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 v. 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

                                        Your brother in Christ,

                                        /s/ Howard Freeman

                                        Howard Freeman

                             #  #  #


Return to Table of Contents for

Howard Freeman