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: >Paul, > >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. > >Mike > <snip> > >> 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 > <snip> ======================================================================== 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