and you can always mention that you 
are among the national citizenry of the continental united 
States, and you are a non-resident alien to the federal United 
States.  You never lived in a federal territory and never had any 
income from the federal United States.

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


     The Founding Fathers would never have created a government 
that was going to boss them around!  There were 13 sovereign 
States.  They were nations, and they joined together for 
protection from foreign enemies.  They provided a means by which 
the union of the sovereign states could fend off foreign enemies.  
But they never gave the congress of the federal United States 
direct rule over any citizen of any state.  They were not going 
to be ordered around by any 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.  Congress can not rule the States.  How have we 
been tricked into federal regions?

                       THE ZIP CODE TRICK

     Remember how the government always comes in and says, I'm 
from the government and I'm here to help you."  The government 
went out into the various states and said, "We don't want you to 
have to go to all that trouble writing three or four letters to 
abbreviate the name of a state--such as Ariz. for Arizona.  Just 
write AZ instead of Ariz.  Or you can just write WY for Wyoming 
instead of Wyo."  So all of the states of the union have got a 
new two-letter abbreviation.  It is RI instead of R.I.  They have 
just left off the periods.  When you use a two-letter state 
abbreviation, you are compelled to use a zip code, because there 
are so many states, for example, which start with M.  ME is 
Maine, MI is Michigan.  How many people dot every "i", or make an 
"i" that looks like an "e"?  With MA, MO, MN, MS, etc. and some 
sloppy writing, and you could not tell one from another.  So, we 
have to use the zip code in order to tell them apart.  But if you 
wrote Mich., or Minn., or Miss., there would be no real problem 
telling which state it was.

     There is no harm in using the zip code, if you lawfully 
identify your state.  I found out that no state legislature has 
met to lawfully change the abbreviation of the state from the old 
abbreviation to the new.  Therefore, if you do not use the lawful 
abbreviation for your state, but use the shorter new 
abbreviation, you have to us the zip code.

     Look on page 11 of the Zip Code Directory and it will tell 
you the the first digit of your zip code is the federal region in 
which you reside.  If you use AZ for Arizona, you cannot use the 
state constitution to protect you because you did not identify 
your state.  You used the zip code, which identifies which 
federal region you live in.  And Congress may rule directly 
federal regions, but it cannot rule the citizens of any state.

                       ACCOMMODATION PARTY

     Lets look at how the states have become the accommodation 
party to the national debt.  There are many people I have talked 
to, including the Governor, who are very concerned about this, 
and who know that it could happen very soon.

     If America is declared a bankrupt nation, it will be a 
national emergency.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency will 
take over, and anyone who opposes the new government of the 
creditors can be sent to a detention camp in Alaska.  We will 
have no rights whatsoever.  They have already set up prison camps 
with work camps nearby so the people can be used for slave labor.  
It could be the governors, legislators, and other leaders who 
would be hauled away to Alaska, while the people now 
disenfranchised from power would likely be chosen to run the new 
government.  This could all happen very soon, as the national 
debt is so large as to be unpayable.  Even the interest on the 
debt is virtually unpayable.

     As I explained, the national debt--more than three trillion 
dollars--is not owed by the Continental united States.  It is the 
federal United States that had authority to borrow bank credit.  
When Congress worked for Continental united States, it could only 
borrow gold or silver, so the national debt was borrowed in the 
name of the federal United States.  The federal United states has 
been bankrupt since 1938, but the federal United States had to 
trap the States into assuming the debt obligation of the federal 

     In the Uniform Commercial Code, we find the term 
"accommodation party"  [FOOTNOTE:  see UCC Section 3-415].  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 
accomodation party to the federal debt.

     Now the concern is to find out how we can get out of this 
situation.  I told the Governor that in the Common Law and the 
Law of Merchants--that's the International Law Merchant--there is 
a term called no-interest contract.  A no-interest contract is 
void and unenforceable.  What is a no-interest contract?

                      NO-INTEREST CONTRACT

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


     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 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 the 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 i would be in an International 
Court.  This is very important at this time.


                      QUESTIONS AND REVIEW

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

                      COURTROOM TECHNIQUES

Question:  How did you "box in" the Judge?

Answer:  This is easy to do if you don't know too much.  I didn't 
know too much, but I boxed them in.  You must play a little dumb.

     If you are arrested and you go into court, just remember 
that in a criminal action, you have to understand the law or it 
is a reversible error for the court to try you.  If you don't 
understand the law, they can't try you.

     In any traffic case or tax case you are called into court 
and the judge reads the law and then asks, "Do you understand the 

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 delicti [injured 
     party] 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 was an 
     International Maritime Contract involved,  I was a party to 
     it, it had been breached, and the court was operating in an 
     Admiralty Jurisdiction.

     I don't believe I have ever been under any International 
     Maritime contract, so I would deem that one exists.  I would 
     have to demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be 
     placed in evidence, so that I may contest it.  But surely 
     this court is not operating under Admiralty Jurisdiction.

You just put the words in the judges 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 Admiralty Jurisdiction.

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 Procedures 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 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'm going to find you in 
     contempt of court!  Now if you can't afford a licensed 
     attorney, the court will provide you with one.  But if you 
     want those questions answered, you must get ;yourself a 
     licensed attorney.

D:   Thank you, Your Honor, but let me just see if I got this 

          Has this court made a legal determination that it has 
     authority to conduct a criminal action against me, the 
     accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are 
     known only to this court and licensed attorneys, thereby 
     denying me the right to defend in my own person?

He has no answer for that.  The judge will probably postpone the 
case and eventually just let it go.  In this way, you can be as 
wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove, but you mustn't go 
into court with a chip on your shoulder and as a wolf in "black 
sheep" country.  Remember Jesus' words, "I send you out as sheep 
in wolf country, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."  
Sheep do not attack wolves directly.  Just be an innocent little 
lamb who just can't understand the charge, and remember--they 
can't try you criminally if you don't understand the charge.  
That would be automatically a reversible error on appeal.

     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 fender 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 can not enter this contract unless 
the government will guarantee to pay me at the end of the 
contract with the same value Federal Reserve Notes that I'm 
paying in.  Both may be called Federal Reserve Notes, but you 
know that these Federal Reserve Notes don't hold their value.  I 
want assurance on this contract that the Federal Reserve Notes 
that I get in my retirement will buy as much as the ones that I'm 
giving you now in my working years."  They can't make that 
guarantee.  If they won't give you that guarantee, just say, "I'd 
be glad to sign this, but if you can't guarantee performance 
under the contract, I'm afraid I can not enter the contract.

     Now, did you refuse or did they refuse?  You can get the 
sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which grant the right to 
have assurance that the contract you have entered will be 
fulfilled properly--that the return will equal the investment, 
and you can reject the contract using the Code.  Using their own 
system of law, you can show that they cannot make you get into a 
contract of that nature.  Just approach them innocently like a 

     It is very important to be gentle and humble in all dealings 
with the government or the courts--never raise your voice or show 
anger.  In the courtroom, always be polite, and build the judge 
up--call him "Your Honor."  Give him all the "honor" he wants.  
It does no good to be difficult, but rather to be cooperative and 
ask questions in a way that leads the judge to say the things 
which you need to have in the record.

                       THE COURT REPORTER

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

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

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

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

                        UCC 1-207 REVIEW

It is so important to know and understand the meaning of "Without 
prejudice UCC 1-207," in connection with 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 

     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 un-revealed contract or 
     commercial agreement.

Once you state that, it is all the judge needs to hear.  Under 
the Common Law, a contract must be entered into knowingly, 
voluntarily and intentionally by both parties, or else 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 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 implied agreement, to obey every statute, 
ordinance and regulation passed by government at all levels--
federal, state and local.

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

                          IN CONCLUSION

     The editor of this transcript HAS TAKEN GREAT LIBERTIES IN 
SOMEWHAT COMPACT.  He wishes to offer his gratitude to Howard 
Freeman for the opportunity to work with information so 
absolutely vital to our survival as dignified, unenslaved human 
beings.  He must also ask Mr. Freeman's forgiveness for any 
errors committed in getting this in print.  Its purpose, as stated 
in the Forward, is to make this knowledge and wisdom available to 
as many people as will take the time and trouble to read it.  
This is meant to be supplemental to Mr. Freeman's recorded 
lectures, not a substitute.  Indeed, there is no substitute for 
hearing him present this material in his own words.  It is not 
just the law and the facts that are important here, but the way 
they are used.  His numerous reminders of Jesus' commission to be 
" 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 obliged to point out that one of 
the most difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney--
even a good one--may be knowing just whose side he is on (he is, 
after all, an officer of the court)!  So for those of us who have 
concluded that having an attorney means that ;you will soon be 
chained, gagged and lead to the gallows, this information may be 
indispensable.  For the extraordinary challenges of appearing in 
court in one's own person--pro per--there are few reliable 
sources of information.  Learning to defend ourselves, that is, 
being responsible, instead of turning over one more area of our 
lives to "professionals"--may be the only way to have any chance 
of digging ourselves out of this pit of legal tyranny.  Perhaps 
the greatest problem we face in education today is the matter of 
widespread legal illiteracy.

     Naturally, there will always be a number of people who just 
don't care about these issues who either:

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

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

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

For those good "citizens" this whole effort may seem useless or 
even threatening.  But it is this writer's view that God did not 
intend for us to spend our lives in statutory slavery for the 
benefit of a handful of secret world manipulators, even if the 
"masters" grant us some token pleasures and diversions.  Human 
dignity requires much more than entertainment.  The door is there 
and the key exists; we must find it and we must use it to return 
to freedom!

     Let us discover the mistakes we have made; let us find the 
truth, let us apply it with meekness and wisdom and let us gently 
but firmly reclaim the precious freedom which we have so 
foolishly given up.


                      FOR MORE INFORMATION

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

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


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


                      OUR WORLD IN CONFLICT


                        Martin A. Larson

                     Who's Eligible for Tax?

     I have recently received a large amount of material from 
various scholars who maintain ordinary citizens in the private 
sector are not required to file forms 1040 or pay personal 
federal income taxes.

     Many of them base their position on the question of 
jurisdiction and hold that since the states are sovereign and 
independent entities, their citizens are "non-resident aliens" in 
respect to the federal government situated in Washington.

     The most complete and detailed dissertation on this subject 
is an extensive work entitled The Federal Zone, by Mitch 
Modeleski.  He says the term "United States" has three different 
and distinct meanings:

     It may be the name of a sovereign occupying the same 
     position as do other sovereigns in the family of nations;

     It may designate the limited territory over which the 
     federal government has exclusive jurisdiction; and

     It may be the collective name for the 50 states, which are 
     united under the Constitution.

     The book offers 12 highly detailed and documented chapters 
in order to establish Modeleski's thesis that each and every one 
of the 50 states is a separate sovereignty.  Whenever the term 
"United States" is used in the internal revenue code, it means 
the limited area in which the federal government has exclusive 
jurisdiction.  It does not include the territory occupied by the 
50 states.


     Chapter 13, called "Conclusions," tells the reader the land 
over which the federal government has jurisdiction consists of 
the District of Columbia, the federal territories and possessions 
and the enclaves within the states which have been purchased with 
the consent of the state legislatures.  The author calls these 
the federal zone.  Here, Congress is not subject to the same 
limitations as exist in the sovereign states.

     This makes the laws governing taxation within the federal 
zone entirely different from those outside of it.  The 
Constitution rules within the states, but congress rules within 
the federal zone, the author contends.

     The most important difference between the two lies in the 
area of taxation.

     According to Modeleski, "the United States," as that term is 
used in the internal revenue code, refers to the area over which 
Congress has exclusive legislative authority.  If ;you are not a 
citizen residing within the federal zone or an employee of 
government, then you are alien in respect to the United States, 
i.e. you are a non-resident alien.  Non-resident aliens, under 
the internal revenue code, are exempt from all U.S. laws and 
regulations, Modeleski argues.

     Further, according to this theory, non-resident aliens are 
required to pay taxes only on income from sources within the 
federal zone.  Thus, employment within the federal government 
produces income which has its source within the federal zone.  
For the same reason, dividends paid to non-resident aliens on 
stocks or bonds issued by U.S. corporations also have their 
source within the federal zone and are therefore subject to 
federal taxation.

     Income derived from sources outside the federal zone is not 
taxable by the U.S. government, Modeleski says.

                       CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

     The federal government has used what is called legal 
presumption to impose taxes on millions of Americans who are 
actually legally exempt, says Modeleski.  By means of clever and 
constructive fraud, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has 
extended its power of taxation far beyond the scope authorized by 
its own law.  However, when an otherwise exempt citizen signs a 
1040 and pays the tax indicated thereon, the presumption is that 
he knows what he is doing and thereby volunteers to become a 

     A completed, signed and submitted 1040 is a voluntarily 
executed commercial agreement, which can be used as prima facie 
evidence that a non-resident alien has knowingly and 
intentionally subjected himself to federal taxation.  This 
principle is explained in Morse vs. United States, 494 F.2d 876, 

     The author offers a model affidavit of 5,000 words, which is 
to be used by citizens in explaining to the IRS why they no 
longer make any return or pay any tax to the federal government.

     Congress has collected trillions of dollars from 
unsuspecting citizens by persuading them they are inside its 
revenue area when, in fact, they are outside.  This is deception 
on a grand scale, if what Modeleski says is true or can be 
defended in court.

     It is indeed stunning to realize ;how carefully crafted 
definitions such as those for "state" and "United States" are 
found in IRS instructions intentionally so complex that no one 
can understand them.  This indicates that they are carefully 
prepared to accomplish what is perhaps the greatest fiscal fraud 
ever perpetrated upon any people in the history of the world.