Time: Fri Aug 29 17:23:22 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA00923;
	Fri, 29 Aug 1997 17:23:55 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 20:23:46 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: the late Howard Freeman speaks

At 09:28 PM 8/28/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Some of your messages get rejected by the listserver software
>with the following message. I have not been able to find out
>why, and thought that we might try having you resubmit this one.
>>                                         Howard Freeman
>>                                         P. O. Box 364
>>                                         Lusk, Wyo. 82225
>>                                         March 25, 1991
>> Dear Clarence:
>> Please extend my kind regards to your wife as well as to
>> yourself.  I still look back upon the wonderful fellowship that I
>> enjoyed with you in the few days that I spent with you in the
>> Hendersonville, N.C. area in 1989.
>> I have come upon much new information since that time which I
>> will try to place in a format here so that your local attorney
>> will understand the importance of the Remedy provided for us in
>> the present commercial system of "law."  The present commercial
>> system of "law" has replaced the old and familiar Common Law upon
>> which our nation was founded.  And I will explain the legal
>> thread which brought us from the status of sovereigns over
>> government, to the status of subjects under government, through
>> our use of negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to
>> discharge our debts with limited liability instead of paying our
>> debts at common law with gold or silver coin.
>> The change in our system of law from "public law" to "private
>> commercial law" was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United
>> States in the Erie Railroad vs Thompkins case of 1938.  After
>> this case, in the same year the procedures of law were officially
>> blended with the procedures of Equity.  Prior to 1938, all U.S.
>> Supreme Court Decisions were based upon public law, namely, that
>> system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitations.
>> Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court Decisions are based upon what
>> is termed public policy concerning commercial transactions made
>> under the Negotiable Instrument's Law.  This Law is a branch of
>> the International Law Merchant, which has now been codified into
>> what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, or U.C.C.  This
>> system of law was made uniform throughout the 50 States through
>> the cunning of the Congress of the United States.  This "United
>> States" had its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
>> Constitution, as distinguished from the "United States," which is
>> the Union of the 50 States.  Through its cunning Congress offered
>> grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which were
>> given to the 50 States of the Union for education, highways,
>> health, and other purposes, thus binding all the States of the
>> Union into a commercial agreement with The Federal United States
>> (as distinguished from The Continental United States).
>> Having accepted the "benefits" offered by The Federal United
>> States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between The
>> Federal United States and each of the Corporate States, the
>> Corporate States were then obligated to "obey" the Congress of
>> The Federal United States and also to assume their portion of the
>> equitable debts of The Federal United States to the International
>> Banking Houses, for the CREDIT which they loaned.  The equitable
>> paper each State received, in the form of federal grants, was
>> predicated upon this credit.
>> This system of negotiable paper, binding all corporate entities
>> of government together in a vast system of Commercial Agreements,
>> is what has altered our Court system from one under the Common
>> Law, to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal system of
>> Commercial Law.  Under this Tribunal system of Commercial Law,
>> those brought before it are held to the letter of every statute
>> of government on the Federal, State, County or Municipal levels
>> UNLESS they have exercised the Remedy provided for them within
>> that system of Commercial Law.  By means of this Remedy, when
>> forced to use a so-called "benefit" offered or available to them
>> from government, they may reserve their former right, under the
>> Common Law guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract or
>> commercial agreement that they did not enter knowingly,
>> voluntarily and intentionally.
>> Now that you see exactly how corporate entities of State, County
>> and Municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative
>> Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
>> Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to
>> distinguish it from The Continental United States whose origin
>> was in the Union of the Sovereign States.  Also, you see that the
>> same national Congress rules The Continental United States
>> pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it
>> enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it
>> legislates for The Federal United States.
>> With that knowledge, you ask this question:  How did the free
>> white Preamble citizenry of the sovereign States lose their
>> guaranteed unalienable rights, be forced to accept the equitable
>> debt obligations of The Federal United States, and become subject
>> to that entity of government and divorced from their "sovereign
>> status" in the Republic, which we call here The Continental
>> United States, given that they do not reside, work or have income
>> from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of The
>> Federal United States?  That is the question that has troubled
>> sincere, patriotic Americans for many years.  The answer follows:
>> The answer is that your lack of knowledge concerning the
>> "cunning" of the legal profession is the cause of that divorce.
>> A knowledge of the "truth" concerning the legal thread that
>> caught you in its net will restore your former status as a free,
>> white, Preamble Citizen of the Republic.
>> Not realizing that our national Congress works for two nations
>> foreign to each other, and by legal cunning both are called The
>> United States (one being the union of the Sovereign States under
>> the Constitution, which I have termed The Continental United
>> States, the other being a Legislative Democracy having its origin
>> in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, which I
>> have termed The Federal United States), few people, seeing some
>> so-called "law" passed by Congress, ask themselves these
>> questions:  Which nation was Congress working for when it passed
>> this or that so-called "law?"  Does this particular law apply to
>> the Continental Citizenry of the Republic, or does this
>> particular law apply only  to residents of the District of
>> Columbia, and other named enclaves or territories of the
>> Democracy, called The Federal United States?
>> Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed
>> citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for
>> "cunning" political leadership to seek more power and authority
>> over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of
>> legalese.  Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide a
>> medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in harmony
>> with its Constitutional mandate, but it created an abundance of
>> commercial credit money for the Legislative Democracy, where it
>> was not bound by Constitutional limitations.
>> Then, after having created an emergency situation and a
>> tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its
>> emergency authority to remove the remaining substance from the
>> medium of exchange belonging to the Republic, and Congress made
>> the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative Democracy (The
>> Federal United States) a legal tender for The Continental United
>> States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.  At the same
>> time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations
>> the "benefit" of limited liability in the discharge of all debts,
>> telling the citizenry that the gold and silver coins of the
>> Republic were out-of-date and cumbersome, so they no longer
>> needed to PAY their debts in substance, but were now privileged
>> to discharge debt with this more "convenient" currency, issued by
>> The Federal United States.
>> So, everyone was forced to go modern, and to turn in their gold
>> as a patriotic gesture.  The entire news media complex went along
>> with the scam, and declared it to be a forward step for our
>> democracy, no longer referring to America as a Republic.  From
>> that point on, it was a falling light for the Republic of 1776,
>> and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal Democracy,
>> which overcame the depression, (caused deliberately by a created
>> shortage of real money) by an abundance of debt paper money (so-
>> called) in the form of interest-bearing negotiable instrument
>> paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and other forms of paperwork
>> credit instruments.
>> Since all contracts, since Roosevelt's time, have the "colorable"
>> consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine
>> consideration of silver or gold coin, all contracts are colorable
>> contracts, and not genuine contracts.  So, a new colorable
>> Jurisdiction, called a statutory Jurisdiction, had to be created
>> to enforce them.  Soon the term Colorable Contract was changed to
>> the term Commercial Agreement to fit circumstances of the new
>> Statutory Jurisdiction, which is legislative, rather than
>> judicial in nature, and which enforces Commercial Agreements upon
>> "implied consent," rather than full knowledge, as is the case
>> with the enforcement of contracts under the Common Law.
>> All of our Courts today sit as Legislative Tribunals, and the so-
>> called "statutes" of legislative bodies being enforced in these
>> Legislative Tribunals are not "statutes" passed by the legisla-
>> tive branch of our three-branch Republic, but as "commercial
>> obligations" to The Federal United States for anyone in The
>> Federal United States or in The Continental United States who has
>> used the equitable currency of The Federal United States, and who
>> has accepted the "benefit" or privilege of discharging his debts
>> with the limited liability "benefit" offered to him by The
>> Federal United States, and who did not avail himself of the
>> Remedy within this Commercial System of law, which Remedy is
>> today found in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) at
>> Section 207.
>> A rubber stamp which reads "Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" is
>> sufficient, when used in conjunction with one's signature, to
>> indicate to the Magistrate of any of our present Legislative
>> Tribunals (called Courts), that the signor of the document has
>> reserved his common law right not to be bound to the statute or
>> commercial obligation of any commercial agreement, that he did
>> not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, as would be
>> the case in any common law contract.
>> And pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being enforced as a
>> commercial obligation of a Commercial Agreement, must now be
>> construed in harmony with the old common law of America, where
>> the Tribunal or Court must rule that the statute does not apply
>> to the individual who was wise enough and informed enough to
>> exercise the Remedy provided in this new system of law.  By means
>> of this Remedy, he may retain his former status in the Republic
>> and fully enjoy his unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the
>> Constitution of the Republic, while those about him "curse the
>> darkness" of Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed
>> to free themselves from a slave status under The Federal United
>> States, even while inhabiting territory foreign to its
>> territorial venue.
>> I trust your attorney friend will have some ideas as to where you
>> are coming from when you have him read this.  If he still refuses
>> to handle your case, contact me, and I will try to help you
>> handle the case in propria persona.  I hope to visit you again
>> sometime.
>> Your brother in Christ,
>> /s/ Howard Freeman

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail